Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Successes and Challenges of Implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
by
Kathleen Allison Watt
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Human Geography
Department of Geography and Planning University of Toronto
© Copyright by Kathleen Watt 2016
ii
Successes and Challenges of Implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
Kathleen Watt
Master of Arts in Human Geography
Department of Geography and Planning University of Toronto
2016
Abstract
A common planning response to urbanizing regions is the creation of protected zones or greenbelts
at the edge of existing urban development, with the goal of controlling the location of future
development while conserving natural features. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
(2002) was created by the Ontario Provincial Government to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine, one
of the few remaining large greenspace corridors in southern Ontario that is threatened by the
expansion of the Greater Toronto Area. This research investigates the effectiveness of the Plan at
protecting the Moraine. It explores the successes and challenges of implementing the Plan and the
proposed changes by the provincial government. Regional town hall meetings and open houses
were attended, and interviews and questionnaires were conducted. The results suggest the Plan
has effectively protected the Moraine through changing building practices, although the Plan
requires some modifications to better protect the Moraine.
iii
Acknowledgments
I would first like to thank all of the interview participants who contributed to this research. Their
perspectives provided valuable insight that contributed greatly to my findings. Special thanks go
out to Joyce Chau, Executive Director of EcoSpark; her time and input during the beginning of
this research is particularly appreciated.
I would also like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Tenley Conway. She has provided unconditional
support, guidance, and advice throughout my coursework, research, and writing process. As well,
special thanks go out to Dr. Laurel Besco and Dr. Virginia Maclaren for serving on my thesis
defense committee and providing their expertise in this area.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends. They have been incredibly helpful
and supportive while I have completed my studies and pursued my education.
This research was conducted with the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council through the Canadian Graduate Scholarships – Master’s award.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Appendices ...........................................................................................................................x
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview of Thesis ..........................................................................................................1
Chapter 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................3
Literature Review .....................................................................................................................3 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................3 2.2 Urban Sprawl and Urban Containment Policies ..............................................................3
2.2.1 Reducing Urban Sprawl ........................................................................................4 2.2.2 Forms of Urban Containment ...............................................................................5
Greenbelts ....................................................................................................5 Urban Growth Boundaries ...........................................................................5 Urban Service Areas ....................................................................................6
2.2.3 The Effectiveness of Urban Containment Policies ...............................................6 2.3 Importance of the Moraine ...............................................................................................7
2.3.1 Ecological .............................................................................................................7 Water Systems .............................................................................................7 Habitats ........................................................................................................8 Climate Change ...........................................................................................8
2.3.2 Economic ..............................................................................................................9 Aggregate Extraction ...................................................................................9 Agriculture ...................................................................................................9
2.3.3 Social and Cultural ...............................................................................................9 Recreation ..................................................................................................10 Historic ......................................................................................................10
2.4 Ontario Land Use Policies ..............................................................................................10 2.4.1 Creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and the Plan ................11 2.4.2 Additional Planning Legislation and Policies in Ontario ...................................13 2.4.3 Successes and Challenges of the Ontario Greenbelt ..........................................13 2.4.4 Stakeholders’ Perspectives Regarding Ontario Land Use Policies ....................15 2.4.5 Requirements for Public Participation ................................................................16
2.5 Threats to the Moraine ...................................................................................................16 2.5.1 Changes in Land Use and Land Cover ...............................................................17 2.5.2 Urban Development ............................................................................................18
v
2.5.3 Resource Extraction ............................................................................................18 2.5.4 The Lack of a Central Regulatory Body .............................................................19
2.6 Knowledge Gaps ............................................................................................................20 2.6.1 Monitoring the Moraine ......................................................................................20 2.6.2 Monitoring Implementation of the Plan .............................................................22 2.6.3 Filling the Research Gap ....................................................................................22
Chapter 3 Study Area and Methods ...............................................................................................24
Study Area and Methods ........................................................................................................24 3.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................24 3.2 Methods ..........................................................................................................................25
3.2.1 Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings .........25 3.2.2 Interviews ...........................................................................................................29 3.2.3 Questionnaire ......................................................................................................32
Chapter 4 Successes in Implementing the Plan .............................................................................34
Successes in Implementing the Plan ......................................................................................34 4.1 Modifies Building Practices and Reduces Urban Sprawl ..............................................34
4.1.1 Set the Limits for Settlement Areas ....................................................................34 4.1.2 Designates Acceptable and Unacceptable Actions .............................................35 4.1.3 Reduces Large Estate Residential Development ................................................37
4.2 Protects Key Natural Features ........................................................................................39 4.2.1 Added Layer of Protection .................................................................................39 4.2.2 Creates Buffer Zones ..........................................................................................40
4.3 Raises Awareness and Protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine ......................................43 4.3.1 Funding ...............................................................................................................43 4.3.2 Public Awareness and Support ...........................................................................44 4.3.3 Securement of Land and Stewardship ................................................................44 4.3.4 Monitoring ..........................................................................................................46 4.3.5 Restoration ..........................................................................................................48
Chapter 5 Challenges in Implementing the Plan ............................................................................49
Challenges in Implementing the Plan ....................................................................................49 5.1 Implementation of the Plan ............................................................................................49
5.1.1 Inconsistent Implementation of the Plan Among Municipalities .......................49 5.1.2 Boundary Lines ...................................................................................................50 5.1.3 Assessments and Appeals Tend to Side with Developers ..................................52 5.1.4 Other Land Use Planning Legislation ................................................................53
5.2 Language Used and Legibility of Plan ...........................................................................54 5.2.1 Challenging to Understand and Interpret the Plan ..............................................54 5.2.2 Inconsistent Definitions ......................................................................................55
5.3 Transitional Development ..............................................................................................56 5.3.1 Continued Development in the Moraine ............................................................56 5.3.2 Tracking Transitional Development ...................................................................59
5.4 Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................61 5.4.1 Green Energy Infrastructure ...............................................................................61 5.4.2 Transportation Infrastructure ..............................................................................62
vi
5.5 Emerging Issues Not Addressed in the Plan ..................................................................63 5.5.1 Commercial Fill ..................................................................................................63 5.5.2 Water Taking ......................................................................................................65
5.6 Funding ...........................................................................................................................66 5.6.1 Reduced Funds for Land Securement .................................................................67 5.6.2 Reduced Monitoring Efforts ...............................................................................67 5.6.3 Funding and Resources Differ Among Municipalities .......................................68
5.7 Lack of a Central Regulating Body ................................................................................69 5.8 Leapfrog Development ...................................................................................................70 5.9 Minor Development Requires Site Plan Approval .........................................................72 5.10 Challenges for Agriculture .............................................................................................73
5.10.1 Restrictions in Expanding and Development ...................................................74 5.10.2 High Cost of Farm Land ...................................................................................74 5.10.3 Limitations on the Sale of Agricultural Land ...................................................76 5.10.4 Tension with Residential Neighbours ...............................................................77
Chapter 6 Proposed Changes of Co-ordinated Review..................................................................79
Proposed Changes ..................................................................................................................79 6.1 Plan Introduction ............................................................................................................79 6.2 Aligned Plans .................................................................................................................80 6.3 Definitions ......................................................................................................................80 6.4 Agricultural Sector .........................................................................................................81 6.5 Directs Urban Growth to Consider Climate Change ......................................................83 6.6 Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................84 6.7 Endangered Species Habitats .........................................................................................85 6.8 Hydrological Features ....................................................................................................85 6.9 Excess Soil and Fill ........................................................................................................87 6.10 Settlement Area Expansion ............................................................................................87 6.11 Concerns of the Growth Plan .........................................................................................88
Chapter 7 Recommendations, Future Research, and Conclusion ..................................................90
Recommendations, Future Research, and Conclusion ...........................................................90 7.1 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................90
7.1.1 Plan .....................................................................................................................90 Maintain Strength of the Plan and Settlement Area Boundary Lines ........90 Some Flexibility for Minor Development on Private Property .................91 Increase the Minimum Buffer Requirement ..............................................92 Create a Sunset Clause for Transitional Development ..............................92 Oversight for Infrastructure .......................................................................92 Regulations for Issues Not Addressed in the Plan .....................................93 Consistent Language and Definitions ........................................................94
7.1.2 Tools ...................................................................................................................94 Database .....................................................................................................94 Workshops .................................................................................................95
7.1.3 Additional Funding .............................................................................................95 Land Acquisition and Securement .............................................................95 Monitoring Efforts by Conservation Authorities and ENGOs ..................96
vii
Resources for Smaller Municipalities and Conservation Authorities to Implement the Plan ...................................................................................................96
7.1.4 Oversight ............................................................................................................96 7.2 Contributions and Future Research ................................................................................97 7.3 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................99
References ....................................................................................................................................104
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................112
Appendix A Interview Guide Municipality ..........................................................................112
Appendix B Interview Guide Other .........................................................................................116
Appendix C Questionnaire .......................................................................................................120
viii
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Coding Themes ............................................................................................................. 27
Table 3.2 Interview participants .................................................................................................. 30
ix
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Oak Ridges Moraine Map. Source: The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, 2005 ..... 24
Figure 3.2 Components of the Greenbelt in the Toronto Metropolitan Plan. Source: Neptis
Foundation, 2005 .......................................................................................................................... 25
x
List of Appendices
Appendix A – Interview Guide Municipalities ............................................................................112
Appendix B – Interview Guide Other ..........................................................................................116
Appendix C – Questionnaire ........................................................................................................120
xi
List of Abbreviations
Act Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act
CLOCA Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
EAS Environmental Assessment Study
EBR Environmental Bill of Rights
ENGO Environmental Non-Governmental Organization
Foundation The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation
Growth Plan Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
GTA Greater Toronto Area
MMAH Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Moraine The Oak Ridges Moraine
OMB Ontario Municipal Board
Plan Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
PPS Provincial Policy Statement
STORM Save the Oak Ridges Moraine
TRCA Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
UCP Urban Containment Policy
UGB Urban Growth Boundary
USA Urban Service Areas
USB Urban Service Boundary
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Introduction
1.1 Overview of Thesis
A common planning response to rapidly urbanizing regions is the creation of protected zones or
greenbelts at the edge of existing urban development, with the goal of controlling the location of
future development while conserving key natural features. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Act, 2001 (the “Act”), and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2002, (the “Plan”) are
designed to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine (the “Moraine”). The Moraine is one of the few
remaining large greenspace corridors in southern Ontario, which was and still is, threatened by the
expansion of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA; Sandberg, Wekerle, & Gilbert, 2013). Located just
north of the City of Toronto, the Moraine is 160 kilometres in length, and performs essential
environmental functions, including filtering Ontario’s drinking water and providing habitats for
flora and fauna (Bradford, 2008; Hanna & Webber, 2010).
There are four land use designations within the Moraine: Natural Core Areas (comprising 38% of
the Moraine); Natural Linkage Areas (24%); Countryside Areas (30%); and Settlement Areas (8%;
MMAH, 2002). Natural Core Areas are designed to protect lands with the largest number of key
natural heritage features (ecologically sensitive features), and only existing uses or low intensity
recreational or transportation uses are allowed within these lands (MMAH, 2002). Natural Linkage
Areas are spaces between Natural Core Areas and Countryside Areas, such as streams and rivers
(MMAH, 2002). Permitted land uses within Natural Linkage Areas include aggregate extraction
pending thorough review and approval (MMAH, 2002). Countryside Areas protect agricultural
and rural lands, while acting as a buffer between urban development and ecologically sensitive
areas within the Moraine (MMAH, 2002). Rural settlements are allowed within Countryside Areas,
such as hamlets and long-established communities, and major recreational development can occur
upon examination and government approval (MMAH, 2002). The final land use designation is
Settlement Areas, which are designated for existing and planned residential development to
accommodate new growth in the Moraine (MMAH, 2002). Of the four categories of land use
established by the Act, Natural Core Areas and Natural Linkage Areas are the most ecologically
2
sensitive, and use restrictions are aimed at protecting the large number of key natural heritage
features within the Moraine (MMAH, 2002).
Due to the ecological importance of the Moraine and the threat of urban development, it is
important to determine the effectiveness of legislation protecting the Moraine. The Ontario
Provincial Government began conducting a review of the Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006) (“Growth Plan”), and the Niagara Escarpment Plan
(2005) in 2015 to determine the changes required in these plans to improve the effectiveness of
the policy framework that manages growth and economic activity and protects environmental
resources within southern Ontario. In particular, the government’s review of the plans considers:
the protection of agricultural land, water, and natural areas; infrastructure; community health; job
creation in communities; climate change; and improving the implementation of the plans, and
better aligning land use policies and plans (MMAH, 2015; Neptis Foundation, 2015).
My master’s thesis research project will examine changes resulting from the implementation of
the Plan from 2002 to 2014. The objective of the thesis research is to assess the effectiveness of
the Plan and its implementation in a sample of lower-tier municipalities to potentially help inform
the provincial legislative review. The specific research questions are:
1. What successes and challenges have municipalities experienced in implementing the Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan?
2. How do stakeholders view the proposed changes and revisions from the 2015 Co-ordinated
Land Use Review to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan?
3
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This literature review provides a context for consideration of the effectiveness of the Act and the
Plan protecting the Moraine and incorporates various academic literature, government
publications, and reports by non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
The prevalence of urban sprawl within North America, and its potential causes are examined,
which demonstrate the importance of controlling urban expansion. Various urban containment
approaches are identified to provide a conceptual framework for the thesis research, including
greenbelts (such as the Ontario Greenbelt). Secondly, the ecological, economic, and social and
cultural importance of the Moraine are examined to illustrate the importance of protecting the
Moraine. Next, the events leading to the creation of the Act and the Plan are examined to help
explain the current land use policies. The creation of the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan are
also documented to provide context regarding the variety of land use policies in Ontario. The
perspectives of various stakeholders regarding current land use policies are also highlighted as
they provide important context for considering the pressures at work in balancing environmental
considerations with human activities. Threats to the Moraine as identified in the literature and by
NGOs are also explored, ranging from changes in land use and land cover, urban development,
resource extraction, and the lack of a regulatory body overseeing the monitoring and
implementation of the Plan. Finally, the review highlights gaps in the literature, which primarily
focus on monitoring changes that take place in the Moraine and monitoring the implementation of
the Plan. The review concludes by highlighting the need for additional research into evaluating the
effectiveness of current land use policies, and how the thesis research will address these knowledge
gaps.
2.2 Urban Sprawl and Urban Containment Policies
Urban sprawl has recently dominated the landscape around many North American cities, and is a
well-documented phenomena (Soule, 2006; Razin, 2005; Wheeler, 2003; Brueckner, 2000;
4
Wickersham, 2006; Zipperer, Wu, Pouyant, & Pickett, 2000). Urban sprawl is defined by low-
density, automobile-dependent, single-family homes, built outside the central city (Soule, 2006).
Open space, such as forests and farmland, is often converted to residential development, which
can pose significant consequences to the environment (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Soule, 2006).
Additionally, urban sprawl often causes added burdens for existing urban areas such as traffic
congestion, higher air pollution, decay to older urban centres, and millions of dollars of
government spending on additional social services (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Soule, 2006). Many
scholars emphasize that as the global population increases, the use of urban containment policies
to control urban development will become increasingly important to ensure sustainable growth
(Feiock, Tavares, & Lubell, 2008; Ali, 2008; Ding, Knaap, & Hopkins, 1999).
Most literature on urban sprawl focuses on the United States, however Canada experiences the
same causes of urban sprawl (Razin, 2005). The factors that contribute to urban sprawl in Ontario
are: relatively inexpensive land (Hanna & Webber, 2005); minimum-lot size zoning restrictions
(McLaughlin, 2012; Talen, 2013); incentives provided to first time home buyers of new housing
developments (Sandberg et al., 2013); an increase in the use of personal transportation (Hanna &
Webber, 2005); and residents wanting to live closer to nature in the suburbs and commute into the
city (McElhinny, 2006; Sandberg et al., 2013; Newbold & Scott, 2013).
The GTA is expected to grow from 5.6 million residents in 2009 to 7.45 million by 2031 (Sandberg
et al., 2013). The substantial increase in population in the GTA will escalate the demand for
housing (Sandberg et al., 2013). The suburbs surrounding the GTA are the fastest growing area in
Canada, and threaten the ecological integrity of the Moraine due to their close proximity (Sandberg
et al., 2013; Gilbert, Sandberg, & Wekerle, 2009; Pond, 2009b).
2.2.1 Reducing Urban Sprawl
Extensive research has been conducted regarding planning approaches to reduce urban sprawl
(Webber & Hanna, 2014; Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Talen, 2013; Taylor, Paine, & FitzGibbon,
1995; Taylor & Burchfield, 2010; Landis, 2006). Urban containment policies (UCPs) aim to curb
urban sprawl through the use of planning guidelines that limit urban expansion. Many urban
planning experts such as Nelson, Dawkins, & Sanchez (2007), Woo & Guldmann (2014), Ali
(2008), and Wheeler (2003), emphasize the use of UCPs to protect ecologically sensitive land from
development. They argue that UCPs protect open space, promote sustainable development, and
5
also retain services, taxes, and development within the central city (Nelson et al., 2007; Woo &
Guldmann, 2014). Currently, more than 200 cities worldwide have some form of UCP in place
(Woo & Guldmann, 2014).
Canada uses a variety of urban containment policies. For example, the National Capital Greenbelt
surrounds Ottawa to provide a green zone around the city (Taylor et al., 1995; Gordon & Scott,
2008). Vancouver has recently implemented a new planning policy using an urban containment
boundary (Metro Vancouver, 2011; Pond, 2009b; Daoust-Filiatrault & Connell, 2014), and Quebec
has land use legislation in place to protect agricultural lands from development (Pond, 2009b;
Daoust-Filiatrault & Connell, 2014).
2.2.2 Forms of Urban Containment
Scholars have highlighted three common UCPs: greenbelts, Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs);
and Urban Service Areas (USAs), also known as Urban Service Boundaries (USBs) (Woo &
Guldmann, 2014; Bengston, Fletcher, & Nelson, 2004). The terms greenbelt, UGB, and USA are
occasionally used interchangeably in the literature, although they are each distinct urban
containment policies.
Greenbelts
A greenbelt is a protected zone of greenspace around a city where urban growth is prohibited,
acting as a barrier to urban expansion (Forman, 2008; Vyn, 2012). The first official greenbelt was
established in the United Kingdom around the city of London in 1938 (Amati & Yokohari, 2007;
Carter-Whitney, 2008; Ali, 2008). It was similar to Ebenezer Howard’s concept of a Garden City,
which allowed open space for agriculture in close proximity to urban areas (Amati & Yokohari,
2007; Carter-Whitney, 2008; Ali, 2008). Since its development, greenbelts have become a popular
UCP in the United Kingdom, Europe, and Asia (Amati & Yokohari, 2007; Woo & Guldmann,
2014; Ali, 2008), and less common in the United States and Canada (Tayyebi, Pijanowski, &
Tayyebi, 2011).
Urban Growth Boundaries
An UGB is an urban planning approach designed to limit the physical expansion of an urban
community and preserve open space (Wickersham, 2006). UGBs draw a specific line around urban
6
portions of a metropolis where high density development is encouraged, while development is
strongly discouraged outside of the boundary line (Seltzer, 2009). Once the UGB line is drawn,
land inside and outside the boundary is zoned for specific uses, such as farmland, central business
district, or transportation (Hiramatsu, 2014). The terms Urban Containment Boundary or Urban
Growth Area are also used to refer to UGBs. Since their creation in the late 1950s, UGBs have
become a common UCP in the United States to address urban sprawl; they help ensure high-density
development occurs within the specified urban area while protecting open spaces from
development (Bengston et al., 2004; Ding, Knaap, & Hopkins, 1999). Much of the literature on
UGBs focuses on the United States, particularly on the UGB in Portland, Oregon, which is widely
considered successful at reducing urban sprawl while protecting the surrounding forests (Seltzer,
2009; Ding et al., 1999).
Urban Service Areas
USAs are similar to UGBs in that they draw a line around urban centers, but the USA boundary
defines where city provided services will be available in an attempt to prevent growth past the
boundary (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Bengston et al., 2004). USAs can be effective in restricting
development, and can retain services within a central area (Feiock, Tavares, & Lubell, 2008). They
are shown to reduce urban sprawl and prevent other potential negatives of development while
accommodating population growth (Feiock et al., 2008). While USAs are growing in popularity
within the United States (Woo & Guldmann, 2014), there is relatively little research regarding
USAs compared to greenbelts or UGBs.
2.2.3 The Effectiveness of Urban Containment Policies
The literature often discusses UCPs based on their level of strictness. Greenbelts are considered
the most stringent UCP since they typically allow little change to accommodate new growth (Woo
& Guldmann, 2014; Amati & Yokohari, 2006). UGBs are considered less stringent than greenbelts
since they occasionally allow their boarders to be expanded to accommodate urban growth (Woo
& Guldmann, 2014). USAs are the most flexible UCP since they often allow their boundaries to
fluctuate based on societal demand (Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Feiock et al., 2008). The majority
of literature on UCPs consider stringent policies and firm boundary lines more effective at
controlling urban sprawl since they limit urban development within specific borders (Woo &
Guldmann, 2014; Seltzer, 2009). Amati and Taylor (2010), however, argue that greenbelts are
7
more effective if they are slightly flexible, and if they are built with multiple perspectives in mind,
such as agricultural, environmental, tourism, and growth, since they will experience greater
support among residents.
Some critics of UCPs question the entire concept of urban containment, and whether regulatory
approaches such as UCPs cause changes in urbanization (Seltzer, 2009). Studies, however, have
indicated that UCPs reduce urban sprawl, as well as protect forests and farmland from urbanization
(Wickersham, 2006; Woo & Guldmann, 2014; Carter-Whitney, 2008). Although others have also
found that UCPs are more effective when they are used in conjunction with multiple land use
policies (Seltzer, 2009; Fung & Conway, 2007; Boussauw, Allaert, & Witlox, 2013). For example,
in order to ensure low-density development patterns are changed to high-density development, a
policy aimed at urban compaction should be used in addition to the protective legislation
(Boussauw et al., 2013). This has also led scholars to recognize that in order for urban containment
policies to be effective, a change in land development patterns is required, where environmental,
economic, and social policies are considered (Wickersham, 2006).
2.3 Importance of the Moraine
The Moraine performs essential environmental functions, including supporting essential
ecological systems such as water systems, providing habitats for flora and fauna, and mitigating
climate change. It also supports the economy and contributes to the social and cultural vitality of
southern Ontario. Understanding the significance of the Moraine is essential in order to develop
effective policies and plans to manage and protect this resource.
2.3.1 Ecological
A substantial body of research has examined the ecological significance of the Moraine,
demonstrating the importance of the Moraine to broader ecological systems (Bocking, 2005).
Water Systems
The Moraine is a large expanse of ecologically sensitive land that filters drinking water for more
than six million people (Ko & Cheng, 2004), including drinking water to 250,000 residents of the
Moraine (Hanna & Webber, 2010; Sandberg et al., 2013). The Moraine is often referred to as the
“rain barrel” of southern Ontario, due to the large amount of water that it collects (STORM, 2010;
8
Bocking, 2005). The layers of gravel and sand that comprise the Moraine play a vital role in water
recharge by serving as an aquifer to collect rain and snowmelt and control flooding (Ko & Cheng,
2004; Holysh & Gerber, 2004). Additionally, the Moraine supports 65 river and stream systems
both within and below the Moraine (STORM, 2010; Ko & Cheng, 2004; Gerber & Howard, 2002;
Howard et al., 1995; Russell et al., 1998).
Habitats
The Moraine provides habitats for native and endangered animal species (Carter-Whitney, 2008;
Sandberg et al., 2013; Bradford, 2008, MMAH, n.d.). The estimated number of breeding bird
species residing within the Moraine vary from 166 (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, 2010) to 118
species (STORM, 2010); 77 of which are endangered (Bradford, 2008). The Moraine also supports
51 mammal species, and 73 fish species (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, 2010). Additionally,
the Moraine provides corridors for animal movement and migration (MMAH, n.d.; Lemieux,
Beechey, and Gray, 2011). Many studies have identified the importance of continuous forest cover
and large patches to protect habitats and migration corridors (Savard, Clergeau, & Mennechez,
2000; Findlay & Houlahan, 1996; Austen, Francis, Burke, & Bradstreet, 2001); which illustrates
the importance of the Moraine’s protection to support wildlife biodiversity.
The Moraine also includes many forests, wetlands, and rare vegetation which provide specialized
habitats for wildlife (Oak Ridges Trail Association, 2012; MMAH, n.d.). A total of 1,033 plant
species can be found within the Moraine (STORM, 2010), providing diverse vegetation
communities such as sand barrens, tallgrass prairies, and savannahs (MMAH, n.d.). In addition to
providing habitats, trees and vegetation protect the valuable sandy soils of the Moraine from being
blown away (STORM, 2010). Additionally, the Moraine contains some of the largest upland forest
areas in southern Ontario (Oak Ridges Trail Association, 2012). While accounts vary slightly,
between 25 percent (Oak Ridges Trail Association, 2012) and 32 percent of the Moraine is forested
(STORM, 2010), compared to only five percent of land surrounding the Moraine (Oak Ridges
Trail Association, 2012).
Climate Change
The perceived ecological value of the Moraine, and research, tend to focus primarily on its role in
filtering water systems and protecting habitats and rarely mention its role in sequestering
9
greenhouse gases, although this important aspect should not be ignored. (Tomalty, 2013; Lemieux
et al., 2011). The large number of trees in the Moraine help capture carbon dioxide, acting as a
carbon sink (Tomalty, 2012). In an attempt to increase the perceived value of the Moraine, Tomalty
(2012) converted the carbon stored within the Moraine to an economic value, estimated at $7.1
million per year due to its mitigating effects on climate change.
2.3.2 Economic
The Moraine is an important contributor to the economy of southern Ontario, both directly through
businesses that rely upon the resources within the Moraine, as well as indirectly, through its
contribution to the broader economy as part of the greater regional transportation network.
Aggregate Extraction
The Moraine has significant economic value, in part, due to its natural resources. Aggregates such
as sand and gravel, peat, and top-soil are extracted from the Moraine for construction within the
GTA (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994; Sandberg et al., 2013; Fung &
Conway, 2007). Approximately one hundred licenced gravel pits operate within the Moraine
(Sandberg et al., 2013). This provides a substantial economic base for Ontario, although it also has
many detrimental effects on the Moraine, such as disrupting habitat (Sandberg et al., 2013).
Agriculture
The Moraine is home to many agricultural lands (Sandberg et al., 2013). The warm weather in
southern Ontario allows for specialty crops, field and row crops, intensive agriculture, and
livestock, which help sustain the GTA (Caldwell & Hilts, 2005; Ministry of Natural Resources &
Dillion Limited, 1994; Sandberg et al., 2013). Many agricultural farms have been sold for urban
development, resulting in a 16.5 percent decline in farming in the Moraine between 1976 and 1996
(Sandberg et al., 2013). The Plan, however, is designed to protect agricultural lands in the Moraine
by preventing the sale of agricultural land for development (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Cadieux,
Taylor, & Bunce, 2013; Caldwell & Hilts, 2005; Sandberg et al., 2013).
2.3.3 Social and Cultural
The Moraine provides many intangible benefits to residents of southern Ontario, and while these
impacts are more challenging to measure and document, they are important considerations. Little
10
academic research touches upon the impact of recreational land uses, although the historical
significance of the area is better documented.
Recreation
The Moraine has a social importance, as it provides nostalgic and scenic pleasures to residents and
peri-urbanists through the feel of nature in close proximity to the City of Toronto (Cadieux et al.,
2013). Greenbelts have been shown to increase exercise among residents (Woo & Guldmann,
2014), and many NGOs highlight the numerous recreational activities provided within the Moraine
(Oak Ridges Moraine Trail Association, 2015; STORM, 2007b). Government documents identify
recreation as either “major outdoor recreational areas” such as ski hills or golf courses, or
“parks/natural areas” (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994; McElhinny, 2006).
Hiking along the Oak Ridges Trail, which is 280 kilometres long, is a popular activity within the
Moraine (Oak Ridges Trail Association, 2012; McElhinny, 2006). Cross country skiing, bird
watching, and horseback riding are also recreational activities in the Moraine (McElhinny, 2006).
While these recreational activities can create economic returns through revenue and jobs, they can
also have potentially detrimental effects on the environment (Ministry of Natural Resources &
Dillion Limited, 1994; Global Forest Watch Canada, 2008).
Historic
The historical significance of the Moraine is documented in the literature, and its history illustrates
the common experience of settlement in Canada (Sandberg et al., 2013; Bocking, 2005; Howard
et al., 1995). The Moraine has a varied history of inhabitants. Initially settled by First Nations
peoples, the Moraine was subsequently settled by Europeans in the 1780s (Howard et al., 1995).
After the American Civil War, Loyalist soldiers who left the United States were given land in the
Moraine, and many descendants of these European and American settlers still reside within the
Moraine (Howard et al., 1995). Additionally, the Moraine has had a history of unsustainable land
use practices, such as clear cutting forests for farming (Howard et al., 1995; STORM, 2010), which
serves as a reminder of the consequences of detrimental land use practices.
2.4 Ontario Land Use Policies
There are several land use plans within Ontario that are designed to guide land use and
development within southern Ontario. In Ontario, land use planning is implemented through local
11
and regional municipalities, although the provincial government determines the Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS), which mandates planning goals (Whitelaw, Eagles, Gibson, & Seasons, 2008).
While the provincial government created several regional plans, local municipalities are
responsible for its implementation and adjusting the municipal land use policies and bylaws to
meet its requirements. Many articles that document land use plans and policies in Ontario include
a detailed history of the social and political influences that led to their creation. It is important to
recognize the various stakeholders and how their roles led to the creation of the Acts and Plans to
better understand the perspectives of those involved.
2.4.1 Creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and the Plan
The following section considers the events leading to the creation of the current Ontario land use
policies to better understand the role of residents, environmental organizations, the media, and the
government in creating the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan.
From the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, provincial land use planning and government policies
supported low-density residential development in Ontario (Macdonald & Keil, 2012), with urban
development encouraged because of its contribution to the local economy (Sandberg et al., 2013).
The Ontario Planning Act was modified to allow building applications to be made directly to the
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), the regulatory board which approves development (Macdonald
& Keil, 2012). This allowed development applications to effectively bypass local level government
and reduce the wait time of development, which promoted urban expansion (Macdonald & Keil,
2012).
Environmental concerns were raised in the late 1980s and 1990s regarding the need for protection
of natural heritage areas due to the extensive development within the Moraine (Whitelaw & Eagles,
2007; Sandberg & Wekerle, 2010; Bocking, 2005). This was supported by scientists and the
provincial government who completed a significant amount of research during the same period
into the environmental significance of the Moraine and suggested protection and planning
approaches (Hanna & Webber, 2010; Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007; Whitelaw et al., 2008). A
significant focus of this research was on the hydrological significance of the Moraine, which filters
water within and below the Moraine (Howard et al., 1995; Russell et al., 1998; Gerber & Howard,
2002).
12
Environmental NGOs (ENGOs) used scientific studies illustrating the ecological importance of
the Moraine, along with the media, particularly newspapers such as the Toronto Star, to raise the
public’s awareness of the ecological sensitivity of the Moraine and advocate for its protection
(Bocking, 2005; Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007; Whitelaw et al., 2008). ENGOs such as Save the Oak
Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists (now Ontario Nature),
Earthroots, and Save the Rouge Valley System Inc., along with 465 scientists, over 100 citizens
groups, and various other organizations were influential in raising the public profile of the Moraine
(Earthroots, n.d.; Whitelaw et al., 2008; Macdonald & Keil, 2012). As public awareness grew,
lobby groups and the media continued to pressure the provincial government to implement land
use policy to protect the Moraine, leading to considerable tension between developers and
environmental groups (Whitelaw & Eagles, 2007).
A residential development project in Richmond Hill in 1999 to 2000 has been identified as a pivotal
event leading to the creation of the Plan (Hanna & Webber, 2010; Edey, Seasons, & Whitelaw,
2006; Whitelaw et al., 2008). While the OMB had approved the development, over 3,000 residents
and lobbyists attended a Town of Richmond Hill Council Meeting in February 2000 to argue
against the development, citing the ecological sensitivity of the area (Hanna & Webber, 2010;
Whitelaw et al., 2008). The extensive resident advocacy led the OMB to reverse their previous
ruling until formal legislation was created (Hanna & Webber, 2010).
That new legislation was the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, created by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing in May 2001. The Act prevented development in the Moraine for
six months while long-term land use planning approaches were developed (Bocking, 2005;
MMAH, 2010). A multi-stakeholder advisory panel representing planners, developers,
environment, agriculture, and aggregate groups collaborated to discuss long-range planning
approaches (Bocking, 2005; Whitelaw et al., 2008). This led the Conservative provincial
government to create the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act in November 2001, and the Plan
in April 2002 (MMAH, 2010; Edey et al., 2006; Whitelaw et al., 2008). Amati and Taylor (2010)
and Whitelaw and Eagles (2007) claim that the multi-stakeholder advisory panel used to inform
the Plan was an effective method to incorporate multiple perspectives, which would help increase
the success of the Plan.
13
2.4.2 Additional Planning Legislation and Policies in Ontario
The first land use legislation to protect environmentally sensitive land in southern Ontario was the
creation of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act in 1973 (Whitelaw et al.,
2008). It was created after public concern regarding quarrying in the Niagara Escarpment in the
1960s (Whitelaw et al., 2008). This legislation was designed to protect the Niagara Escarpment
from development, and has helped lay the foundation for the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Act and Plan.
In 2003 the Liberal Party came to power provincially, and in 2005 the Provincial Policy Statement
was changed to encourage increased development intensification, limit boundary expansion, and
protect ecological resources and agricultural land (Macdonald & Keil, 2012, p. 132). The Liberal
government supported the creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and also
developed new legislation, the Greenbelt Act and the Greenbelt Plan in 2005, to protect
agricultural and ecologically sensitive land in southern Ontario outside the Oak Ridges Moraine
and the Niagara Escarpment (Eidelman, 2010; Newbold & Scott, 2013; MMAH, 2005). The
Ontario Greenbelt that resulted from the 2005 Act surrounds the Greater Golden Horseshoe in
southern Ontario and is comprised of the Niagara Escarpment, Protected Countryside, and the
Moraine.
Additionally, the Places to Grow Act and related Growth Plan were created in 2005 to support the
Greenbelt Plan (Eidelman, 2010). The Places to Grow legislation designates where urban
development can occur, focusing on infill, and specifies that 40 percent of all development must
occur within existing urban areas after 2014 to reduce urban sprawl (Eidelman, 2010; Newbold &
Scott, 2013; Neptis Foundation, 2015). The UCP literature has emphasized the effectiveness of
using several policies for ecological conservation as well as to direct urban growth (Seltzer, 2009;
Fung & Conway, 2007; Boussauw, Allaert, G., & Witlox, 2013). These four policies collectively
aim to protect ecologically sensitive areas from development, while also designating where
development should occur to accommodate the expected growth in southern Ontario.
2.4.3 Successes and Challenges of the Ontario Greenbelt
In order to create more effective greenbelts, it is essential to understand the successes and
challenges of their implementation. Several studies have investigated the successes and challenges
14
that arise through the use of greenbelts (Carter-Whitney, 2008; Fung & Conway, 2007; Amati &
Taylor, 2010; Woo & Guldmann, 2014). Studies that examine the Ontario Greenbelt have found
that it successfully protects water systems, habitats, and large amounts of agricultural land from
development (Carter-Whitney, 2008; Ali, 2008). The Ontario land use policy and legislation is
sometimes considered an example of successful ecologically-conscious land use planning and is
used to inform other greenbelts (Bradford, 2008; Amati & Taylor, 2010; Carter-Whitney, 2008).
Despite its success at protecting ecologically sensitive areas, there are several challenges
associated with the implementation of the Ontario Greenbelt and the Plan. Fung and Conway
(2007) identify several weaknesses of the Plan, in particular protecting the Moraine: boundary
definition; inconsistent goals and policies; leapfrog development and increased housing costs; a
lack of support for the agricultural industry; and little consideration for existing municipal policies.
The broader literature on greenbelt successes and challenges primarily focuses on challenges with
identifying boundary lines, the lack of a regulatory body to implement large-scale land use policy,
and leapfrog development and housing prices.
Identifying boundary lines of the Moraine is a challenge of the Plan due to ecological boundaries
crossing municipal boarders (Bradford, 2008; Fung & Conway, 2007). Additionally, interagency
cooperation can be a challenge in the implementation of the Plan since several levels of
government and various municipalities are involved (Bradford, 2008). The lack of consistent and
clear goals and policies can also hinder the consistent application of land use regulations
(McWilliam, Brown, Eagles, & Seasons, 2014; Fung & Conway, 2007). Experts have emphasized
the importance of a larger regulatory body to implement and oversee large-scale land use policies,
although this has not occurred within the Moraine (Amati & Taylor, 2010; Webber & Hanna,
2014).
The issues of leapfrog development and increasing housing costs are dominant concerns raised in
the literature by Vyn (2012), Newbold & Scott, 2013, McLaughlin (2012), Hanna and Webber
(2005); Fung & Conway (2007); and Forman (2008). “Leapfrog” development refers to urban
expansion that ‘leaps’ over protected areas, which results in development outside of the greenbelt
area (Vyn, 2012; Forman, 2008). Leapfrog development is widely considered a negative aspect of
UCPs since it can take the form of low-density development, can lead to the loss of nearby open
land (Vyn, 2012; Pond, 2009a), and can increase the number of commuters through a greenbelt
15
(Newbold & Scott, 2013). Research regarding development in southern Ontario has highlighted
that the Ontario Greenbelt does not include all agricultural land, therefore agriculture or land
outside of the Greenbelt is at risk of leapfrog development (Pond, 2009a; Newbold & Scott, 2013).
Many studies have examined the effect of UCPs on land values in North America and have found
that they reduce the supply of available land for development, thereby increasing land prices
(Wickersham, 2006; Landis, 2006; Orfield & Luce, 2009; Hiramatsu, 2014; Amati & Yokohari,
2007; Woo & Guldmann, 2014; McLaughlin, 2012). Wekerle and Abbruzzese (2010) have alluded
to a rise in housing prices within the Moraine as a result of the land use policy protecting the
Moraine. The literature, however, acknowledges that various factors contribute to housing and
land values (Fung & Conway, 2007; Seltzer, 2009).
2.4.4 Stakeholders’ Perspectives Regarding Ontario Land Use Policies
Support from the community regarding land use policies is shown to increase their success (Amati
& Taylor, 2010; Ali, 2008). Several articles have examined various perspectives regarding the
Ontario Greenbelt and the Places to Grow legislation (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Caldwell & Hilts,
2005; Cadieux, Taylor, & Bunce, 2013). Environmental organizations such as the Ontario
Greenbelt Alliance, as well as residents, praise the current land use policies in protecting the
Moraine from development (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Fung & Conway, 2007; EcoSpark &
STORM, 2010; Hanna & Webber, 2005). Municipalities have had mixed reactions to the Ontario
Greenbelt and Growth Plans (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Fung & Conway, 2007). Some
municipalities object to the plans because they feel the legislation stops or slows their growth,
while others embrace its efforts to protect the land (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Webber & Hanna,
2005).
Many stakeholders involved with agriculture, including farmers, are not supportive of the
legislation (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Cadieux et al., 2013). Several articles highlight that the
Ontario Greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan reduce the ability of farmers to
sell their land for development, which many farmers disapprove of (Macdonald & Keil, 2012;
Cadieux et al., 2013). Furthermore, while the legislation protects agricultural land from
development, it does not provide additional resources to support the community (Macdonald &
Keil, 2012; Cadieux et al., 2013). Finally, the development industry in Ontario is not supportive
16
of the Moraine, Greenbelt or Growth Plans since they limit the amount and type of development
that can occur (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Fung & Conway, 2007).
2.4.5 Requirements for Public Participation
It is considered by many in the field of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and
environmental planning to be an essential step to include public participation in environmental
issues and government policies and decisions (O’Faircheallaigh, 2010; Noble, 2015; Hartley &
Wood, 2005; Stewart & Sinclair, 2007). There are many benefits to public participation and
stakeholder involvement in environmental issues and government policies, such as increasing
transparency and accountability (Hartley & Wood, 2005); allowing the community to influence
outcomes of decision making; providing a wider range of perspectives and benefits; developing
broader solutions; and potentially avoiding litigation, just to name a few (O’Faircheallaigh, 2010;
Noble, 2015). Public participation can take place in many forms, such as public meetings,
workshops, and community advisory committees (Chess & Purcell, 1999; Noble, 2015), and more
recently web-based forums such as social media (Evans-Cowley & Hollander, 2010).
In an effort to increase public involvement and knowledge regarding environmental issues, the
Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) was created in Ontario. The EBR ensures residents are
informed of decisions that affect the environment (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario,
2015). The EBR provides platforms and tools for public participation and government
transparency, such as the Environmental Registry, which provides public notices to inform
residents of environmental issues being proposed by government ministries; the Environmental
Commissioner of Ontario, who is an independent officer that improves the effectiveness of the
EBR; and applications for review and investigation, which allows stakeholders and the public to
have input into proposed applications and legislation (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario,
2015).
2.5 Threats to the Moraine
To help develop effective policies and plans to manage and protect the Moraine, it is essential to
understand the threats to the Moraine. Through a comparison of various greenbelts internationally,
Carter-Whitney identified four common threats and challenges that greenbelts face: development
pressure; natural resource extraction; protecting agriculture; and transportation infrastructure
17
(Carter-Whitney, 2008; Macdonald & Keil, 2012). While all four of these threats are relevant to
the Moraine, research has focused on changes in land use and land cover, the lack of a central
regulatory body to monitor and implement the Plan, urban development, and resource extraction.
These threats are on-going and continue to threaten the Moraine despite the current land use
legislation.
2.5.1 Changes in Land Use and Land Cover
Changes in land use and land cover are common methods of assessing the effectiveness of a land
use policy and monitoring urban development. Changes in land use and land cover represent the
conversion of land to other uses, which tend to negatively affect the environment. For example,
many studies have documented the conversion of agricultural land to urban land uses, which
decreases the amount of agricultural land used for production (Savard, Clergeau, & Mennechez,
2000; Lambin et al., 2001). Forest cover can also be reduced through infrastructure or residential
development (Findlay & Houlahan, 1996; Austen et al., 2001; Lambin et al., 2001; Erickson, 1995;
Sohl, Loveland, Sleeter, Sayler, & Barnes, 2010), which can negatively impact the ecological
integrity of the Moraine and the habitats it provides (Findlay & Houlahan, 1996).
Changes in land use and land cover can also negatively affect the ecological health of the Moraine.
Contaminants from urban and rural uses have been shown to enter groundwater, which can affect
water quality (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, n.d.). Recreational activities in the Moraine and
urban encroachment from residential areas pose a risk to the health of the Moraine (McWilliam et
al., 2014). For example, the conversion of agricultural land or forested areas to create golf courses
and ski hills requires the clearing of land, and the significant use of water and pesticides, which
can affect the water system (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994; Conservation
Authority Moraine Coalition, 2015; Watchorn, Hamilton, Anderson, Roe, & Patterson, 2008).
Additionally, while agriculture is protected within the Countryside Area of the Moraine, a study
by Watchorn et al. (2008) found that there were changes in water quality within the Moraine that
correlate with an increase in agriculture, and that the use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers
correspond with shifts in pollen and algae species in the water. These examples illustrate the impact
that changes in land use and land cover can have on the environment, and the threat that it can pose
to the Moraine.
18
2.5.2 Urban Development
Current literature continually stresses the need for effective management practices to protect the
Moraine from urban development, sprawl, and encroachment (Tomalty, 2012; McWilliam et al.,
2014; Lemieux et al., 2011; Sandberg et al., 2013). Sandberg (2013) and Environmental Defence
(2014) have identified urban development and a growing population as a continued threat to the
Moraine. Additionally, planning applications that were submitted and/or approved prior to the
creation of the Act in November 2001, known as ‘transitional’ land have been ‘grandfathered’ and
are allowed to occur despite being in the Moraine (EcoSpark & STORM, 2010; Sandberg &
Wekerle, 2010). The development of infrastructure, including paved roads, pipes, and power lines,
also pose significant risks to the Moraine since they cut through the Ontario Greenbelt and
facilitate urban sprawl (Environmental Defence, 2014).
Almost 90 percent of the Moraine is privately owned, which is approximately 170,000 hectares
(EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). The Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust was created in 2000 to oversee
the conservation of private land within the Moraine, primarily through purchasing private land,
conservation easements, and land donations to land trusts, which provide tax incentives for
residents who donate their land or legally protect it from future development (Sandberg &
Wekerle, 2010; Logan & Wekerle, 2008). While conservation easements and land trusts are
commonly used to protect ecologically sensitive land from development, Sandberg, Logan, and
Wekerle (2008), argue that these methods privilege the wealthy of society by allowing them to
retain control of their land while the public is not allowed access to it. Notwithstanding such social
considerations, tax incentives, conservation easements, and land trusts are pragmatic tools to
protect the vast expanses of privately owned lands within the Moraine, although they have been
utilized in a limited way within the Moraine.
2.5.3 Resource Extraction
The removal of many resources within the Moraine is considered a significant threat to its
ecological health and integrity. Aggregate extraction involving pits and quarries removes valuable
sands and soils and disrupts natural habitats (Carter-Whitney, 2008; Global Forest Watch, 2008).
While the Plan states that new aggregate extraction is permitted in the Natural Linkage Areas only
with a strict assessment, Sandberg et al., (2013) claim that the conditions allowing extraction are
“fuzzy” and therefore easily passed (p. 194). The Moraine Technical Working Committee papers
19
documented the potential impacts of topsoil removal and peat extraction, and highlight that
“extraction of this material requires the substantial alteration of existing landforms” (Ministry of
Natural Resources & Dillion Limited, 1994, p. 25). Additionally, the extraction of peat often
reaches the water table and it is “virtually impossible to return a peat extraction site to an after use
that even approximates its former ecological state” (Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion
Limited, 1994, p. 25).
While there are often provisions made to ensure that pits and quarries are rehabilitated, the forest
fragmentation and damage to the land is very challenging to return to its original state (Sandberg
et al., 2013). Additionally, dumping contaminated excess soil and fill from brownfield construction
projects on agricultural lands, commonly referred to as “commercial fill” is a threat identified by
the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance and Environmental Defence (2014). Contaminants in the soil can
leach into the water system and food that is grown in the Ontario Greenbelt (Environmental
Defence, 2014).
Water is often taken from the Moraine to support municipal water supplies, golf courses, and
commercial water-bottling for export, which can deplete the amount of water in the Moraine (Oak
Ridges Moraine Land Trust, n.d.; Sandberg et al., 2013). Water-taking is not included in the Plan,
but instead allowed through provincially granted permits under the Ontario Water Resources Act
(EcoSpark & STORM, 2010).
2.5.4 The Lack of a Central Regulatory Body
A significant issue raised in the literature is the lack of monitoring of the effectiveness of the Plan
at protecting the Moraine (Global Forest Watch, 2008; EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). Several
studies have highlighted the importance of a regulatory body to oversee the implementation of
land use policies (Amati & Taylor, 2010; Webber & Hanna, 2014), since the Plan is currently
implemented by the local municipalities (Webber & Hanna, 2014). Sandberg, Logan, and Wekerle
claim that many previous government responsibilities, such as monitoring the protection of the
Moraine, have been delegated to citizens’ groups and volunteers, enabling the government to step
away from the financial and ecological responsibility of monitoring the Moraine (Sandberg &
Wekerle, 2010; Logan & Wekerle, 2008; Sandberg et al., 2013). Several government-appointed
organizations and ENGOs oversee certain aspects of the Moraine’s protection and monitoring,
such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, the Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition,
20
Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation, and STORM, just to name a few (Sandberg & Wekerle, 2010;
EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). These organizations are often considered to be underfunded
(Sandberg & Wekerle, 2010).
2.6 Knowledge Gaps
While there has been a significant body of research regarding the ecological importance of the
Moraine, there are substantial gaps in the research, particularly with reference to the Plan. These
knowledge gaps in relation to the thesis research fall into two categories: 1) monitoring the
effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine; and 2) evaluating the consistent
implementation of the policies under the Plan.
2.6.1 Monitoring the Moraine
Until the late 1980s very little research existed regarding the ecological significance of the Moraine
(Bocking, 2005). In the 1990s, prior to the creation of the Act and the Plan, a significant body of
research was undertaken illustrating the ecological importance of the Moraine. Since the creation
of the Act and the Plan, relatively little government research has examined the ecological,
economic, and social health of the Moraine. There has also been little research into the
effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine.
A publication by Bradford (2008) regarding an evaluation of water provisions in the Moraine calls
for continued monitoring and evaluation of the Moraine as a whole to determine the effectiveness
of the current legislation. Many ENGOs also call for additional monitoring of the Moraine, and
evaluation of the effectiveness of the Plan at meeting protection goals (Global Forest Watch
Canada, 2008; EcoSpark & STORM, 2010; Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition, 2015; Oak
Ridges Moraine Foundation, 2011).
While few studies have focused on land use and land cover change within the Moraine, many
studies on land use and land cover change on a global scale or international context examine the
effects of urbanization (Lambin et al., 2001; Erickson, 1995; Sohl et al., 2010; York & Munroe,
2010). A report by Global Forest Watch Canada (2008) did examine changes in land use and land
cover within the Ontario Greenbelt from 1997 to 2007. The study found that the most land use
change in the Ontario Greenbelt took place within the Moraine portion (Global Forest Watch
Canada, 2008). Across the entire Ontario Greenbelt, urban/builtup accounted for 68% of the land
21
use conversion; golf courses accounted for 15%, and the creation and expansion of quarries and
pits accounted for 13% of the land use change (Global Forest Watch Canada, 2008).
Statistics Canada tracked changes in areas converted to settlement landscapes using data from
1971, 2000, and 2011 in the Lake Ontario and Niagara Peninsula area (Statistics Canada, 2015,
Statistics Canada, 2015b), although there has been little examination of changes in land cover
within the Moraine specifically, or within the four land use designations in the Moraine (Natural
Core, Natural Linkage, Countryside, and Settlement Areas).
EcoSpark and STORM conduct a monitoring program called “Monitoring the Moraine: Moraine
Watch”. The program examines changes in land use in the Moraine using volunteers (EcoSpark &
STORM Coalition, 2010). The results are often published in Monitoring the Moraine status reports
that document changes in land use as observed by volunteers (EcoSpark & STORM Coalition,
2012).
A report by the Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition (2015) examined existing forest cover,
forest interior, and forest riparian cover within the Moraine and Ontario Greenbelt. The report
found that forest cover is being maintained in critical areas of the Moraine, although there is no
evidence of restored or enhanced forest conditions, which is a goal in the Plan (Conservation
Authority Moraine Coalition, 2015). These studies collectively illustrate the prevalence of changes
within the Moraine and emphasize the importance of protecting and monitoring land use and forest
cover change within the Ontario Greenbelt and Moraine to ensure the protection of these
ecologically sensitive areas (Global Forest Watch Canada, 2008; Conservation Authority Moraine
Coalition, 2015).
There are many additional ecological aspects regarding the implementation of the Plan that have
not been fully investigated. Little research has been conducted as to the protection of habitats for
animals within the Moraine, or changes in the number and population health of species since the
creation of the Plan.
Additionally, very little research has monitored the land use or land cover conversion due to
resource extraction, or the impact of this extraction on the broader landscape. While Global Forest
Watch Canada (2008) documented the expansion of pits and quarries in the Ontario Greenbelt,
their study did not look at changes within the Natural Core or Natural Linkage Areas specifically,
22
and it included change several years prior to the Plan’s adoption, as opposed to determining
specifically the effect of the Plan in relation to resource extraction. There has been relatively little
research documenting the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting agricultural land within the
Moraine.
During the early 1990s the Ministry of Natural Resources (1994) conducted an examination of the
effects of recreation on the Moraine, although there has been little research into the effects of
recreational activities on the Moraine since the creation of the Plan.
The extent of leapfrog development as a result of UCPs is a well-documented phenomena globally
(Landis, 2006; Vyn, 2012), although there has been limited research regarding leapfrog
development in southern Ontario. An examination of leapfrog development as a result of the
Ontario Greenbelt was conducted by Newbold and Scott (2013), although little research has been
completed on the extent of leapfrog development specifically surrounding the Moraine or as a
result of the Plan.
2.6.2 Monitoring Implementation of the Plan
While the successes and challenges of implementing the Greenbelt Plan have been examined by
Carter-Whitney (2008) and Ali (2008), there has been limited research into the successes and
challenges of implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
Local municipalities were directed to bring local land use policies into accordance with the Plan
(MMAH, 2002), although there has been little evaluation of the process. An interim evaluation
was commissioned in 2006 by several ENGOs such as STORM and EcoSpark, which evaluated
the time-frame required by the municipalities to amend their by-laws to support the Plan (Crandall
& Fahey, 2006), although there has been very little monitoring to determine whether the new
policies are being implemented, or their success at protecting the Moraine.
2.6.3 Filling the Research Gap
The Plan has been in place for approximately 14 years, which is sufficient time to evaluate its
effectiveness at reducing urban sprawl and protecting agricultural and ecologically sensitive land.
Several ENGOs such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust and STORM emphasize that more
research and data are required regarding the effects of the legislation protecting the Moraine prior
23
to the government’s review of the plans including the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
(Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, 2010).
A review of the literature suggests that there has never been a comparative assessment examining
changes in land use and land cover within the Moraine. Thus far, land use and land cover research
has focused on the larger Ontario Greenbelt, and has not specifically examined changes since the
creation of the Plan in 2002, to present day, 2016. This research will consider the general trends
in changes in land use and land cover within the Moraine to help determine the effectiveness of
the Plan at protecting the Moraine.
While there is some research into the perspectives of stakeholders regarding the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan, there has yet to be a comprehensive review of the successes and
challenges of the implementation of the Plan. A review of the existing literature suggests that there
is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine, and how the Plan can
be strengthened prior to the provincial government’s review of the legislation.
This research will evaluate the successes and challenges in implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan to determine the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine. The
proposed changes to the Plan by the provincial government from the co-ordinated review are also
investigated. This research will explore potential methods to strengthen the Plan and improve the
protection of the Moraine, while ensuring sustainable communities to meet population demands.
The outcomes of this research will potentially help inform the legislative review, and will
contribute to environmental planning literature regarding urban containment policies.
24
Chapter 3 Study Area and Methods
Study Area and Methods
3.1 Study Area
The area of study in this research is the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan Area is 190,000 hectares, and spans 160km in length from the Niagara
Escarpment in the west to the Trent River System in the east (EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). The
average width of the Moraine is 13 km (EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). There are a total of 32
municipalities in the Moraine; 24 lower-tier municipalities and eight regional and county upper-
tier municipalities (STORM, 2007a). Sixty percent of the Moraine is located in the Greater Toronto
Area (Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, n.d.a).
Figure 3.1. Oak Ridges Moraine Map. Source: The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, 2005.
About the Moraine. Retrieved from http://www.moraineforlife.org/living/aboutmoraine.php.
The Moraine is located within the larger Ontario Greenbelt covered by the Greenbelt Plan. The
Niagara Escarpment and Protected Countryside are the other protected areas of land within the
Greenbelt. All are located in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Figure 3.2).
25
Figure 3.2. Neptis Foundation. 2005. Neptis Commentary on the Draft Greenbelt Plan. Retrieved
from http://www.neptis.org/publications/neptis-commentary-draft-greenbelt-plan.
3.2 Methods
A variety of qualitative research methods were utilized during this research to explore diverse
perspectives and illustrate a more comprehensive view of the successes and challenges in
implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. These methods include attending Co-
ordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings, interviews, and a written
questionnaire. Written documents such as land use acts and plans, and written comments by
various stakeholders such as conservation authorities and ENGOs submitted for the co-ordinated
review that were available online or provided by interview participants were also reviewed. This
project was approved by the Ethics Review Board at the University of Toronto.
3.2.1 Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings
In preparation for the Ontario Provincial Government’s Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review,
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing hosted 17 regional town hall meetings. The Co-
ordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings (“regional town hall
meetings”) took place from March 2015 to April 2015 across municipalities in the Greater Golden
26
Horseshoe. The aim of the regional town hall meetings was to inform the public of the four land
use plans (the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; the Greenbelt Plan; the Niagara Escarpment
Plan; and the Growth Plan) being reviewed, and to provide avenues for public participation,
consultation, and feedback, as required by the Environmental Bill of Rights.
The regional town hall meetings began with an open-house, where the ministries had several
posters and other information on display. There were also representatives from varying provincial
government ministries available to answer questions and facilitate discussion during the open-
house. The open-house portion of the regional town hall meetings were attended for this project to
speak with representatives from various provincial government ministries, the public, and other
stakeholders.
The town hall meetings also offered round table discussions with facilitators from various
provincial ministries such as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change; and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, to
list a few. Six discussion topics were addressed in the round table sessions: (1) protecting
agricultural land, water and natural areas; (2) fostering healthy, liveable and inclusive
communities; (3) addressing climate change and building resilient communities; (4) keeping
people and goods moving, and building cost-effective infrastructure; (5) building communities that
attract workers and create jobs; and (6) improving implementation and better aligning the (four
land use) plans. Participants could join a round table discussion based on the initial topic of the
table, and after the initial topic had been discussed, participants could elect to discuss other topics,
or continue focusing on their original topic.
For this research project, four regional town hall meetings were attended in person, located in the
Town of Ajax, the Municipality of Clarington, the City of Vaughan, and the Town of Aurora.
These regional town hall meetings were selected because these municipalities have a significant
amount of land within the Moraine.
While attending the Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings,
round table discussions that focused on topic 1, (protecting agricultural land, water and natural
areas), and topic 6, (improving implementation and better aligning the plans) were attended
because of their relevance to the issues of protecting environmentally sensitive areas and
27
agriculture, as well as implementing the Plan; both of which were topics that this research
investigates.
Notes were taken during the regional town hall meetings to document the proceedings. The notes
were later coded to identify themes using NVivo, a software that assists with the analysis of
qualitative data, to thematically analyze the content of the discussions. This allowed for the
identification of successes and benefits of the four land use plans, as well as challenges and
weaknesses. Additionally, recommendations and suggestions that arose from the round-table
discussions were identified. Key themes explored are highlighted in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Coding Themes
Protection Conservation, monitoring, restoration, buffer
zones, land securement, environmental
assessment, natural heritage features,
hydrological features
Threats development (urban sprawl, residential, estate
residential, transitional, leapfrog), OMB
hearings, water taking, commercial fill,
climate change, impacts (soil, water, forest,
wildlife)
Land Use agriculture, forests, aggregate extraction,
residential, recreation, infrastructure,
transportation
Designations Natural Core Areas, Natural Linkage Areas,
Countryside Areas, Settlement Areas
Stakeholders Municipalities, planners, conservation
authorities, ministries, environmental non-
governmental organizations, farmers,
developers, land-owners, public
28
Legislation the Act, the Plan, Growth Plan, Niagara
Escarpment Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Provincial
Policy Statement, co-ordinated land use review
Successes Building practices, protects natural features,
funding, public awareness, land securement,
monitoring, restoration, other
Challenges Implementation, language, transitional
development, infrastructure, issues not
addressed, funding, oversight, development
approval, agriculture, other
Proposed changes to the Plan Introduction, aligning plans, definitions,
agriculture, urban development, climate
change, infrastructure, endangered species,
hydrological features, excess soil and fill,
Settlement Area expansion, Growth Plan,
other
Recommendations/Suggestions Boundary line, flexibility, language, buffer
zone, sunset clause, tools, funding, oversight
The round-table discussions attracted a variety of participants with various perspectives and
backgrounds, such as those from the agricultural sector, local residents, developers, members of
conservation authorities, and municipal and ministry employees. The discussions allowed for a
variety of perspectives and concerns to be voiced, which provided insights into the experiences,
opinions, and suggestions of stakeholders. Attendance at the regional town hall meetings also
allowed for the identification of key stakeholders and personal connections to be made with
potential interview participants for this research.
Additionally I also participated by telephone in two virtual town hall meeting hosted by the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; one in the spring of 2015, and one in January 2016.
These telephone meetings allowed individuals to listen to a variety of questions from stakeholders,
29
such as local residents, and a panel of experts and ministry employees provided answers and
discussed issues related to the Ontario Greenbelt Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review. The
meetings shared insights to specific questions about the review and the Plan which were addressed
by individuals actively involved in the review, and provided a means of identifying key questions
that stakeholders had about the review and about the four land use plans. A similar process of note
taking, transcription, and coding were used during the virtual town hall meetings. The themes used
to code the transcripts were the same as the themes discussed during the Co-ordinated Land Use
Planning Review Regional Town Hall Meetings.
Twelve regional public open houses were also held by the provincial government after the
proposed changes to the four land use plans had been released to provide the public with
information and answer questions regarding the proposed changes to the plans. The open houses
were held from May 2016 to July 2016 in municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Information regarding the proposed changes to the plans and representatives from a variety of
related ministries were available to answer questions from the public. I attended three public open
houses located in the City of Vaughan, the City of Barrie, and the City of Toronto. These open
houses were attended due to the variety of perspectives available and their close proximity to the
researcher.
During the open houses I spoke with many open house participants from a range of perspectives
such as the agricultural sector, local residents, developers, ENGOs, and graduate students. I also
had many discussions with members of various ministries, such as the Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs; the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change; and the Ministry
of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Notes were taken during conversations and were transcribed
and coded using NVivo with the themes identified from the regional town hall meetings.
3.2.2 Interviews
To determine the successes and challenges in implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan, interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. Interview participants were identified
through a variety of methods using a purposive and snowball technique. In addition to interview
participants identified through the Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review Regional Town Hall
Meetings, additional participants came from various environmentally related workshops attended
in the spring and summer of 2015, and previous connections with ministry employees or
30
individuals in related fields or organizations. Organization and municipal websites were also used
to identify appropriate interview participants in related fields and organizations, and further
direction or introductions were made to other appropriate interview participants, once identified.
Potential interview participants were contacted through a combination of email and phone to
arrange interviews. Interviews were recorded with the permission of the interview participant, and
were conducted either in-person or by telephone. Interview participants were given the option of
being anonymous, or being identified by name, organization, or job title, or any combination they
deemed appropriate. Interview participants were provided a letter of information and gave
informed consent.
In total, semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-one participants. All interview
participants either worked in, or were in some way connected to or knowledgeable about the
Moraine and the issues faced in protection and/or planning. Interview participants ranged from the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), municipal planners, conservation
authorities, and ENGOs (Table 3.2). MMAH was interviewed due to their role as the governing
body responsible for creating and overseeing the implementation of the Plan, as well as conducting
the Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review. Municipal planners were interviewed due to their
role in ensuring development within their municipality complies with the Plan. Conservation
authorities supervise a significant amount of land within the Moraine across several municipalities,
engage in monitoring efforts within the Moraine, and oversee the natural environment to ensure
activities will not have adverse negative effects on the Moraine and water resources. ENGOs and
grassroots organizations play a large role in advocating for environmental protection, monitoring
efforts, research within the Moraine, and occasionally assist in land transactions for environmental
protection. The range of participants allowed for a variety of perspectives and knowledge to be
included in this research.
Table 3.2
Interview participants represented the following fields and organizations:
Participant Field Participant Organization
Government The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
31
Richmond Hill Planning and Regulatory Services
Department
Municipality of Clarington Development Services
Town of Caledon – Planning
Conservation Authorities Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Environmental Non-
Governmental Organizations
EcoSpark
Ontario Nature
Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force
Orland Conservation
Other 11 individuals employed by stakeholder organizations who
were speaking as individuals rather than official
representatives of their organizations. Participants were
from the fields of planning, ecology, and environmental
conservation.
Several organizations and individuals were contacted although chose not to participate in this
research. These included representatives from the agricultural sector (both private enterprises and
public organizations); residential housing developers; and several NGOs, conservation authorities,
and municipalities within the Oak Ridges Moraine jurisdiction. Additionally, no individuals from
upper-tier municipalities or the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation were interviewed in this
research.
The interviews were in-depth, ranging in length from twenty minutes to three hours, with the
average interview being approximately one hour in length. The interview guides and informed
consent forms were emailed to interview participants prior to the interview for their convenience
and preparation.
32
Through the interviews, participants provided information pertaining to development,
conservation, the benefits and successes of the Plan, potential negatives and challenges of
implementing the Plan, and recommendations to improve the Plan upon the 2015 review. Changes
in land use and land cover since the establishment of the Plan in 2002 to 2014 were also discussed
(See Appendix A & B ).
Two interview guides were used: one for interview participants who worked in government, and a
second for other interview participants (i.e., conservation authorities, non-governmental
organizations, and other individuals). The semi-structured format allowed for discussion of
additional questions that arose during the interview, or further exploration into a particular topic.
It also allowed the interview participant to expand on an area they were knowledgeable about, or
had strong views on. If an interview participant did not have sufficient time to speak during the
interview, then the questions that were considered more significant were asked first.
Interviews were recorded, with permission by the participant, and transcribed and coded using
NVivo. The themes used to code interviews were the same used to code the regional town hall
meetings, as outlined in Table 3.1.
If required, interview participants were contacted again, following the interview, to clarify their
comments. Some participants were also sent notes regarding their comments and quotations that
they provided during their interviews to confirm their use in this research.
Follow-up interviews were conducted with ten interview participants following the published
proposed changes to the Plan in the spring and summer of 2016. The follow-up interviews took
approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Participants were asked to provide their perspective regarding the
proposed changes to the Plan. Interview participants were from a range of fields: municipalities,
conservation authorities, and ENGOs. Again, the interviews were recorded with permission,
transcribed, and coded using NVivo with the same coding themes used in the original interviews.
3.2.3 Questionnaire
Finally, written questionnaires were also provided to select interview participants, who were
chosen based on their knowledge and ability to complete the questionnaire, as well as the amount
of time they had available. The questionnaire took approximately ten to thirty minutes to complete.
33
It was provided prior to the interview, and was typically completed at the end of the interview in
person or by telephone with the assistance of the interviewer. (See Appendix C.)
The questionnaire primarily focused on identifying significant changes in outlined land uses or
land cover within either a specific municipality, or within the Natural Core Areas and Natural
Linkage Areas across the entire Moraine. The questionnaire aimed to develop a qualitative
assessment of the amount, location, and description of changes in land use and land cover that had
occurred within the Natural Core and Natural Linkage Areas from 2002, when the Plan was
created, to 2014, before the Co-ordinated Land Use Review began. It focused primarily on
identifying significant changes in land use and land cover such as transportation; infrastructure;
industry or commercial; resource extraction; residential; agriculture; forestry; major outdoor
recreational areas; parks; linear utilities; wetlands; groundwater; Natural Heritage and
Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and Other, to name a few.
****
These qualitative research methods in combination provide a systematic exploration and
assessment of the Plan’s implementation, to gain a better understanding of the type and extent of
development within the study area; ways that the Plan has and has not supported protection of the
Moraine; and consider how well the proposed changes are addressing existing stakeholder
concerns.
34
Chapter 4 Successes in Implementing the Plan
Successes in Implementing the Plan
Through regional town hall meetings, interviews, and examining legislative documents, the
successes associated with implementing the Plan are highlighted below. Overall, the Plan is seen
as effective at protecting the Moraine from urban development. Specifically, the Plan helps to
modify building practices and reduce urban sprawl, protect key natural heritage features, and raise
awareness about protection of the Moraine.
4.1 Modifies Building Practices and Reduces Urban Sprawl
One of the major benefits of the Plan is that it has helped to reduce urban sprawl, one of the greatest
threats to the Moraine. It has done this by creating the four land use designations in the Moraine,
which dictate what forms of development and land use can occur in each area. The Settlement
Area is where settlement can take place; the Countryside Area is where agriculture is permitted to
occur; the Natural Linkage Area acts as a buffer between the Countryside Area and Natural Core
Area, and helps protect streams and rivers; and finally, the Natural Core Area is where no new
development can occur to protect the most environmentally sensitive areas of the Moraine.
The Plan has also helped to modify building practices in three ways: (1) it set limits on the
Settlement Area and directs where development can occur; (2) it dictates acceptable and
unacceptable actions and building practices in the Moraine; and (3) it reduces large estate
residential development.
4.1.1 Set the Limits for Settlement Areas
One of the more effective ways that the Plan helps to reduce urban sprawl is by restricting the
boundaries on Settlement Areas, which limits residential development in Countryside Areas and
other parts of the Moraine. It was emphasized by many interview participants that the Plan was
effective in defining where residential development could occur, which helped to protect the
Moraine’s environmental integrity and agricultural areas. Interview participants in the area of
35
environmental conservation and planning, in particular, were very supportive of the Plan’s ability
to limit urban development to the Settlement Areas.
One planner stated that: “It restricted development and it set the clarification of where the
Settlement Area would be.” Another planner stated that the Plan “clarified expectations” and “set
the limit for the Settlement Area.” This sentiment was echoed by a Town of Richmond Hill
interview participant: “I think it’s really been a good thing for Richmond Hill in terms of really
defining our urban structure.”
Interview participants from environmental conservation organizations emphasized the benefits of
the Plan at protecting the Moraine as a whole from urban sprawl. As Josh Wise from Ontario
Nature stated: “The Plan has done a ton, as I’m sure your research has shown, in terms of curbing
sprawl, stopping inappropriate development.” Another interview participant from an
environmental conservation planning perspective stated: “I’ve noticed definitely there’s the curb
of urban sprawl. You’re not getting that expansion into the area so I think it’s been really effective
at protecting that area where we get all of our water from basically.” – Leah Stephens, Planner.
Susan Lloyd Swail supported this idea by stating that: “It’s limited growth. The Plan has had a big
impact on stopping sprawl.”
When talking about the benefits of the Plan, Noah Gaetz from the TRCA stated that “the major
one [benefit] is first restricting growth in terms of urban development. And then focusing it in
particular areas is probably the biggest benefit.”
Because the majority of interview participants from planning and environmental conservation
organizations felt that the Plan was very effective at directing urban growth to Settlement Areas
and reducing urban sprawl, it appears the Plan is helping to meet a key goal of protecting the
Moraine from urban development.
4.1.2 Designates Acceptable and Unacceptable Actions
In addition to setting limits to Settlement Areas, the Plan dictates what activities are acceptable
and allowed within each land use designation. The clarity provided in the Plan allows
municipalities, planners, and conservation authorities the ability to more easily state what activities
are and are not allowed, which has potentially reduced conflicts with land owners or developers.
36
One interview participant stated: “One of the successes [of the Plan] is that there’s clarity provided,
in terms of what you can and cannot do in terms of land use policies on the Moraine, it’s restricted
some areas what you can and cannot do.” – Interview participant, Planner
This sentiment was echoed by another interview participant: “I would say in Richmond Hill it
clarified exactly what was possible, sort of through the middle stretch of our municipality.” –
Interview participant, Town of Richmond Hill
More specifically, one municipal planner spoke about the effect of it being a provincial plan:
“What the real benefit of the Plan is that it gives us, the municipality, the powers to ensure a higher degree of environmental protection. So you know when we implemented that Plan through an official plan amendment and through zoning by-law amendment, which was not appealable so we were able to zone the lands appropriately and protect the relevant natural heritage in environmentally sensitive features appropriately...that it’s actually not permitted as part of the Provincial Plan, so it essentially gives us more strength than we had in the past and that’s the major benefit.” – Interview participant, Planner, Municipality in the Moraine
Many interview participants commented that one of the major benefits of the Plan was that it
helped “put an end to the disputes that were at the board [OMB] at the time”- Interview participant,
Planner. Since the Plan clearly states which activities are acceptable and unacceptable within each
land use designation, issues and appeals are more often settled outside of the OMB2a. This means
that fewer hearings go to the OMB, and any hearings that do make it to the board are more easily
determined. As an interview participant stated: “...having the provincial Plan there is an added
regulatory level. When you get to the OMB that can’t be challenged.” – Interview participant,
Town of Richmond Hill
The Plan also gave the municipalities more power to enforce environmental protection through
legislative means. For example, since the Plan outlines which activities are not allowed within
Natural Core or Natural Linkage Areas, if an issue is taken to an OMB hearing, planners can easily
refer to the Plan to justify and support their stance regarding the issue.
According to some interview participants, the number of issues and appeals currently going to the
OMB is quite low. In fact, many interview participants said that they had not participated in any,
or very few, land use appeals or OMB hearings. For example, when asked by the interviewer “Has
your municipality been involved in any appeals regarding land use change or development within
37
the Moraine?” one interview participant from the Town of Caledon stated “Not that I’m aware of,
no.” - Lauren Kubilis, Town of Caledon
Within the Municipality of Clarington there was only one appeal within the Moraine.
“We had one appeal, but it was about an aggregate operation, and it didn’t actually affect the Natural Core or Natural Linkage Areas. It was more about often times the appeals you get on aggregate operations are about how people feel about them anyways, it wasn’t really about the Oak Ridges Moraine.” – Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects, Planning Services Department, Municipality of Clarington
While the majority of planners interviewed indicated that the Plan has helped to reduce the number
of appeals heard at the OMB, some environmental organization interview participants felt that
developers were still trying to circumvent the Plan by filing appeals with the OMB. For example,
Robert Orland, President of Orland Conservation stated:
“The developers have deeper pockets so they can work a lot faster than us if they need to. They have their own issues of trying to circumvent things if they can, or make an appeal that is going to be heard by the OMB, to the point where they get awarded their development in some fashion.”
During the regional town hall meetings, many participants had very negative views towards the
OMB. When raised in discussion, the majority of town hall participants felt that the OMB approved
all issues that were taken to it. Many town hall participants also felt that the municipalities should
have more control over the planning applications than the OMB, since the individual
municipalities knew more about the location and the issues it faced.
Despite some perceived negatives regarding the OMB, the Plan is largely considered to have
helped to reduce urban sprawl by dictating acceptable and unacceptable building practices, which
has helped to reduce urban sprawl in the Moraine and protect environmentally sensitive areas.
4.1.3 Reduces Large Estate Residential Development
In the 1990s and 2000s, many low density, estate residential developments occurred in rural areas
surrounding in the Moraine. This form of development is often considered to perpetuate urban
sprawl since it frequently involves the conversation of rural or agricultural lands to relatively large
lots with one large estate house, translating to low population density. Estate residential
development is seen primarily as a threat to existing agricultural land and natural habitats.
38
Many interview participants stated that since the creation of the Plan, the prevalence of residential
estate development within the Moraine has been greatly reduced. Interview participants attribute
this change to the Plan, which does not allow large estate development to occur within the
Countryside Area, Natural Core Area, or Natural Linkage Area. Additionally, several interview
participants mentioned the Places to Grow legislation and ‘smart growth’ building practices, which
encourage high density residential development in Settlement Areas, has also aided in reducing
residential estate development. For example, one interview participant stated:
“General trend one is that the big [development] stuff isn’t there anymore. The pressures to do some of the crazy thousand unit lifestyle community places in the middle of nowhere, or huge estate residential developments where we’re talking 2 or 3 acre lots with really low densities putting pressures on services, that kind of stuff is dead. It’s just not happening anymore.” – John Taylor, Senior Planner, Provincial Planning Policy Branch, MMAH
Another interview participant supported this view: “It [the Plan] curbed a lot of estate
development. That, in my opinion, is a very good thing because we were always struggling with
large lot developments that didn’t have, you know, they were on wells and septics [septic systems]”
- Perry Sisson, Director, Engineering and Field Operations, CLOCA
Several interview participants, however, felt that estate residential development, and applications
for estate residential development were still occurring within the Moraine despite the Plan. For
example, Leah Stephens, a planner stated:
“I do notice that you’re getting those much larger parcels with the, I guess I could call them mansions, going up, as well as golf courses, and I guess that just deals with the terrain that’s out there, but I do notice an expansion in the number of golf courses and larger estate developments.”
Another interview participant supported this view with an example:
“In the Paul Grave area we have policy area 1, 2, 3, and 4. So those are set to establish estate residential lots, and the estate residential subdivisions, so in that sense there has been quite a few applications that have come in for someone applying for a subdivision up in that area.” - Lauren Kubilis, Town of Caledon
When discussing the general development trends in the Moraine since the creation of the Plan, one
interview participant stated: “The consequence of that [continued growth in the area] is the
conversion of agricultural land into estate residential. I’m not sure if that was the intent of the Plan,
but I see that to some extent.” – Interview participant, Senior Ecologist
39
Many interview participants, however, believe that the estate residential development that is
currently taking place on the Moraine is from transitional or grandfathered development
applications that were applied for or approved prior to the creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Act (2001), which are still allowed to occur despite their location within the Moraine.
The issue of estate development as a result of transitional or grandfathered policies and approvals
was a dominant theme in some interviews. For example, a municipal planner explained: “There
were a couple of larger lot developments and then a golf course development as well. That was
transition but we didn’t have many of that.”
When discussing estate residential development, MMAH stressed that “What little of it you see is
happening still in the Moraine are things that are grandfathered or transitions or had approvals for
years and they’re just finally slowly building out.” – John Taylor, Senior Planner, Provincial
Planning Policy Branch, MMAH
Another interview participant echoed this thought:
“We are not having estate subdivisions or things like that. It’s generally sort of contained to small scale, maybe where there’s a pre-existing lot, someone either had a building permit provision at the time or approval at the time, and now they’ve come in to build.” – Interview participant, Planner
While varied perspectives came through in the interviews, the majority emphasized that the Plan
has helped to reduce large estate residential development in rural areas, thus aiding in the
preservation of rural agricultural land and encouraging smart growth building practices.
4.2 Protects Key Natural Features
4.2.1 Added Layer of Protection
In addition to curbing urban sprawl, the Plan is largely recognized for helping to protect
environmentally sensitive areas and key natural heritage features. This was nearly universally
expressed. For example, one planner stated:
“I think there are huge successes in the Plan, in the sense that you’re protecting the habitats and the different areas of the ORMCP. It’s a landform feature, so you’re going to have habitats, diverse species, wooded areas, wetlands, so there’s a lot of areas that make up the aspects of this feature. So I think the legislation is a success in that part. I think there’s a lot of merit in preserving that.”
40
Another interview participant stated “We consider that [the Plan] to be success because it adds an
additional layer of protection around it [the Moraine].” – Joyce Chau, Executive Director,
EcoSpark
Several interview participants stated that without the Plan, their municipality would have much
more residential housing with very little greenspace preserved. An interview participant from the
Town of Richmond Hill emphasized the benefits of the Plan, stating that “The Moraine Plan has
done quite a lot of good for Richmond Hill in terms of maintaining that large green swath through
the middle over the most significant portion of the Moraine.” – Interview participant, Town of
Richmond Hill
4.2.2 Creates Buffer Zones
The Plan has several approaches to aid in protecting key natural heritage features of the Moraine.
Part III, Protecting Ecological and Hydrological Integrity, Section 30, Landform Conservation
Areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan dictates planning requirements for protecting
environmentally sensitive areas (MMAH, 2002). As illustrated in interviews, this section of the
Plan has helped by requiring a Minimum Area of Influence and a Minimum Vegetation Protection
Zone, commonly referred to as a “buffer”, around environmentally sensitive features such as key
natural heritage features, hydrologically sensitive features, and Areas of Natural and Scientific
Interest (ANSI). The Minimum Area of Influence requires “all land within 120 metres of any part
of feature”, and the Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone requires “all land within 30 metres of
any part of feature, subject to clause 23 (d) if a natural heritage evaluation is required” (MMAH,
2002). This means that a buffer of land is required around environmentally sensitive features to
protect them from development (MMAH, 2002).
Many interview participants, including those from the TRCA, praised the buffer zone as helping
to protect key natural heritage features. Several interview participants also admired the buffer zone
as something that was new at the time of the Plan’s creation, and has since become a leading
planning method to help protect environmentally sensitive features. For example, John Taylor
from MMAH stated:
“I’d like to think actually that some of the stuff in 2002 in terms of minimum buffers and vegetation protection zones and requirements for proponent to have an environmental impact study, they were novel and new then, now they’re kind of basic stuff and admittedly
41
a lot of municipalities have extended asking for that kind of stuff even off the Moraine where they’re not required to.”
In addition to preventing development within a 30 metre distance from key natural features, the
buffers are also thought to aid in restoration efforts. Noah Gaetz from the TRCA explained:
“I think the practices may have afforded a greater level of protection, and one of the reasons, quite honestly, is because of the buffers. There is more room to do additional treatment. The typical way that we deal with stormwater is we put in a pond, and we create a stormwater management pond, and the runoff from the development enters the pond, or sediment settles out, and then the cleaner water is discharged into the receiving water body, and the buffers allow, at least in some cases, that there is greater distance from the outland of the pond to the receiving stream or waterbody, which allows an additional amount of purifying the water before it enters the waterbody.”
Several interview participants stated that despite the benefits of the buffer zones, they were a
contentious topic among stakeholders, primarily because the buffer zones reduced the amount of
land available for development. As Noah Gaetz, clearly stated: “The issue of buffers is always
contentious.” One participant felt if a stakeholder was coming from a conservation or ecology
perspective, they tend to support a larger buffer, however, if a stakeholder was from a development
point of view, they might perceive buffers as reducing the amount of land available for
development.
“It’s been my experience that most people acknowledge that there’s a reason for that to be a Core Area, and we’re good with that because we don’t want to use it anyways. It’s some of the buffers that they get a little more edgy about... There are health benefits, and all sorts of other benefits that are wrapped into that because it’s a global approach. Other people would say that would be a bad thing because that would reduce land from the development potential and lead to the leapfrogging we talked about”- Interview participant, Senior Ecologist
The specific amount of land required for buffers was a common discussion topic among many
interview participants. It was highlighted in the interviews that the 30 metre minimum requirement
was a somewhat arbitrary number selected without any scientific justification. Senior ecologist,
Dale Leadbeater stated:
“The interesting thing about them [buffers] is that because of the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Greenbelt Plan, and the requirement for 30 metre Vegetation Protection Zone, a lot of conservation authorities have picked it up as their policy. There’s no scientific rational for that. It’s just a number. It’s a very nice number, but it’s just a number.”
42
Some interview participants, such as the TRCA, felt that the 30 metre buffer, while intended as a
minimum, was used as the standard amount of buffer land and not the minimum. They advocated
for a potentially larger buffer zone, where a reduced distance would be allowed if proponents could
justify environmentally that a smaller buffer zone was appropriate. This would put the
responsibility on the proponent, and would encourage larger buffer zones than 30 metres to be
used in standard building practice.
Noah Gaetz stated: “The Moraine, like almost every plan that uses buffers, and plans a minimum buffer, and then something larger than that if it’s warranted, but the way that our system works, it’s always the minimum, it’s always deferred back to the minimum, which makes it very difficult to achieve anything larger than that, even if it is warranted.”
Interviewer: Are you suggesting to make the buffers larger?
Noah Gaetz: “I would say potentially, or at least having a [larger] starting point. Putting the onus on having a larger buffer and having the ability to potentially reduce that down to a minimum instead of doing what happens now, which is starting at a minimum and then trying to build that out if there’s justification for that.”
Some municipalities are actually currently using larger buffers than the minimum requirement of
30 metres. For example, Lauren Kubilis from the Town of Caledon stated that: “We do a 90 metre
buffer off of the actual plans, so it is not just the actual Oak Ridges Moraine Plan that we enforce
for site plans, it is 90 metres off that buffer.”
Conversely, it was determined through interviews that a 30 metre buffer was not always
implemented around key natural heritage features if a secondary plan had been completed for a
natural feature prior to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. For example, in the Town of
Richmond Hill, one interview participant stated:
“I know one of the things that we’ve had a challenge with was in the Settlement Areas is maintaining that 30 metre buffer in all instances. The way that we read the Moraine Plan, there’s sort of like an out clause if a secondary plan was completed in an environment first way, and there was either a Master of Environmental Servicing Plan, or Functional Servicing Plan that looked at a little bit in more detail at the applicable buffers for the particular features within that secondary planning area, and found that less of a buffer was okay in the sort of the history of that feature or what have you. I know that’s one thing that in Richmond Hill that in the Settlement Area that in a lot of instances that we don’t maintain the 30 metre buffer because we had completed secondary plans before the Moraine Plan was passed, that were environment first for their time in the 90s.”
43
4.3 Raises Awareness and Protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine
4.3.1 Funding
The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation (the “foundation”) was created in 2002 by the Provincial
Government to oversee the protection and allotment of funds for the Moraine (Environmental
Commissioner of Ontario, 2011). In 2002, the Ontario Provincial Government gave the foundation
$15 million (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2011). The foundation has raised an
additional $36 million dollars for its cause (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2011). These
are the two primary sources of funding to support the Moraine. The foundation has utilized more
than $50 million to protect the Moraine through 177 projects since 2002 (Oak Ridges Moraine
Foundation, n.d.a). This was primarily through the securement and stewardship of land in the
Moraine, education, research, and the creation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Trail (Oak Ridges
Moraine Foundation, n.d.a).
Funding is an important benefit of the Plan since the creation of the foundation and the funds
provided by the government and raised by ENGOs allow for many programs to take place within
the Moraine that support its protection. Land securement, education and public awareness, and
monitoring efforts would not be possible in the Moraine without funding, and the creation of the
Plan helped solidify the requirement for funding for the protection of the Moraine.
One interview participant focused on conservation and protection efforts in the Moraine that have
occurred as a result of the funding. Debbe Crandall stated:
“All of the different kinds of efforts from land securement to specific research projects to restoration projects to working with farmers to develop environmental farm plans, tree planting, trail building, just huge. 15 million dollars was spent [from the government] and it leveraged an additional 39 for a total of 54 million dollars worth of money and investments were made in primary Core and Linkage Areas in the Moraine so it’s been a huge effort.”
The link between the creation of the Plan and the resulting funding to protect the Moraine was not
a commonly discussed topic during the interviews or regional town hall meetings. Actually, it was
often mentioned that more funding is required, as discussed in section 5.6 of this research.
44
4.3.2 Public Awareness and Support
The creation of the Plan has led to increased public awareness and support for the protection of
the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Act came into effect due to the public outcry and grassroots efforts
to protect the Moraine, demonstrating the power that the public can have in community affairs and
environmental protection. Since 2002, the foundation and ENGOs have made significant
contributions to education and public awareness regarding the Moraine (Oak Ridges Moraine
Foundation, n.d.b), which has helped to educate the public about the importance of the Moraine,
and the significant role that it plays in filtering water and providing habitats. As one interview
participant stated “The attention that it’s [the Plan] brought to the public at large to the importance
of the Moraine and the other features of the landscape, I think has also been a really great benefit.”
– Noah Gaetz, Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Research & Development Section, TRCA
Another interview participant supported this, stating:
“The successes of it [the Plan] would be the Plan itself, having it recognize the Oak Ridges Moraine as a special place and having the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation established and doing the work that it did in terms of education, monitoring and research.” - Joyce Chau, Executive Director, EcoSpark
The public plays a vital role in protecting the Moraine, and the Plan has helped to demonstrate and
solidify the importance of the Moraine, further promoting its protection.
“There’s a lot of good work that’s gone on in the last decade or so with the Oak Ridges Moraine people, so a lot of private land stewardship programs. It’s kind of died off because the funding’s not the way it used to be anymore, so it’s not maybe as big a deal as it used to be.” - Perry Sisson, Director, Engineering and Field Operations, CLOCA
4.3.3 Securement of Land and Stewardship
The securement of land refers to purchasing land for its protection so that it cannot be built upon
in the future (Logan & Wekerle, 2008). Conservation authorities and municipalities will often
work together with ENGOs to purchase environmentally sensitive land or land with many key
natural heritage features in the Moraine. Typically funding is required to enable the securement of
land and secured lands will become part of a park or preserve to prevent its development in the
future.
45
Several interview participants mentioned that the securement of land was a significant benefit of
the creation of the Plan. In addition to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, conservation
authorities, many municipalities, and land trusts have also participated in land procurement and
securement.
One participant who is directly involved with land securement said:
“[we are] realizing that policy, albeit very important and very good, needs to be complimented by land securement... And that can be through donation, could be through conservation easement agreements, or it can be through purchase...We’ve certainly done quite a bit in certain pockets of it and prior to starting Orland Conservation I worked with the Nature Conservancy of Canada and did a lot of work securing land on the Oak Ridges Moraine there.” - Robert Orland, President, Orland Conservation
Another interview participant stated that the Plan has “helped people or conservation authorities
or other organizations to identify areas to prioritize or looking at things like stewardship or
restoration projects or even land acquisition. I think it could be strengthened, but it’s been a start.”
- Leah Stephens, Planner
Perry Sisson from CLOCA stated: “A lot of the land we buy, we buy because it’s already sensitive,
so a lot of it doesn’t need restoration, just needs passive management.”
Robert Orland, who is very involved in land securement voiced his concerns that if public demand
in the future shifts to a more development-oriented direction rather than preservation of the
Moraine, the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and Plan could lose its strength. He stated:
“Not too many people are thinking 50 years or 100 years out and when we have 7 billion population on the planet, Toronto being a big destination for a lot of immigration, there’s going to be a desire at some point to start building out again, and you never know the politicians of that day might say ‘well, there’s that greenbelt we protected, now that’s some vacant space, maybe we should relook at opening that up and yes some of that’s Oak Ridges Moraine, but our demands now exceed the need to protect the environment.’ People can make that justification, and if they have enough power and support behind them the Oak Ridges Moraine Act can be snuffed out.” – Robert Orland, President, Orland Conservation
Despite reduced funding for land securement, it is seen by many to be one of the most effective
ways to protect the Moraine from urban development now and into the future.
46
4.3.4 Monitoring
The Plan requires overseeing the health of the Moraine through performance indicators and
monitoring. In the Implementation section of the Plan, under Provisional Obligations and
Technical Support, Section C states “The Ontario government, in partnership with municipalities,
conservation authorities and other appropriate stakeholders, shall develop and maintain a data
management system to collect, store, update and share natural heritage, water resources and
geotechnical information needed to interpret, apply and monitor the policies of the Plan.” (MMAH,
2002).
The creation of the Plan has led to increased monitoring efforts within the Moraine. The Oak
Ridges Moraine Foundation, conservation authorities, land trusts, and many ENGOs have taken
part in various monitoring efforts to evaluate the ecological integrity of the Moraine. Interview
participants discussed the importance of monitoring to help ensure its success at protecting the
Moraine. For example, John Taylor from MMAH stated: “Both the Plans [Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan] require us to do monitoring. We’ve spent the past 10
or 12 years trying to figure out the best way to do that.”
Monitoring can be an effective tool to help justify the continued protection of the Moraine.
Gathered data can be used to demonstrate the Moraine’s importance and need for protection.
Robert Orland, the President of Orland Conservation stated: “Monitoring doesn’t protect,
monitoring helps to provide data to justify protection.”
Some interview participants spoke to the importance of monitoring efforts in the Moraine to ensure
the effectiveness of the Plan at protecting the Moraine. For example, Susan Lloyd Swail explained:
“You can’t know if you’re getting anywhere if you’re not measuring it. The point of the Plan is to
enhance and improve ecological integrity, so if we don’t know if that’s happening, then we can’t
determine the effectiveness of the Plan.”
Other interview participants, however, felt that the emphasis should be put on mitigating the
potential negative impacts of projects, and that if the effects were mitigated in the beginning then
monitoring was not required. For example, Dale Leadbeater, a senior ecologist stated:
“We take the position that through the preparation of natural heritage evaluation that you want to recommend mitigation at the time of development that will mitigate any impacts
47
that you might identify at the time, and then there’s not any need for monitoring. The problem with monitoring is that it’s very expensive. No one wants to pay for that. It’s really not a good method to implement, so unless what you’re doing is under the purview of maybe the Endangered Species Act, there’s no trigger to have monitoring or provide those data to any agency.”
The Plan has, however, helped to encourage monitoring efforts in the Moraine. Several ENGOs
and conservation authorities participate in monitoring programs in the Moraine and surrounding
area. For example when discussing some of the EcoSpark monitoring programs, Joyce Chau stated:
“One of the flagship programs of EcoSpark is our benchmark monitoring program, where we use BMIs which are Benthic Macroinvertebrates as an indicator of water quality, and these are the same indicators that conservation authorities use to monitor the water quality of their watersheds.”
Conservation authorities monitor the ecological health of the Moraine, however their programs are
not specific to the Moraine, and tend to monitor their entire jurisdiction as a whole. These
monitoring efforts, however, contribute to monitoring the ecological integrity of the Moraine, and
are supported in part by the Plan.
When asked if the TRCA conducts any monitoring programs in the Moraine, Noah Gaetz stated:
“We do, although I’m not aware of any that are specific to the Moraine, but we do have a regional monitoring program that looks at a whole wide range of different ecological parameters. Everything from water quality, aquatic, ecosystem health, terrestrial health. And we have what we call fixed blocks and fixed monitoring stations, where we go back year upon year to look at trends in ecological health, and those are scattered throughout our entire jurisdiction with many of them on the Moraine. And so we certainly can look at the health of the Moraine, but we tend to take a more comprehensive look at the health of our entire jurisdiction.” - Noah Gaetz, Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Research & Development Section, TRCA
Joyce Chau, Executive Director of EcoSpark further explained that “it is by no means a
comprehensive ecological health report, and that work really should be done by the province
because it’s a policy in the Plan.”
Monitoring the ecological health of the Moraine can be a challenging topic due to resources,
however it is considered by many interview participants to be a necessary step in ensuring the
Moraine’s protection. While the conservation authorities tend to conduct various monitoring
programs throughout their jurisdictions, the Plan has helped to ensure that additional monitoring
efforts are called for in the Moraine.
48
4.3.5 Restoration
In addition to monitoring efforts, the Plan has helped to increase restoration programs in the
Moraine. When conducting natural heritage and hydrological evaluations, or development in close
proximity to areas of natural and scientific interest, the Plan specifies that restoration of vegetation
must occur (MMAH, 2002). Many of the conservation authorities discussed the efforts their
organizations were taking to support restoration in the Moraine. Perry Sisson described CLOCA’s
restoration efforts: “There is property though, for example this year we planted 44,000 trees on
Moraine property, so that’s converting kind of marginal farmland into forest cover. Other lands
we’re hoping to remove it from invasive [species].”
The TRCA also participates in restoration programs in the Moraine, and in the larger area as a
whole by:
“Either directing where restoration should occur that the proponent implements or actually going up and doing the work ourselves. And we’re actually in the process right now of trying to standardize that whole process to make sure that it’s only happening in extreme cases, but when it is required that we’re putting some rigor to it, make sure that we are restoring a lot of the system services and functions the best that we can.” – Noah Gaetz, Senior Terrestrial Ecologist, Research & Development Section, TRCA
Overall, the Plan has helped to support monitoring and restoration programs in the Moraine. While
many conservation authorities do not provide specific programs for the Moraine, their broader
monitoring and restoration efforts continue to aid in its protection. The Plan also demonstrates the
continued need for monitoring and restoration to help preserve and rehabilitate this ecologically
sensitive area.
49
Chapter 5 Challenges in Implementing the Plan
Challenges in Implementing the Plan
5.1 Implementation of the Plan
There are some challenges associated with the implementation of the Plan that arose from the
interviews and regional town hall meetings. These challenges can make it more difficult for
municipalities, conservation authorities, and planners to appropriately implement the Plan, and
ultimately protect the Moraine. The main challenges that have arisen in the implementation of the
Plan are: inconsistencies in implementation among municipalities across the Moraine; boundary
lines on the ground; studies and appeals siding with developers; and finally, other land use planning
legislation.
5.1.1 Inconsistent Implementation of the Plan Among Municipalities
The Moraine covers a large area of land, and spans 32 municipalities (Oak Ridges Moraine Land
Trust, n.d.a). While the Plan establishes practices that are and are not allowed within the Moraine,
each municipality is responsible for adapting their Official Plan to meet the requirements of the
Plan. As such, there are various minor differences in how the Plan is implemented among the
municipalities, which can potentially lead to inconsistent implementation across the entire
Moraine.
Several interview participants, primarily those from conservation authorities who oversee several
municipalities, noted this issue. One interview participant from a conservation authority explained
that in the implementation of the Plan “some municipalities take it to heart, but others don’t. They
can disregard it. Implementation is inconsistent with planners based on time periods, like shifts in
councils, and municipalities.” Interview participants from the TRCA also felt that some
municipalities took longer than they should have to update their municipal official plans to comply
with the Plan and believed that any changes that are made as a result of the review should be made
more quickly than in the past: “For the next round of updates, conformity should be done in a
timely manner.” – Interview participant, TRCA
50
Inconsistent implementation of the Plan across the Moraine among municipalities may be caused,
in part, by uncertainty in how to properly implement the Plan. Some interview participants such
as planners, conservation authorities, and ENGOs stated that they had either experienced firsthand
or witnessed others who were uncertain as to how to best handle specific issues in implementing
the Plan. Joyce Chau from EcoSpark noted: “There’s also a lack of provincial support on how to
implement, and so some municipalities are inconsistently interpreting and implementing policies.
So there could be more of a leadership role for the province in pulling best practices together in
one of the planners.”
On the other hand, when municipalities experience uncertainty or have questions regarding how
to best implement the Plan, they contact either the provincial government, conservation authorities,
or other municipalities to determine a way forward. An interview participant from the Town of
Richmond Hill explained:
“When we’ve run into situations that we haven’t dealt with before on the Moraine, we can phone another municipality that may have dealt with that instance and ask them how they worked through it. We also have the ability to phone the province directly because it is their plan. I’d say that’s a benefit just in terms of making sure things are done consistently for that larger environmental feature, which is the Moraine.”
While the above interview participant considers calling other municipalities an effective method
of clarification, the interview participants from the TRCA feel that there could be a better system
in place. For example, creating a database listing possible situations that might arise in
implementing the Plan, and a list of recommended best practices to help deal with this situation to
increase consistent implementation of the Plan across the Moraine.
The issue of inconsistent implementation was not expressed by all. One interview participant feels
that the Plan has helped municipalities ensure consistency: “I’d say a big benefit of it [the Plan] is
that things are being done a certain way across various regions. So it’s not just Richmond Hill that
is planning in this way on our portion of the Moraine; it’s more of a larger scale regional imitative.”
– Interview Participant, Town of Richmond Hill
5.1.2 Boundary Lines
There has been debate regarding the boundary lines of the Moraine. Some interview participants
feel that the boundary lines are somewhat inconsistent with the topography and geological features
51
of the Moraine. Some also feel that these inconsistent boundary lines cause challenges in
implementing the Plan.
Several interview participants felt additional land should be added to the Moraine based on its
topography and geological makeup. For example, Perry Sisson from CLOCA stated:
“The boundary, from what I understand, is pretty much is the elevation they mapped and the contour in the landscape. So they’ve kind of said anything above this elevation is Moraine...If you go out and drive around you can see places that are obviously Moraine to me, just by its topography and soils and things, but it might just be off the Moraine, and vice versa. So the boundary is interesting.” – Perry Sisson, Director, Engineering and Field Operations, CLOCA
Another interview participant supported the view that the original drawing of the Moraine’s
boundary lines was ‘crude’:
“Certainly the original mapping of Natural Core Areas was very crude. It was done at a very small scale, and when you start looking at it larger scale it was obvious that lands were included within Core Areas that made no sense. And the Plan allows for realignment, but those realignments are by and large, fairly insubstantial from my experience. They’re very small. The matter of a couple of acers here and a couple of acres there.” – Dale Leadbeater, Senior Ecologist
Interview participants felt that the inconsistent boundary lines of the Moraine made it more
challenging to implement the Plan on the ground since it was hard to distinguish land that was part
of the Moraine, and land that was not. Faye Langmaid, a planner from the Municipality of
Clarington explained: “The other challenge that we have is the actual implementation based on a
topographic line that doesn’t actually exist out there in reality. And the topographic line may not
actually represent the edge of the geographical formation either, because we don’t really know
exactly where that is.”
The boundary lines of the Moraine have been challenging to enforce due to initially being mapped
at a broad scale, and a lack of physical boundary lines drawn on the land to distinguish land inside
and outside the Moraine designation, making it challenging to know exactly where to implement
the Plan on the ground.
52
5.1.3 Assessments and Appeals Tend to Side with Developers
An Environmental Impact Study is required when developing or building in locations outside of
Settlement Areas or when located in close proximity to a natural heritage feature. The studies are
undertaken to determine the anticipated effects of the development on the Moraine and whether
the development can occur despite being within the Moraine. While Environmental Impact Studies
are a protective measure of the Plan, some interview participants felt that they were very often in
favour of the developer or land owner, and rarely denied the development application, most likely
because the developer or land owner retains the individuals or organizations who complete the
Environmental Impact Studies.
These perspectives are voiced very clearly by one interview participant.
“Some would say that it’s good that they [Environmental Impact Studies] have to be done, but I’ve never seen an Environmental Impact Study that has a negative outcome like ‘oh, we don’t recommend development,’ or ‘we don’t recommend this or that’. Environmental Impact Studies are… the proponent, whoever wants to do the development hires a person to write this Environmental Impact Study so, you know, they’re supposed to be objective, but I’ve never seen one where the proponent has hired the person that says ‘we don’t recommend the development’. There’s always a way that they will say it’s fine.” - Carmela Marshall, Director, Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force
Additionally, Environmental Impact Studies are intended to be completed by skilled and trained
individuals who have a strong background in environmental issues. This interview participant,
Carmella Marshall from Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force, stated that Environmental Impact
Studies are often completed by individuals she does not believe are qualified. She also feels that
there is no accountability, and that those who complete Environmental Impact Studies are not held
accountable for their decisions since they do not belong to a regulated profession. Carmela
Marshall explained:
“They aren’t professional engineers or professional geoscientists that are held accountable to a provincial act, so they don’t really have a governing body...but you can’t really, like the equivalent of a professional engineer, take them to their board and say this person has been either willfully or not, been negligent somehow.” - Carmela Marshall, Director, Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force
To help ensure decisions are made in a method that is fair to developers while considering the
environment, Carmela Marshall recommends having municipalities and conservation authorities
review the findings of Environmental Impact Studies to determine their validity. She also
53
suggested that “municipalities, conservation authorities shouldn’t just accept them [Environmental
Impact Studies] the way they are, they should be peer reviewing them...I have personally found
that very big mistakes have been made in those studies. You know where calculations aren’t done
properly.” - Carmela Marshall, Director, Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force
The conversation authorities interviewed, however, said they are involved in reviewing the
processes and the approval of development after Environmental Impact Studies: “If there’s an
Environmental Impact Study required then generally we’re involved in reviewing that.” - Perry
Sisson, Director, Engineering and Field Operations, CLOCA. While the conservation authorities
may review the Environmental Impact Studies, however, there still may be more studies that are
approved than not approved, which may threaten the Moraine’s protection.
Participants at the regional town hall meetings also felt that approval applications and
environmental assessments tended to favour developers, particularly in hearings at the OMB.
Several participants at regional town hall meetings were very vocal about their annoyance with the
number of hearings that went to and were approved by the OMB. This was a common sentiment
at the round table discussions that focused on topic 1. Protecting agricultural land, water and
natural areas.
Typically though, the conservation authorities and municipalities try to work with land owners to
satisfy their requests, while also protecting the Moraine to the best of their ability before they go
to the OMB for an appeal. For example, Perry Sisson from CLOCA stated:
“We try and work with the land owner if they’re trying to, say again, the farm wants to put up another barn. We try to give them what they want, but we may have to ask them to relocate it or change some features of it to make it fit within the requirements of the Plan. And they may have to do additional studies and things which cost them money, so, I guess those are challenges that make it a little more difficult, but it’s worthwhile.” - Perry Sisson, Director, Engineering and Field Operations, CLOCA
5.1.4 Other Land Use Planning Legislation
A challenge that many interview participants identified is having to comply with numerous pieces
of land use planning legislation. Planners and conservation authorities often have to contend with
several pieces of legislation when planning, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan,
the Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Growth Plan, municipal Official Plans, and
54
more. This can pose a challenge to planners since it involves consulting many plans to ensure the
requirements of all are met.
One interview participant expressed their frustration when working with multiple plans: “Caledon
is subject to implementing more provincial plans than any other municipality: the ORMCP, the
Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, Growth Plan, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, the
Big Move. Co-ordinating a consistent implementation of each of these plans and planning for
addition[al] ‘whitebelt’ lands in town can be limiting.” – Interview participant
Another interview participant recommended more consistency among the plans and land use
legislation to help ensure better implementation: “Consistency with other provincial plans
currently being reviewed by the province. Opportunities to streamline the Plans would assist in
municipal implementation.” – Interview participant, Planner
Many interview participants from municipalities explained that the Plan could be challenging to
implement due to pre-existing legislation, or transitional or grandfathered policies. For example,
one planner stated:
“I think that in looking at it in the last several years, its transition policies were a bit tricky to deal with, so that was a bit of a negative. We still have subdraft approved subdivisions that were approved well before the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and are still draft approved because of the transition policies.”
This sentiment was echoed by an interview participant from the Town of Richmond Hill, who
stated:
“[It] is difficult because anytime you have previous planning provisions and you’re trying to get to a new place and someone wants to hold on to the status quo, if you have those grandfathering clauses the lawyers will find them and then go to the OMB, even though you shouldn’t have to.”
5.2 Language Used and Legibility of Plan
5.2.1 Challenging to Understand and Interpret the Plan
One of the challenges in implementing the Plan is that it is written in a manner that is challenging
to understand. Virtually all interview participants from municipalities, conservation authorities,
and ENGOs indicated that the language in the Plan was difficult to understand and follow. In
particular planners who were interviewed felt very strongly that the language used in the Plan was
55
problematic. For example, Leah Stephens, a planner said: “It’s a very difficult Plan to read. It’s
not very user friendly. You can tell when it came out it was very forward thinking in environmental
legislation, but it may have had too many hands in the pot trying to write it, or I’m not sure, or
maybe rushed, but it’s not very user friendly.”
Another planner stated: “It’s very difficult to read, it’s hard for the public to understand, and it
takes a great deal of digesting it and then conveying what it means to the average public, to
someone who owns property on the Moraine.” Another planner felt that the Plan was sometimes
difficult to follow and fully comprehend, and that it has to be read in its entirety in order to confirm
ones understanding:
“– the way it’s laid out, worded, it’s very, it can be challenging at times to make sense of how the provisions play out, because it is very, it needs to be read as a whole, there’s a lot of sections that, you know, go back and forth, so you’re dealing with different nuances of situations ....” – Interview participant, Planner
When asked about recommendations to help improve the Plan, Leah Stephens, a planner stated
simply: “Reorganizing it. Making it easier to read.”
When speaking with a member from MMAH during a regional town hall meeting, the staff member
suggested that difficulties in understanding the Plan may be because the Plan is written as a
regulation rather than as a policy document. Policy documents allow for greater explanation and
examples to clarify the intent and confirm the meaning, whereas regulations are written in a manner
that is more direct.
5.2.2 Inconsistent Definitions
Another challenge in implementing the Plan that can lead to confusion is that the terminology and
definitions used in the four land use plans differ, which reduces consistency among the plans.
One interview participant from the TRCA stated: “The terminology is inconsistent between the
plans. We should have harmonization between the plans.” Another planner echoed these thoughts:
“consistency of terminology between that and some other provincial legislation makes it a little
difficult as well … there are people that will challenge some of these interpretations of the Plan
based on other legislation, which can make it a challenge to implement” – Leah Stephens, Planner.
An interview participant from the Town of Richmond Hill shared a similar view: “We suggested
56
that the province kind of, I guess, harmonize the definitions between the different plans, because
right now they’re not.”
At one of the regional town hall meetings, a ministry employee explained that the definitions in
the various land use plans may differ due to the year that they were introduced, with each using
the definitions that were common at the time.
This perspective was echoed by another interview participant:
“There are areas where you have clean water aquifers, and ORM aquifers that sort of overlap, and then as a planner, your question is, ‘Okay, which one am I most conscious of? Are they the same thing? Is there a difference here?’ It’s just that that was kind of old science, and now we have new science, and these are actually the same feature, but you’re calling them something differently because the science has kind of evolved.” – Interview participant
5.3 Transitional Development
Transitional development refers to development that was approved or submitted for approval prior
to the creation of the Plan, and is still allowed to be developed regardless of its location within the
Moraine. During the regional town hall meetings and interviews, transitional development was a
topic that was widely discussed, and several challenges were identified with its use. The first is
that it poses a threat to some environmentally sensitive areas of the Moraine. The second is that it
is very difficult to know where transitional development applications exist since there is no formal
tracking system in place. Finally, there are several methods to help manage transitional
development, such as sunset clauses or structural envelop mapping, however there are various
legal hurdles associated with adopting these.
5.3.1 Continued Development in the Moraine
At every town hall meeting attended, the issue of transitional development resulted in very vocal
discussions. Many regional town hall participants expressed frustration, stating that they are seeing
a large number of residential housing developments being built in land that was previously forested
or grassy, and they are concerned that the Plan was ineffective at stopping residential development.
When ministry employees stated that much of the development taking place is most likely
transitional development, or in Settlement Areas of the Moraine, many town hall participants
became quite exasperated about transitional development. Some viewed the transitional
57
development as a shortfall of the Plan. Others were in disbelief that it was still happening, and
some interview participants were angry it was not being stopped in some way.
The majority of interview participants felt that the development that was taking place in the
Moraine was from transitional development. Many interview participants from ENGOs voiced
their concerns. They view transitional development as posing challenges to the health of the
Moraine, since development can proceed in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Natural
Core or Natural Linkage Areas. One interview participant stated: “We remain vulnerable to
transitional applications, which are those that were started but not approved before 2002, but there
has been a fundamental shift in the way that we as a society look at the Moraine Plan, broadly.” -
Debbe Crandall
Other interview participants supported the view that transitional development is continuing to
threaten the Moraine. For example, Susan Lloyd Swail stated: “I would say it’s continuing to occur.
The municipalities had a very difficult time in managing these kinds of proposals.” This
perspective was supported by Joshua Wise from Ontario Nature: “We are definitely aware that this
is an ongoing issue.” Leah Stephens also echoed that transitional development is continuing to
occur in the Moraine: “I think [transitional development] is still going forward pretty quickly.”
Some of the planners from municipalities, conservation authorities, and the MMAH, however
indicated that the majority of transitional development applications have already been built, and
were therefore less of a concern. They do, however, acknowledge that some potential transitional
developments still exist. When asked about transitional development occurring in the Moraine,
one municipal planner highlighted that there was not a significant amount of development
occurring in his municipality. He stated: “There were a couple of larger lot developments and then
a golf course development as well. That was transition but we didn’t have many of that.”
Interview participants from conservation authorities supported the perspective that transitional
developments were slowing down. Parry Sisson from CLOCA stated: “They’re at a real premium
now because they’re starting to run out.” Noah Gaetz from TRCA stated: “There are definitely
grandfathered developments. Maybe they’re starting to diminish now.” – Noah Gaetz, Senior
Terrestrial Ecologist, Research & Development Section, TRCA
58
The majority of interview participants stated that transitional development that is now occurring
tends to be small. One planner stated:
“[We] have had some examples of that [transitional development]...Nothing in the sense of major development. We’re not having estate subdivision or things like that. It’s generally sort of contained to small scale, maybe where there’s a pre-existing lot, someone either had a building permit provision at the time or approval at that time, and now they’ve come to build.”
When discussing transitional development, John Taylor from MMAH stated that while they
recognize transitional development is perceived to be a significant problem in the Moraine, much
of it has already taken place:
“My perception of grandfathered/transitioned development is the stuff that could get built got built in the first couple of years and got grandfathered and there was a market for it and they went and did it. Are there some old dogs that are lying around all over the place? You bet ya. The likelihood most of those will ever get developed? Probably pretty low.”
While many interview participants were either against transitional development or had accepted it
as a part of the current land use planning system, two interview participants in planning discussed
the purpose of transitional development. John Taylor from MMAH stated:
“Anytime you bring in a new set of rules, or a new policy regime, you always have to have some sort of transition or grandfathering system because the planning system we have is kind of a pipeline, stuff can start at the very beginning, but sometimes it can take years for stuff to get through the approvals process and come out the other end.” - John Taylor, Senior Planner, Provincial Planning Policy Branch, MMAH
Another planner, supported the use of transitional development to aid in equality in zoning and
development. Leah Stephens stated: “Understanding the legal implications of that, so when
someone buys a property and now they’re no longer permitted to do something, I actually think
that having that transitional ability in the Plan is very important.” – Leah Stephens, Planner
An additional challenge with transitional development is that once the application has been
approved, the development format cannot be modified. This means that if a developer had approval
for a large estate residential development and wanted to modify the building plan to smaller units,
they would not have the approval to make the modification. For example, an interview participant
from the Town of Richmond Hill stated: “Lots that existed prior to the Moraine Plan coming into
59
effect and they’re just kind of locked in place, you can’t subdivide them, but you can build on
them.”
5.3.2 Tracking Transitional Development
Another challenge with transitional development is that it is very difficult to know where
transitional development approval exists within the Moraine. There is no formal cumulative
tracking system to document the number or extent of transitional development. This was expressed
by TRCA, CLOCA, MMAH, and other interview participants. Joyce Chau, the Executive Director
of EcoSpark, illustrated the challenge with tracking transitional development:
“There isn’t a good way to track these transitional applications in terms of knowing how many there are, what they’re for, where they are, so that’s a big unknown. And as we’ve come closer to the review some transitional applications have kept their heads up. There isn’t good practicing on keeping track.”
This same sentiment was echoed by several other interview participants. Debbe Crandall stated:
“transitional applications continue to be quite problematic because there’s no overall, oversight
body that knows where they are, how many there are, they pop up at the most inopportune times.”
- Debbe Crandall. Another interview participant explained that the process to track transitional
development was very complicated and would require digging through past planning files.
“They’re kind of scattered all over the place. I don’t think we’d have any way to just pull exactly what we’ve approved on there. We’d have to go back through planning files to try and track down exactly which ones are on the moraine.” - Perry Sisson, Director, Engineering and Field Operations, CLOCA
There are several approaches to potentially help manage transitional development within the
Moraine. The first approach is the creation of a sunset clause, which would place a time limit on
transitional or grandfathered development. The time limit would allow several years for the land
owners or developers to begin their development projects, and if the development has not taken
place during this time frame, then the development application would be forfeited and the area
could no longer be developed. Many participants at the regional town hall meetings felt that a
sunset clause would benefit all stakeholders, including development and the environment.
Most interview participants were also very supportive of the idea of using sunset clauses to limit
the time frame in which transitional development can occur. For example, when asked about sunset
60
clauses, Leah Stephens, a planner exclaimed: “That would be wonderful! I love those [sunset
clauses]! I think more developments need to have that in there.”
Many organizations and individuals who submitted comments to the Co-ordinated Land Use
Review also suggested including a sunset clause for transitional development. Susan Lloyd Swail
stated: “In our submission to the 2015 review we asked for a sunset clause to be invoked because
these new applications should have to live up to the current policy.” A municipal employee from
the Town of Richmond Hill strongly supported the use of sunset clauses and recommended their
implementation: “We’re recommending in our 2015 comments for the province to delete that
[transitional development]. It’s been 10 years, if something could have been grandfathered it
should have happened already, so that now can be deleted.”
While many regional town hall participants and interview participants support a sunset clause
period, there are significant administrative hurdles associated with their creation.
John Taylor from MMAH explained:
“If you’ve been through a process and gotten all your approvals and your zoning is there and everything, generally speaking government can’t come back at a later date and take that away. They can rezone your property. But you always have something called legal non-conforming use; you can never basically zone something out of existence or remove development approval; you can but it’s very hard to do, it’s not easy to do, and as a principal we don’t generally do it because the system is built to some extent on certainty.” - John Taylor, Senior Planner, Provincial Planning Policy Branch, MMAH
Despite the potential difficulties with implementing sunset clauses, they are starting to come into
play in land use planning. Leah Stephens, a planner, described the increased use of sunset clauses
in various jurisdictions:
“In my experience, it can be anywhere from five to ten years, and in some cases a municipality will allow for extensions to be granted. So if they gave someone a sunset clause of five years, as long as that person comes to them with a reasonable indication with why they haven’t been able to proceed with their development and demonstrate what they’re planning to do in the near future, then the municipality will be able to grant an extension for another three years.”- Leah Stephens, Planner
John Taylor from MMAH stated that the provincial government would be considering the use of
sunset clauses in the review: “Should there be a sunset clause or things of that nature on
61
grandfathered or transitional development? That’s something we’re certainly going to look at, that
we’re looking at right now. It does open up a bit of a Pandora’s box on legal equity and fairness.”
A second method of helping manage transitional development is through the use of structural
envelop mapping. Structural envelop mapping involves sections of land that have been approved
for development or where development has already taken place that has environmentally sensitive
features, and limitations can be imposed on activities that occur in close proximity to natural
features.
Structural envelop mapping is currently being used in the Town of Caledon for properties that
were developed before the Plan and are exempt from the Plan’s regulations. Lauren Kubilis states:
“There have been some subdivisions that were built before the Plan and I think some specific properties as well that we list in our application, so those properties are actually exempt from going through the processing end. Some of them are subject to what we call structural envelop mapping, so they are given a natural area on their property actually in their development plan, that states that they can’t do anything down to trimming the bushes in that area, just do everything to protect it and left as it is.”
5.4 Infrastructure
5.4.1 Green Energy Infrastructure
The Ontario Provincial Government has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in an
effort to help fight climate change. The provincial government is investing $325 million in the
Green Investment Fund for projects that help reduce climate change (Ministry of the Environment
and Climate Change, 2016a). They are also investing in low-emission electricity options such as
solar and wind farms. Wind farms, in particular, can pose a threat to the Moraine. During the
interviews, several individuals voiced their concerns regarding the creation of wind farms in the
Moraine. One planner stated: “They kind of skirt by through all of the greenbelt as well as Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. They are permitted out there, and it’s great topography for
them, you get the hills, it’s more the wind farms as opposed to the solar farms.” - Leah Stephens,
Planner. Leah Stephen’s comments recognize the need for green energy, and that it is currently
permitted in the Moraine, but also that there are challenges and negatives associated with wind
farms in the Moraine.
62
Perry Sisson from CLOCA echoed this perspective, and also argued that the provincial government
was being somewhat contradictory when they restrict development and infrastructure for others in
the Moraine, while building wind farms themselves. He explained:
“The wind turbine thing, which you heard loud and clear at those [regional town hall] meetings. And turbines aren’t the only one, but they’re the lead one. But it amazes me the way the province can come in and have this great idea to preserve this land and make a greenbelt or non-development area, and then turn around and put infrastructure in it. Whether it’s highways or the wind turbines are my real pet peeve. I don’t get how on one hand you can say ‘we need to preserve this’ and then turn around and put an industrial type application on it. It’s got to be one or the other, not both.”
As highlighted in Perry Sissons’ statement, the building of wind farms in the Moraine was a
controversial topic of discussion during the regional town hall meetings. Many regional town hall
participants were very upset with a proposed wind farm beginning construction in their
municipality. They expressed their concern that the wind farm would involve the clearing of trees,
and also cause low frequency noise that might have an effect on birds and other wildlife in this
environmentally sensitive area. Those in the agricultural sector who attended regional town hall
meetings also voiced concerns regarding the addition of green energy infrastructure in the
Moraine.
5.4.2 Transportation Infrastructure
Several interview participants mentioned that the Plan is too flexible with respect to large-scale
transportation infrastructure. When completing the questionnaire regarding changes in land use
and land cover in the Moraine, Noah Gaetz from the TRCA said that there had been some changes
regarding transportation within Natural Core Areas and/or Natural Linkage Areas. He explained
that overseeing transportation in the Moraine is an area “where the Moraine Plan could be stronger.
I don’t know this for sure, but transportation infrastructure may be provided more flexibility than
other forms of development in the Moraine.”
Several interview participants, as well as regional town hall participants voiced their concerns over
the expansion of Highway 407 across the Moraine, worried that the highway cuts across
environmentally sensitive and agricultural land. Other interview participants, however, felt that
there had been very few changes in transportation in the Moraine, and some said that no changes
had taken place regarding transportation corridors in their specific municipality.
63
Leah Stephens, a planner, suggested a larger regulatory plan to oversee large-scale infrastructure
would help ensure that infrastructure such as hydro and transportation corridors are planned in
tandem to help minimize the impact on the Moraine:
“It would be wonderful if there could be kind of a provincial oversight to identify areas for linear infrastructure and trying to, more of a broader scale plan for the entire area, to show ‘okay, maybe we’re going to group the hydro corridors down here with the new roads’, more of a broad plan that brings all of the municipalities in, the province, all the CAs, and any other major players, MNR, to try to come to something that makes sense for everybody and moving forward to there.”
5.5 Emerging Issues Not Addressed in the Plan
The Plan was created 14 years ago. As such, there are some issues that were not large problems
when the Plan was first created, although they have since become challenges in protecting the
Moraine. Issues that threaten the health of the Moraine that are currently not addressed by the Plan
include commercial fill and water taking. Many interview participants feel that these issues should
be addressed by the Plan to help protect the Moraine. For example, Joyce Chau from EcoSpark
explained: “A lot of concerns that we have now were not even concerns in 2003. So issues like
commercial fill for example, or green energy.”
This sentiment was echoed by Joshua Wise from Ontario Nature: “There’s still a lot of
development issues around large scale infrastructure, energy infrastructure, commercial fill, things
like water taking, there’s still gaps in terms of how policy is applied.” - Joshua Wise, Greenway
Program Manager, Ontario Nature
The issues of commercial fill and water taking are discussed below.
5.5.1 Commercial Fill
Currently, the Plan does not address the practice of dumping commercial fill into the Moraine, nor
any federal or provincial regulation overseeing the movement and disposal of soil (Ontario Soil
Regulation Task Force, 2014). Instead, the dumping of “clean fill” is permitted through
municipalities and towns that allow it (Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force, n.d.b). One challenge
is that all fill is presumed “clean” unless otherwise tested (Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force,
n.d.b). This means that potentially contaminated soil can be dumped in the Moraine by accident,
threatening the ecological health of the Moraine.
64
Carmela Marshall from Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force explains the challenges with potential
contamination from commercial fill:
“Contamination is a big one as well … the potential is always there if it’s a contaminated site, for the contaminates to migrate down to the groundwater. Maybe we haven’t seen the effects of this on the Moraine yet, but there’s always that potential in the future because the way groundwater works, it doesn’t happen within a matter of weeks or months, it does take time for things to travel.” - Carmela Marshall, Director, Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force
The dumping of commercial fill into the Moraine was raised several times during interviews, and
occasionally during the regional town hall meetings. Carmela Marshall, the Director of Ontario
Soil Regulation Task Force stated that they had seen an increase in the amount of fill being dumped
into the Moraine.
This was reiterated by Debbe Crandall: “We’ve seen a lot in the last 5 years, a lot of commercial
fill operations popping up all over the Moraine.”
The primary concern regarding the dumping of commercial fill is that it can potentially contain
contaminants which can lead to soil and groundwater contamination. Robert Orland of Orland
Conservation emphasized: “You’re talking about ‘clean fill’ versus ‘not-clean fill’.”
In addition to potential soil contamination, the dumping of commercial fill in the Moraine can also
lead to the flattening of topography. The Moraine is characteristically known for its rolling hills
and topography. Carmela Marshall explains: “Besides the changes of landscape we’re seeing a lot
of flattening out of what used to be rolling topography due to fill being brought in.”
Rehabilitation is a process supported in the Plan, and some interview participants feel that the
dumping of commercial fill is not conducive to rehabilitation efforts. As Carmela Marshall noted:
“We just feel that the business of commercial fill can undermine good rehabilitation practices.”
She continues to explain that “It’s just not consistent either with the ORMC Plan when it refers to
rehabilitation. Even the recommendations, you know how they had the recommendations from the
standing committee on the Aggregate Resources Act review, they talked about expeditious
rehabilitation which is counter to that as well.”
Currently the Plan does not include regulations pertaining to commercial fill since it is considered
to be an “activity”, whereas the Plan regulates “land use”. The issue of commercial fill is not
65
considered a “use of land” and therefore simply not included in the Planning Act (LCCW, 2016).
It is, however, considered an activity covered under the best management practices for excess soil
by the Ministry of the Environment (Ministry of the Environment, 2014). While not specifically
discussed in land use legislation, the land use policy documents tend to regulate land use and not
land activity. Due to this distinction, issues such as commercial fill or water taking that are broadly
considered land activities are not addressed in the Plan. Some interview participants, however,
view commercial fill as a land use and therefore believe it should be added to the Plan.
“We’re seeing more and more applications for this type of land use, although it’s not officially declared a land use, we would say that depositing hundreds of thousands of truckloads of soils and fill materials on land and the owners receiving some sort of consideration for that, whether it be monetary or otherwise, we see that as a business, as an industrial use, as a land use, and we’re seeing more and more of it across the Moraine.” Carmella Marshall
The Ministry of the Environment has guidelines that recommend the best practices that relate to
“smaller-scale soil management activities” such as commercial fill (Ministry of the Environment,
2014). The issue of commercial fill through a permit basis by municipality is a means to gain
revenue for a municipality but not necessarily in the best interests of protecting the Moraine. For
example, Carmela Marshall stated: “The more fill you bring in the more money you can make, but
that doesn’t necessarily always go with what’s best for the land or the surrounding community in
terms of expeditious and good and innovative rehabilitation practices.” Additionally, conservation
authorities have little power when it comes to influencing permits for commercial fill.
While most interview participants concerned about fill did not want to ban commercial fill
dumping entirely, they believe that soil should be tested more often, dumping should only occur
in designated areas, and that there should be a limit to the quantity of soil dumped. Robert Orland
stated: “I think designated areas would have to be investigated from experts, whether they’re
hydrogeologists and geologists before that can be determined if it should happen. There may be
pockets on the Moraine that are fine for that to occur, and it would be better to do it locally because
it’s better than taking it to very far destinations.”
5.5.2 Water Taking
Water taking can pose a challenge to preserving groundwater in the Moraine since it is also not
currently covered in the Plan. Similarly to commercial fill, water taking is considered an activity
66
and not a land use, and therefore is not regulated under the Plan. However, the issue of water taking
was raised by several interview participants. Some interview participants made the distinction
between water being used for municipal uses versus commercial bottling. They tended to support
municipal and public use of water, but were concerned about bottling water for export. For
example, Robert Orland stated:
“Water taking for the purpose of individual use in the sense of municipal water, that should be fine. What I’m seeing the trend is with all these bottled water companies taking water and running their operation from that perspective, I don’t like those companies. That’s more of a personal opinion, and I think professionally that they do have a negative impact on our environment. I would be advocating on much further control on water taking and not to allow for businesses at the detriment of local communities and so forth.”
Several interview participants from ENGOs felt that the current water-taking permit system was
not affording enough protection to the groundwater within the Moraine. They called for either
water taking to be addressed in the Plan, or for stronger regulations than the current permit process
to protect the Moraine’s groundwater resources.
5.6 Funding
Securing funding for environmental protection has been a challenge in implementing the Plan.
After the initial provincial government funding of $15 million to the Oak Ridges Moraine
Foundation there has been no new funding provided to the agency by the government. The Friends
of the Greenbelt Foundation did receive $20 million in funding from the provincial government in
2011, which was to be distributed among the various organizations within the entire Ontario
Greenbelt (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2011). The challenge with this, however, is
that the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation is primarily focused on agriculture and tourism, while
the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation is primarily concerned with water quality and conservation
in the Moraine (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2011).
Several interview participants highlighted this issue. For example, Joyce Chau, Executive Director
of EcoSpark stated: “They’re trying to get recapitalized. It’s a matter of when it will happen and
where the money might come from because there’s also the Greenbelt Foundation that gets money
from the province. They have a very different focus on the work that they do and it doesn’t include
stewardship and restoration.”
67
Finally, the interviews highlight that funding differs among municipalities and conservation
authorities that implement the Plan, potentially leading to inconsistent implementation of the Plan
across the Moraine. Overall, the reduction of funds available to protect the Moraine means that the
Moraine’s ecological integrity may be at risk.
5.6.1 Reduced Funds for Land Securement
With fewer funds available to the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, there has been less funding to
support land acquisition and securement. Robert Orland, President of Orland Conservation is very
involved in land securement. He suggested a matching funds program to help support land
securement in the future, where funds raised by other organizations could be matched by provincial
funding to support land securement. Robert Orland explained: “There could be a look at reigniting
a funding program to coincide with our matching funding program as you say, coinciding with the
objectives of the Plan for land securement by all of these different groups.”– Robert Orland,
President, Orland Conservation. He also stressed the need to conduct land securement projects
now before the price of land continues to rise.
5.6.2 Reduced Monitoring Efforts
Monitoring is a resource intensive activity that requires a significant amount of funding to
maintain. A lack of funding has resulted in monitoring efforts being conducted by ENGOs who do
not always have the necessary resources. For example, Dale Leadbeater stated: “The problem with
monitoring is that it’s very expensive. No one wants to pay for that.” Interview participants from
the TRCA stated that if additional funding was provided there could be further monitoring
completed. One TRCA interview participant stated: “So far efforts have not been good at
measuring cumulative affects to assess trends. There would be more monitoring if more funding
was available.”
The Plan requires that the provincial government participate in monitoring of the Moraine in co-
ordination with various stakeholders, such as municipalities and conservation authorities (MMAH,
2002). Some ENGOs, however, feel that monitoring efforts are lacking in the Moraine. Joyce
Chau, Executive Director of EcoSpark explained that: “...there’s supposed to be a monitoring
database created in collaboration with the municipalities and other stakeholders, and targets set,
indicators, but none of that work was really done in the Moraine.”
68
MMAH acknowledges that while some work has been done for performance indictors and
monitoring, more could have been done. John Taylor from MMAH states: “We could have, should
have done more, and we’ve struggled the past number of years doing something.”
Another issue raised is the question of who should be responsible for monitoring the ecological
health of the Moraine. Some interview participants from ENGOs feel that monitoring should be
the responsibility of the provincial government since it is such a large and demanding task. The
provincial government would have greater resources available to conduct monitoring efforts and
the longevity to see monitoring efforts throughout time. For example, Joyce Chau, Executive
Director of EcoSpark stated:
“It’s difficult for organizations to undertake this kind of work because the job of monitoring ecological health is a long term process, and because it’s a long term process it requires organizations to have a long term investment, and that’s not always possible. So some of the work that we were doing, like base flow monitoring was supported through the Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation, but with that foundation no longer receiving money they are no longer granting these kinds of projects.”
When asked about the current monitoring programs in the Moraine and who should be responsible
for overseeing monitoring, Susan Lloyd Swail stated “No, ENGOs should not have to monitor [the
Moraine].”
MMAH, however, feels that conservation authorities and ENGOs are better able to monitor the
Moraine’s health since they are on the ground and can work more quickly than projects in the
government. John Taylor with MMAH explained:
“It’d be nice if we at the province could do more, although sometimes even if we had the money and resources we’re not always the best place to do that stuff. Sometimes a central command and control framework of running something isn’t always the best, and in some ways as much as it may seem scattershot and patchwork quilt it’s better for us to do what we’re good at and let others fill in the gaps at a more grassroots level than we could. We’re just not nimble and quick enough and organized enough to do a good job. If we did some central provincial monitoring you’d have to create the whole branch and fund it and it probably wouldn’t work as well.”
5.6.3 Funding and Resources Differ Among Municipalities
It was revealed during interviews that resources are not evenly distributed throughout the Moraine;
the larger municipalities with greater tax bases have more resources available to properly
69
implement the Plan. In turn, smaller municipalities have fewer resources available to ensure
consistent implementation of the Plan. As Joyce Chau, Executive Director of EcoSpark stated:
“The challenges in the implementation is that there aren’t always the resources to properly implement it from the province or the municipality. Some municipalities have a wide range of capacities where one municipality might have no planner and they have to have a planning consultant, whereas another municipality will have a whole department of planners.”
Similarly, conservation authorities receive the majority of their funding from a proportion of the
tax revenue from the municipalities in their jurisdiction. Larger municipalities such as York
Region have a larger tax base, and can therefore provide more funding to conservation authorities
in their jurisdiction compared to smaller municipalities.
Several interview participants from the TRCA and Orland Conservation highlighted that due to
different tax bases and funding, conservation authorities across the Moraine have varying levels
of resources available to dedicate to the Moraine. As such, their efforts in conservation initiatives
on the Moraine may differ. One interview participant from the TRCA explained:
“It depends on how much funding the conservation agency has. For example, the TRCA, York, Durham, Peel, Toronto have more funding therefore their conservation authorities have more funds. Some of the smaller areas or conservation authorities don’t have as much funding.” – Interview participant, TRCA
One interview participant emphasized that conservation authorities are constantly in search of
funding to support their conservation efforts. Dale Leadbeater clearly articulated that
“Conservation authorities are always looking for sources of funding because they’re not publically
funding anymore.” Dale Leadbeater, Senior Ecologist
5.7 Lack of a Central Regulating Body
The lack of a central regulating body overseeing the implementation of the Plan and protection of
the Moraine was mentioned in several interviews. It is also a reoccurring theme in the literature
(Global Forest Watch, 2008; EcoSpark & STORM, 2010). Additionally, some interview
participants feel that there is a lack of regulation over southern Ontario as a whole, particularly
with respect to large infrastructure and development. While these were not dominant themes in the
interviews or regional town hall meetings, they did arise to some extent, and therefore deserve
consideration.
70
Several interview participants expressed the opinion that there is not one central regulating body
to oversee implementation of the Plan. Susan Lloyd Swail clearly stated the need for increased
supervision to ensure the Plan is fully implemented:
“In our submission of the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance submission to the province for the 2015 review we talked about the importance of having a mechanism in place, much like the Niagara Escarpment Commission so that the plans are monitored, so that enforcement is reviewed, and that tools that municipalities need are provided in some kind of an expert resource.”
Another interview participant felt that the Plan should be used in conjunction with other land use
plans to work together to protect the entire area. He stated: “This is probably one of the issues with
the Plan originally is that you can’t look at it piecemeal I think.”
While the idea of a central regulating body was not specifically suggested by many interview
participants, there was some consensus that there were many parts of the Plan’s implementation
that are not overseen or regulated. Additionally, several interview participants felt that supporting
legislation or oversight by a larger body should be established to help protect southern Ontario
from urban development.
5.8 Leapfrog Development
“Leapfrog” development refers to urban development that jumps over protected areas, resulting in
infrastructure and residential growth outside of a greenbelt area (Vyn, 2012; Forman, 2008).
Leapfrog development is largely considered a negative aspect of UCPs since it can take the form
of low-density development, which can lead to the loss of nearby open land (Vyn, 2012; Pond,
2009a), and increase the number of commuters through the greenbelt (Newbold & Scott, 2013).
The majority of interview participants indicated that a significant amount of leapfrog development
was taking place in areas north of the Moraine, such as in Simcoe County. When asked whether
leapfrog development has occurred outside of the Moraine, one interview participant stated: “I
think so. I think that the intensity of development in Simcoe County for instance has really
increased. I hear the municipalities talking about that. Simcoe is under a lot of pressure....Look at
the development in Barrie. Barrie’s gone completely crazy.” - Dale Leadbeater, Senior Ecologist
Interview participants from TRCA also felt that a significant amount of leapfrog development was
taking place in “Simcoe County. Anywhere up the 400. Bradford – going up East Gwillimbury.”
71
Another interview participant highlighted that it was also taking place in other parts of southern
Ontario outside of the Moraine: “Leapfrog development is taking place in Guelph. It skipped
Milton and continued on.” – Interview Participant, TRCA. Joyce Chau from EcoSpark stated: “I
would say leapfrog development is more so related to the Greenbelt [Plan]. The point of the
greenbelt was to contain urban sprawl, and the fact that there was a lot of rural development in
certain areas indicates that leapfrog development is happening. In addition to the Simcoe area, this
is happening a lot in the Kitchener/Waterloo area as well.”
Upon examination of population statistics, however, there are some mixed findings that may not
necessarily support the perspective voiced by interview participants regarding the connection
between leapfrog development and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan or the Greenbelt
Plan. For example, a significant amount of population growth took place in the City of Barrie
prior to the Plan and at the beginning of the Plan’s implementation. However, this population
growth has slowed significantly since the creation of the Greenbelt Plan. The largest population
growth in the City of Barrie occurred from 1996 to 2001 (25%) before the Plan came into effect
in 2001 (Statistics Canada, 2015c). The City of Barrie’s growth rate dropped to 19% from 2001 to
2006 (Statistics Canada, 2015c). These growth rates were both significantly higher than the
provincial growth rates of 6.1% from 1996 to 2001, and 6.6% in 2001 to 2006 (Statistics Canada,
2015e). However, Barrie’s population growth rate declined drastically from 2006 to 2011 to 5.6%
(Statistics Canada, 2015c), which is slightly lower than the provincial average population growth
of 5.7% from 2006 to 2011 (Statistics Canada, 2015e). This data appears to indicate that the
Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan did not necessarily lead to leapfrog
development, at least in Barrie.
Another example of reduced population growth in areas beyond the Moraine is the City of Guelph.
Similarly to the City of Barrie, Guelph had a slightly higher population growth rate than the
provincial average prior to the Plan (11% from 1996 to 2001), but the population growth rate has
continued to decline since the creation of the Plan in 2001 (8.5% from 2001 to 2006, and 5.5%
from 2006-2011; Statistics Canada, 2015d). While the population growth was still higher than the
provincial average after the creation of the Plan, the fact that the growth rate continues to decline,
shows that land use legislation such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the
Greenbelt Plan might not have led to increased urban growth or leapfrog development in this area.
72
It should be mentioned that this research did not focus specifically on leapfrog development, and
therefore it cannot make the explicit conclusions that the Greenbelt Plan or Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan were contributing factors to the growth in these outlying communities.
5.9 Minor Development Requires Site Plan Approval
Another challenge that has occurred as a result of the Plan is that minor development outside of
Settlement Areas now requires site plan approval (MMAH, 2002), and therefore an Environmental
Assessment Study (EAS) is required. A large number of interview participants stated that
additional site plan approvals or EASs were required for local land owners who wanted to complete
minor development or simple additions to their properties. They felt that this created an added cost
to the land owner and additional ‘red-tape’ that seems unnecessary for minor development.
One interview participant explained the additional requirements for land owners living in the
Moraine:
“It [the Plan] put a lot of scrutiny on something called minor development. So if someone wants to build a large shed or something like that in the Moraine they have to go through a lot of hoops and approval to do that kind of work. So for people that were already living on the Moraine it’s made it more difficult to do additions and other things to their properties.” - Perry Sisson, Director, Engineering and Field Operations, CLOCA
Another interview participant reiterated the additional regulations for minor development placed
on land owners:
“One thing that has happened is that there’s been additional ‘hoops’ for minor developments. And by minor I mean things like sheds and swimming pools, etc. Because of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan they now have to do an EAS to go ahead with those types of developments, and that really, frankly, is heavy handed and shouldn’t have happened.” - Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects, Planning Services Department, Municipality of Clarington
Many participants at the regional town hall meetings were also concerned about the additional
regulations under the Plan required for minor development. Many individuals who lived outside
of Settlement Areas of the Moraine were very concerned by the added regulations required to add
a shed to their backyard while many individuals who were from the agricultural sector were
frustrated with the additional cost and paperwork required to complete before they could build a
simple shed. They were particularly annoyed since a few said they had built sheds or small
structures without permits prior to the Plan, and were impacted financially by the additional
73
resources required to complete minor development. Some regional town hall participants also said
that they would not put up the structure they wanted simply to avoid the added cost and effort it
would require to complete an EAS.
A municipal planner in the Moraine also emphasized that land owners were frustrated by the
additional requirements for minor development. Additionally, he highlighted how municipal
bylaws were updated according to the regulations of the Plan, and the frustrations experienced by
the municipality to adhere to these regulations.
“When we first enacted our zoning bylaw we realized quite quickly that you know that people wanted to build pools, they wanted to build decks, they wanted to build minor additions, things like that, and then they got caught up in a zoning bylaw that didn’t provide for that… Also it becomes frustrating for the municipality because you have to do it [an EAS] because it is something that is mandated by our bylaws and the province. So that’s one of the negative things. - Interview participant, Planner, Municipality in the Moraine
Almost all interview participants who discussed minor development in the Moraine felt that the
requirement for an EAS for minor development was overly restrictive. They felt that the additional
resources for such a minor development were unnecessary and were unduly strict. Not only are
EASs resource intensive for land owners, but also for municipalities since a municipal planner
must approve the EAS. One interview participant from the Town of Richmond Hill indicated that
EASs for minor development are not needed due to their minor development and the resources
required by the municipality: “It’s really just for the minor development that we’ve noticed that
there could be a little more criteria or loosening up on when it’s needed type of thing. … You think
to yourself ‘is this absolutely necessary? Is it a good use of a planner’s time?’ And it’s really the
smaller municipalities I think that would probably be having the largest desire for a change on that
front, because it just ends up being a resource issue for not a whole lot of gain.” – Interview
Participant, Town of Richmond Hill
5.10 Challenges for Agriculture
The Plan has created some challenges for those in the agricultural sector. In addition to protecting
the Moraine, the Plan is intended to help preserve agricultural land from urban development. There
are four main challenges experienced by farmers: (1) restrictions on expanding and developing
farms due to provisions on development; (2) high cost of farm land; (3) limitations on the sale of
74
agricultural land for residential development, and (4) tension with residential neighbours. The Plan
should be further examined to determine potential solutions for those in the agricultural sector.
5.10.1 Restrictions in Expanding and Development
Many individuals from the agricultural sector participated in the regional town hall meetings. They
felt that the Plan interferes with their ability to expand their agricultural operation to run a
profitable farm in today’s competitive global market. Several interview participants also
acknowledged the frustrations and limitations experienced by farmers due to the restrictions placed
on their land by the Plan. One interview participant clearly articulated the feelings of those in the
agricultural sector: “The restrictive nature of the Plan has frustrated those who wish to develop
their lands.”
One interview participant from the TRCA recommended “flexibility for agriculture uses while
protecting natural features.” Another interview participant from the TRCA supported this:
“Perhaps increased flexibility in agricultural uses – because the Provincial Policy Statement is
strict.” He continued that the Plan should “make adjustments for people [in agriculture] to make a
living, therefore they’ll be more willing to keep the Plan.” – Interview participant, TRCA.
Many regional town hall participants also commented that the agricultural sector was not consulted
adequately when the Plan was created. They felt that farmers’ needs were not being met, and that
there was little to no supports put in place to promote their interests. For example, one town hall
participant stated that while land in the Moraine and the Ontario Greenbelt was protected from
development and agriculture in the future, there were not additional supports put in place to help
promote their needs and operations.
5.10.2 High Cost of Farm Land
Another challenge experienced by those in the agricultural sector is the high cost of agricultural
land in the Moraine. Farm lots in the Moraine are typically very expensive. The high cost of land
is sometimes unattainable for someone who is hoping to take over an existing farm, or to purchase
land to start their own farming operation.
During the regional town hall meetings, many participants discussed one of the major challenges
in agriculture today being that fewer young people are joining the industry since they cannot be
75
approved for large enough loans to purchase agricultural lands. Additionally, this means that older
farmers hoping to sell their land have a harder time finding buyers who are able to purchase and
maintain agricultural land since many of their children are no longer interested in the agricultural
sector. Many residential town hall participants stated that they are forced to buy land for farming
in areas much farther north of the GTA such as Port Perry, due to the developmental pressures in
the Moraine and the greenbelt making land financially unattainable.
One interview participant explained that the large farms required in the Moraine are unattainable
for young farmers, and therefore, micro-farms should be used instead. Micro-farms are smaller
farms; it would allow farmers to purchase smaller parcels of land for a more reasonable price. This
would support and enable agriculture to continue in the Moraine, and would allow new farmers to
begin farming operations they otherwise would be unable to afford. Robert Orland, President of
Orland Conservation stated:
“I think further investigation into the division of large farm land pieces should happen for the purpose of allowing more family farms and micro-farming to occur, not just for the big factory farm. It makes it more affordable for young farmers to start an operation. Trying to buy a 100 acre farm on the Oak Ridges Moraine that is already existing is far too expensive for almost any of these young farmers and our family farms are demographically dying out, leaving really only the big farms, the big farming operations.”
While some interview participants and regional town hall participants were supportive of the idea
of micro-farms and subdividing larger farm plots to allow for smaller family farms and new
farmers to break into the industry, some agricultural groups were not supportive of the idea.
FarmLINK advocates maintaining farms at their current size and not subdividing in an effort to
preserve farm land (FarmLINK, 2016). They stress that if larger lots are subdivided it will be
harder to preserve large farms (FarmLINK, 2016).
During the regional town hall meetings, participants often commented that one problem with the
high costs of land in the Moraine is that many farmers rent their land and do not own it. One
regional town hall participant said that only about 70% of local farmers actually own their land,
while the rest rent. This means that they have little control over the land and have little say as to
what happens to it in the future. One regional town hall participant said that they were operating
at a loss, and that if they owned the land instead of renting it, it would be more profitable for them.
Other regional town hall participants seconded this idea, and agreed that if more farmers owned
their land they would be more economically sustainable.
76
5.10.3 Limitations on the Sale of Agricultural Land
Another challenge that participants at the regional town hall meetings discussed were the
limitations placed on the sale of agricultural land. Some of the literature explores why some in the
agricultural sector are upset about having their land in the Moraine since they could no longer sell
their land for residential development. This perspective was supported by some of the regional
town hall participants who stated that they were upset about the restrictions on the sale of their
land. A few regional town hall participants stated that they had planned on selling their land for
development and saw the sale of their land as their retirement plan.
The Plan was designed intentionally to stop the sale of agricultural land to prevent urban sprawl.
Many ENGOs and those in the conservation and environmental protection field would agree that
preventing the sale of agricultural land for development is one of the strengths of the Plan. Some
of those in the agricultural sector, however, viewed this as a negative, and were very upset that
their land was included in the Moraine since it prohibited the sale of their land to residential
developers for high costs. These findings were supported in the literature that emphasizes that
some in the agricultural sector are not supportive of the Plan since it reduces their ability to sell
land in the Moraine for development purposes (Macdonald & Keil, 2012; Cadieux et al., 2013).
Additionally, many regional town hall participants in the agricultural sector who owned farms
were upset that their land values had been reduced now that they are part of the Moraine since they
no longer have the ability to sell their land to developers at the high costs they attained before the
Plan. One regional town hall participant stated that prior to the Plan his land was worth $225,000
per acre, and now it is only worth $9,000 per acre. While these prices cannot be confirmed for this
research, his comments highlight why many in the agricultural sector are upset that the value of
their property has changed since the creation of the Plan since it can no longer be purchased for
residential development.
Conversely, some regional town hall participants felt that quite a lot of agricultural land was still
being lost to development. They stated that 350 acres of farm land a day was being lost in Ontario
and that the Plan was vital to help protect agricultural land from disappearing. This statistic was
supported by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (2015). One person stated that some of the
agricultural land being lost to developers was already sold prior to the Plan and was now being
developed, which is the result of transitional development. Regional town hall participants were
77
particularly concerned that prime agricultural land was being lost, and were adamant that
additional protections were required to preserve prime agricultural land.
Perspectives regarding the sale of agricultural land for residential development is a contentious
topic. While some regional town hall participants were upset about their land being in the Moraine
since they could not sell it for residential development, many others were supportive of the Plan
at protecting farmland from urban sprawl. Those in the agricultural sector have a variety of
perspectives regarding agriculture in the Moraine, however, it is an important issue to be taken
into account.
5.10.4 Tension with Residential Neighbours
There can be tension between those in the agricultural sector and nearby residents. Residents who
are not involved in agriculture, but live in close proximity to agricultural areas can become
frustrated by some of the practices in the agricultural sector. These tensions usually revolve around
activities on farms that can create noise or smells that are a standard part of farming, but offensive
to local residents. This can be challenging for farmers who sometimes receive complaints and
experience hostility regarding their operations.
During the regional town hall meetings, some farmers expressed their frustration with living in
close proximity to residential areas. For example, many in the agricultural sector said that they
received complaints about noise when they ran their tractors at night or early in the morning.
Others said that they received complaints about the smell of manure. Some regional town hall
participants stated that they did not enjoy farming in urban areas due to the complaints by
neighbours and constraints placed on them in terms of development.
While these issues may not be caused directly as a result of the Plan, they are matters that the Plan
can potentially help to address. One regional town hall participant suggested that new
developments built, and sales of existing homes within 300 metres of a farm should have within
their sale agreements that they recognize they are within close proximity to a farm and therefore
accept all of the factors that accompany a farm, such as the operation of loud equipment, or smells
such as manure. This idea was very popular with all of the participants at the regional town hall
meetings.
78
While it can be challenging to satisfy all stakeholders regarding agriculture in the Moraine, efforts
should be taken to accommodate and consider all perspectives. The agricultural sector is an integral
part of the Moraine and is intended to be protected by the Plan. While aiming to promote the
protection of the Moraine, however, there are some challenges that have occurred that affect the
viability of agriculture in the Moraine. Restrictions on development in agricultural practices, high
land costs, limitations on land sales, and residential neighbours are all challenges that farmers and
those in the agricultural sector have to contend with as a result of the Plan. While some ENGOs
feel that agriculture and agricultural practices can harm the Moraine through clearing land and the
significant use of chemicals, pesticides, and water, it is part of the mandate of the Plan and the
Ontario Greenbelt to protect agriculture from being lost to development. As such, agriculture in
the Moraine must be considered under the Plan to ensure not just its protection, but also its
endurance.
79
Chapter 6 Proposed Changes of Co-ordinated Review
Proposed Changes
The consensus from interview participants, open house participants, and ministry representatives
at the open houses is that the proposed changes to the Plan are not drastic, although they will affect
some aspects of development and conservation. The majority of interview participants from
ENGOs and conservation authorities are pleased with the proposed revisions, but had some
concerns and suggestions to improve the Plan. For example, one interview participant stated: “I’m
happy about the changes generally, but there are some concerns.” Open house participants were
also generally supportive of the proposed changes, although there was some variation in
perspectives. Several interview participants from municipalities are currently reviewing the
proposed changes and were therefore unable to comment on them at this time. Other municipal
interview participants stated that the proposed changes to the Plan would have little impact on their
municipality. The main proposed changes and the interview and open house participants’
perspectives regarding these changes are discussed below.
6.1 Plan Introduction
The first proposed change to the Plan is to the introduction. The original introduction described
some of the political and social history leading up to the creation of the Plan. Much of this historical
description has been removed and replaced with information describing the connections among
the various land use plans in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, such as the Growth Plan, the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014, as well as the added goal of fighting climate change.
Some interview participants indicated that they wished the original history had been retained in
the introduction of the Plan. They feel that the Moraine is a distinct ecological feature from the
larger Greenbelt and that should be reflected in the introduction. For example, Debbe Crandall
stated: “The histories of the movement that underlie all of those landscapes are important to us so
we’re going to be commenting, don’t sanitize the introduction too much, let’s keep it rich, let’s
keep some context for the plan.”
80
6.2 Aligned Plans
The proposed changes to the Plan encourage better alignment of the Plan and other land use
planning legislation that direct development and conservation in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Several references to the PPS, 2014, also now appear, and the proposed changes link the Plan with
other legislation such as the Endangered Species Act, 2007, the Growth Plan, 2006; and the
Greenbelt Plan, 2005. Aligning land use and other environmental plans will help address
challenges in implementing all of the policies and pieces of legislation in the area, with the aim of
ensuring a cohesive approach to better protect the area, and ensure more consistent implementation
of the Plan.
Open house participants and interview participants were supportive of aligning the Plans to make
them work in unison. Joshua Wise (Greenway Program Manager) from Ontario Nature stated:
“It’d be good to have greater consistency.” One representative from the Ministry of Agriculture at
an open house stated that it was hard to harmonize the policies, but the intent and implementation
of the plans should be more consistent as a result.
6.3 Definitions
Existing definitions in the Plan are updated to be in line with those in other land use policies in
Ontario. Several definitions have also been added that are used in the PPS, 2014. For example, the
proposed changes to the Plan state: “The list of definitions in Part 1 would bring the ORMCP into
closer alignment with the PPS, 2014 by adding a definition of green infrastructure and updating
the definitions of endangered species, threatened species and their habitat, as well as wildlife
habitat.” (MMAH, 2016b, p. 13).
In their comments on the original Plan, interview participants commonly referred to the challenge
of implementing the Plan due to varying definitions. Interview participants are very supportive of
the proposed changes to update the definitions to improve consistency with other land use plans.
An interview participant from the TRCA stated: “They harmonized the terminology among the
four plans and the Provincial Policy Statement so that was a positive as well.”
81
6.4 Agricultural Sector
Substantial proposed changes to the Plan relate to the agricultural sector, providing increased
flexibility and support for those in the sector. The Plan now not only aims to protect agricultural
uses, but also states that the purpose of the Plan’s Countryside Areas is also promoting agriculture
and “other rural land uses and normal farm practices” (MMAH, 2016b, p. 32). This added goal of
promoting agriculture in the Moraine is designed to support agriculture, and help address some of
the criticism and complaints expressed by those in the agricultural sector during the co-ordinated
review of the Plan.
The proposed changes allow for “on-farm diversified uses” and “agriculture related uses” for
smaller businesses, including the sale of agricultural produce on farms in the Moraine. Small
businesses such as bakeries and services or equipment to support agriculture would also be allowed
in the Countryside Areas. Allowing for flexibility with small agricultural businesses was
something that regional town hall participants expressed a desire for.
The proposed changes to the Plan also “encourages the development of community hubs in rural
areas”, in order to promote and support businesses. Additionally, the concepts of "agri-tourism
uses", which refers to “uses that promote the enjoyment of farm operations or education or
activities related to farm operations” (MMAH, 2016b, p. 14). The conservation of “cultural
heritage resources” in Countryside Areas has also been added to the Plan, which encourages and
promotes agri-tourism in support of the agricultural sector. This also recognizes the importance of
the agricultural sector to the history of the area.
At the open house meetings, participants in the agricultural sector were fairly supportive of these
changes since they allow for increased flexibility and support in their communities. Some
individuals from conservation perspectives are also supportive of the idea of promoting small size
agricultural businesses, although they are wary of the impact it might have on environmental
protection.
One employee of the Ministry of Agriculture suggested that farmers have varied, diverse opinions
regarding the Plan and the proposed changes based on the farmer’s area of land in the Moraine,
their crop, the price of their crops, etc. He explained that the on-farm diversified use designation
in the Plan and the PPS, 2014 would close some of the challenges experienced by farmers.
82
A change that will have a noticeable impact is that development for agriculture related operations
are no longer required to complete a natural heritage evaluation for construction of new buildings
or structures in a minimum area of influence of a key natural heritage feature. There are still
requirements for where buildings can be located, but there is more flexibility to build structures in
a timely manner without the costs and resources associated with an assessment.
The Plan now states: “(4) Despite subsection (3), a natural heritage evaluation is not required in
the case of an application relating to the construction of a new building or structure in the minimum
area of influence of a key natural heritage feature if,
a) the proposed building or structure is for agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses
or on-farm diversified uses; and
b) the feature and its functions are protected from the impacts of the proposed building
or structure because it meets the requirements set out in subsection (5).” (MMAH,
2016b, p. 42)
Open house participants in the agricultural sector were very pleased with the proposed changes to
allow flexibility for agricultural development and agri-tourism. They feel that the changes would
add flexibility for their development and farming operations. The cost and resources associated
with assessments was very limiting, and avoiding an assessment would increase their ability to
build on their property, and in turn, better support their operation.
Several interview participants from a conservation perspective, however, were more apprehensive
of increasing flexibility for the agricultural sector. For example, Debbe Crandall expressed her
preliminary views regarding the proposed changes to the Plan:
“They’ve removed some of the safe guards for maintaining ecological integrity… and the scales of agriculture that are out there, so local food systems which are small by nature, very small footprint, are kind of lumped in together with this very larger scale industrial and so that has to be pulled apart a little bit and re-examined from our perspective.” – Debbe Crandall
Joshua Wise’s preliminary thoughts supported Debbe Crandall’s: “The flexibility for agriculture,
which was needed in the agricultural community, may have swung a bit too far away from
environmental protection.”
83
The proposed changes to the Plan also create increased requirements for infrastructure project
applications in prime agricultural land, where they must demonstrate the necessity for the
development, that there is no reasonable alternative and they must complete an agricultural impact
assessment to ensure the impacts on the land will be mitigated (MMAH, 2016b, p. 67).
Open house participants are supportive of the conditions placed on developers in areas of prime
agricultural land; they feel it should be protected since it is the most valuable agricultural land.
The proposed changes to the Plan also allow for subdividing larger farms into smaller lots,
providing the lots are still over 100 acres as outlined in the Greenbelt Plan (MMAH, 2016b, p. 55,
58). While Robert Orland supports severing large farm properties, he advocates severing lots to
sizes smaller than the required 100 acres, and therefore feels that this land area requirement should
be reduced to allow new farmers to purchase lands they otherwise could not afford.
6.5 Directs Urban Growth to Consider Climate Change
The proposed changes to the Plan include provisions that provide direction regarding urban
development. For example, development in Settlement Areas now emphasize the use of building
practices that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable. Specifically, the proposed
changes to the Plan add “new objectives for Settlement Areas to develop in a manner that reduces
greenhouse gas emissions, to conserve cultural heritage resources and to ensure the sustainable use
of water resources.” (MMAH, 2016b, p. 37).
The proposed changes also include reducing greenhouse gas emissions through more sustainable
practices. For example, it stresses the need to build “complete communities” (MMAH, 2016b, p.
2-3), which includes communities that are walkable, and have a variety of services and
employment opportunities in the community to reduce commuting. It also stresses moving towards
a goal of net-zero communities that produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions (MMAH, 2016b, p.
2-3).
Interview and open house participants are very supportive of these ideas in the Plan. One interview
participant from TRCA stated: “They well recognized the need and provided direction and policies
for planning for climate change adaptation and mitigation as well, so lots of good in there.”
84
The use of green infrastructure has also been added to the Plan, which refers to “infrastructure
consisting of natural and human-made elements that provide ecological and hydrological functions
and processes and includes natural heritage features and systems, parklands, stormwater
management systems, street trees, urban forests, natural channels, permeable surfaces and green
roofs” (MMAH, 2016b, p. 16). Green infrastructure building practices is a means of promoting
climate change adaptation measures to help reduce the impact of greenhouse gases and fight
climate change (MMAH, 2016b, p. 2).
Several interview participants from TRCA are very supportive of the addition of green
infrastructure and climate change mitigation techniques. One participant stated: “They have a
number of references to and the requirements for green infrastructure and lower development
impact techniques, so that’s something we’re happy to see in there.”
6.6 Infrastructure
The first change relating to infrastructure in the Plan is that it has eliminated the distinction
between “transportation, infrastructure and utilities”, and is now solely listed as “infrastructure”.
This is a change that helps to align the definition to those used in the PPS, 2014 and the Growth
Plan (MMAH, 2016b, p. 56).
Like building practice, the proposed changes to the Plan require that infrastructure development
consider climate change through the use of green infrastructure to reduce the risk of damage from
extreme weather events that may be the result of climate change (MMAH, 2016b, p. 7). Many
interview participants support the introduction of green infrastructure to the Plan. For example,
Noah Gaetz from TRCA stated:
“I think the green infrastructure piece also needs to come in, so if we’re going to intensify I think we also need to be able to make space for green infrastructure because what it can do is really help to mitigate some of the things you get with traditional intensification like [urban] heat islands for example.”
Several interview participants feel that the proposed changes to the Plan are not sufficient with
respect to infrastructure. Although the Plan refers to section 41 of the Planning Act to govern
infrastructure and development, some interview participants believe that there is a disconnect
between the infrastructure and development permitted under section 41 compared to the goal of
85
the Plan to protect the Moraine. For example, Debbe Crandall explained her initial perspective of
the proposed changes relating to infrastructure:
“Infrastructure has always been problematic, in the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan; it’s really governed by section 41. It envisions that there is this parallel of environmental system process dictated by that act under the Ministry of the Environment but that act and that process does not in any way reflect the objectives of the Moraine Plan.”
Many interview participants also feel that the Plan allows green energy infrastructure to take place
in the Moraine, which is counter to protecting its ecological integrity. For example, one interview
participant stated:
“Things like waste disposal facilities, electrical generation, some of the green energy stuff, we’ve been fighting with the province on wind turbines out in the eastern Moraine. So the infrastructure in our mind, that infrastructure section has in fact not moved forward in a positive way but is a bit regressive as far as environmental protection.” – Debbe Crandall
6.7 Endangered Species Habitats
While attempting to align the policies of the Plan regarding the habitat of endangered and
threatened species with the PPS, 2014 and the Endangered Species Act, 2007, less protection is
awarded to endangered species habitats. For example, development and site alternations now may
not require natural heritage evaluations if they are located in Countryside Areas or Settlement
Areas (MMAH, 2016b, p. 39). Additionally, the minimum area of influence and minimum
vegetation protection zone or “buffer” zone has been removed for habitats of endangered and
threatened species in an effort to align the Plan with the PPS, 2014 and the Endangered Species
Act, 2007 (MMAH, 2016b, p. 39).
Joshua Wise from Ontario Nature expressed his initial concern regarding the effect of the proposed
changes on endangered species habitats. He stated: “Many of the references to species at risk
habitat have been greatly changed by the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
significantly. It’ll definitely decrease the level of protection afforded to the species at risk
[compared to] the original versions of the plans.”
6.8 Hydrological Features
The proposed changes to the Plan include recognition of “key hydrologic features”, such as kettle
lakes (MMAH, 2016b, p. 6) as opposed to the original “hydrologically sensitive features”, which
86
legitimizes and recognizes the importance of these key features. The Plan also strengthens the
connectivity between natural heritage and hydrologic features (MMAH, 2016b, p. 42).
There are also proposed regulations for increased water quality protection. For example, there are
new “criteria for evaluating the impacts of proposed development and infrastructure projects
within and outside the Plan Area on water quality and quantity and on hydrological features and
functions;” (MMAH, 2016b, p. 44). Conservation authorities, ENGOs, and regional town hall
participants were adamant that headwaters outside of the Plan area should be considered, not
limited to water within the Moraine, and this new regulation to consider the impacts of
infrastructure on water both inside and outside of the Plan area is a means of addressing this
concern.
In general, many interview participants are supportive of adding provisions to protect hydrological
features. One interview participant from the TRCA stated: “The watershed plans were a couple of
the key things we had recognized with being pretty much in line with what the conservation
authorities were asking for.”
The proposed changes would also require development of stormwater master plans and stormwater
management plans in planning for infrastructure. Infrastructure must consider hydrological
features and stormwater, and plan for extreme weather events that may occur. Interview
participants are supportive of this, although some participants feel that more improvements could
still be made. For example, one interview participant from the TRCA explained that:
“We’re certainly recommending further improvement in that area, especially when it comes to redevelopment in flood vulnerable areas, but they’ve taken some initial good steps towards that… We need to also be able to take the opportunity to provide mitigation measures so that we’re not intensifying in areas that are going to continue to flood. We need to put in the infrastructure now during or before development and intensification occurs that’s going to minimize any future flood risks.”
Additionally, under the proposed changes to the Plan, sewage from new developments must be
considered before development applications will be approved. Several interview participants felt
that sewage, particularly septic tanks, are potential threats to the Moraine, and were pleased with
the proposed changes.
87
6.9 Excess Soil and Fill
The concept of excess soil and fill is proposed to be added to the Plan, and many interview
participants had recommended this be added. The proposed changes emphasize that any excess
soil and fill generated during development should be overseen by the municipalities and industry
to “re-use on-site or locally to the maximum extent possible” and that it should not cause adverse
effects on the environment (MMAH, 2016b, p. 61).
While many see it as a success that excess soil and fill will now be addressed in the Plan, they also
feel that the proposed provisions are not very strict, and that further regulations to protect the
environment from commercial fill are required. One interview participant from the TRCA stated:
“They’ve got some policies that they’ve added for managing large-scale fill activities. So that’s
something that conservation authorities were requesting be put in there. The trouble is those
policies are just kind of weak, so we’ll be requesting changes or strengthening to those kinds of
policies as well.”
6.10 Settlement Area Expansion
While the Plan originally did not allow for any Settlement Area boundary line expansion, the
proposed changes to the Plan provide for expansion to Settlement Areas. Municipalities would
have the ability to apply for a municipal comprehensive review to be completed under section
2.2.8 of the Growth Plan (MMAH, 2016b, p. 78). The Growth Plan states that a municipal
comprehensive review can take place if minimum intensification and density targets are reached
and to accommodate forecasted growth; that the amount of land developed must be minimized;
and that infrastructure and public service facilities must be provided to support complete
communities” (MMAH, 2016a, p. 23-24).
There were mixed reactions among open house participants and interview participants regarding
boundary expansion. Many were wary of the proposed changes to expand boundary lines. Some
open house participants are worried that the potential expansion of Settlement Area boundary lines
might result in more development in other land use designations of the Moraine, such as the
Countryside Area.
Some interview participants thought that there were some municipalities that would be eager to
try to expand their Settlement Area boundary lines, while other municipalities would be less
88
inclined to do so. One interview participant stated: “Certain municipalities are very much for
protecting more of their greenspace and others are not so much, and some of them that are not so
much are looking for their own reasons to expand development.” – Robert Orland, President,
Orland Conservation
Several municipalities contacted were unable to speak on the issue of expanding Settlement Area
boundary lines since they were currently reviewing the proposed changes to the Plan. Faye
Langmaid from the Municipality of Clarington, however, expressed the view that the potential
Settlement Area expansion did not affect the Municipality of Clarington very much because they
“don’t have a lot of areas that are in there [Settlement Area boundaries]” and that the changes “[are
not] going to make a lot of difference” in Clarington.
Some interview participants are cautious about the expansion of Settlement Area boundary lines,
and feel that greater regulation is required to oversee this development. Robert Orland suggested
a body to oversee and have final approval over the expansion of Settlement Area boundary lines
to ensure that municipalities balance growth with environmental protection. He stated: “As long
as it is a really well done comprehensive plan with some oversight with the province, and the
province is just there to check it to see that [Settlement Area expansion] is not too selfishly
motivated.” – Robert Orland, President, Orland Conservation
Another interview participant expressed concern about the potential Settlement Area Expansion:
“Another big area that’s a bit of a concern is the fact that the ten year freeze on urban boundaries expansions has been waived in favour of a process that municipal comprehensive review process that could see expansion happening anytime within that review process. We think that there should be boundaries and let’s put in some time frames that they can work towards rather than kind of a moving time target for municipalities.” – Debbe Crandall
A representative from the province at one of the open houses stated that it will be “difficult to
adjust Settlement Areas since it has to be justifiable, such as meet required targets, demonstrate a
shortage of land and services, and other criteria, etc.”
6.11 Concerns of the Growth Plan
While not part of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, some interview participants
expressed concerns related to the proposed changes to the Growth Plan in terms of increased
89
population density and infrastructure. The Growth Plan proposes increased population density to
help prevent urban sprawl (MMAH, 2016a), however, some interview participants have concerns
that higher density population targets in rural areas would increase the need for infrastructure and
services to support them. For example, Faye Langmaid from the Municipality of Clarington stated:
“We’re more worried with the density numbers that have come out in the Growth Plan… It would mean to municipalities like Clarington that are outside the downtowns would in fact be required by the province to be denser than what our downtowns are. That seems counter intuitive to most of us.”
Robert Orland supported this view: “There’s also a lot of service required which is a huge expense
to municipalities that may not be realized for many years later.”
Finally, there were other proposed changes to the Plan, however they were not mentioned by any
of the interview participants or at the open house meetings. These changes include: the
implementation of the Plan now must also consider other land use planning policies, and aggregate
extraction can now take place beside Natural Core Areas. For further information regarding these
and other proposed changes to the Plan, please view the Proposed Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan (2016).
90
Chapter 7 Recommendations, Future Research, and Conclusion
Recommendations, Future Research, and Conclusion
There are several changes identified through this research that could help to strengthen the Plan,
improve its implementation, and protect the Moraine while balancing the needs of a growing
population. These recommendations relate to the Plan itself, as well as tools and funding to support
and improve the implementation of the Plan.
7.1 Recommendations
7.1.1 Plan
Maintain Strength of the Plan and Settlement Area Boundary Lines
The proposed changes to the Plan would allow for Settlement Area expansion through municipal
comprehensive reviews under section 2.2.8 of the Growth Plan (2006). It is recommended that the
province hold fast on the boundary lines for Settlement Areas; they should remain as they are
currently laid out in the Moraine to ensure the protection of the Moraine’s agricultural and
ecologically vulnerable lands. There are several reasons as to why the boundary lines for
Settlement Areas should remain consistent.
The first reason for retaining the original Settlement Area boundary lines is that the Plan has only
been in place for the past 14 years, which is a relatively short period of time. It is designed as a
long-range plan to ensure sustainability and liveable communities into the next century, as opposed
to a short-term plan. Given the long timeframe, expanding Settlement Area boundary lines after
only 14 years into its implementation is too short of a time period.
The second reason for retaining the original Settlement Area boundary lines is because there is a
significant amount of land in the Moraine’s Settlement Areas that has not been developed yet. The
option should not be provided to expand a municipality’s Settlement Area boundary lines when
development can take place in Settlement Areas of the Moraine in other municipalities.
91
There should, however, be a review of the complaints filed by individuals as part of the co-
ordinated review regarding specific boundary issues on their properties. During the regional town
hall meetings, several individuals expressed displeasure with having their properties included in
the Moraine designation. Some of these issues should be reviewed to determine the validity of
their complaints, and determine a viable solution, if required. This is important as the initial
drawing of the Moraine’s boundary lines was somewhat rough, and could be potentially refined
on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, land can be added to the Moraine to increase its size and protection. There may be
some municipalities who wish to have land in their boundaries added to the Moraine, or individuals
who would like to have their private properties become part of the Moraine, and those requests
should also be considered.
If the change to allow the expansion of Settlement Areas occurs, there should be a limited time
whereby adjustments must be completed, and not allow them to continue indefinitely.
Additionally, there should be a review by MMAH to oversee approved Settlement Area expansions
to ensure the expansion is required and to ensure the protection of the Moraine as a whole.
Some Flexibility for Minor Development on Private Property
There should be increased flexibility for minor development on private property that takes place
in hamlets outside of Settlement Areas. Many interview and regional town hall participants felt
that requiring Environmental Assessment Studies (EAS) for minor development outside of
Settlement Areas requires substantial resources and poses little benefit relative to the resources
required. For example, a landowner in a Countryside Area would benefit from building a pool,
deck, or shed on their property, provided it is located away from natural heritage and hydrological
features.
The proposed changes allow for flexibility for minor development in the agricultural sector in
Countryside Areas, which allows for flexibility to support agriculture. There should, however, be
some regulation to ensure that development remains minor and that natural heritage features and
hydrological features remain protected and unaffected by this minor development. The proposed
changes to the Plan do not allow for any flexibility for minor development for land owners to build
non-agriculture related structures. There could be added flexibility for those who wish to build a
92
small structure such as a pool, deck, or shed since these impacts are usually minor and EASs are
very resource intensive for such minor development.
Increase the Minimum Buffer Requirement
While many stakeholders interviewed in this research were supportive of the Minimum Area of
Influence and Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone or “buffer” zone, some felt that a 30 metre
minimum buffer was insufficient, and that the buffer zone should be increased in width.
A method to better protect the Moraine would be to increase the buffer zone to a default of 90
metres, and to reduce the buffer zone only if an applicant could legitimately justify why the buffer
should be reduced and ensure that no harm would come to natural heritage features or hydrological
features. The buffer, however, could not be reduced to less than the original 30 metres required.
This would put the onus on the proponent. This method is currently implemented by the Town of
Caledon, and several other interview participants supported this idea.
Create a Sunset Clause for Transitional Development
A sunset clause for transitional and grandfathered development should be implemented. While
there is significant “red tape” surrounding the creation of sunset clauses, it would be useful in
protecting areas of the Moraine from development that was approved prior to the Plan. A relatively
long sunset clause time frame such as 10 years would help to alleviate some of the pressure from
developers since it would allow them 10 years to begin building their developments. After that
timeframe the developments could no longer be undertaken unless an extension is applied for that
can demonstrate that steps have been taken towards development.
If developers decide not to continue with their development applications, there should be some
form of compensation for the land, at which point, if funds allow, the Provincial Government
should purchase the land for conservation purposes, or “swap” the land for other areas that are less
environmentally sensitive. One interview participant stated that sunset clauses are currently being
used in other jurisdictions in Ontario, and therefore there is precedent use in the Moraine as well.
Oversight for Infrastructure
Green energy infrastructure and transportation infrastructure are large-scale infrastructure that are
regulated by the province, so municipalities and conservation authorities have little influence in
93
the placement of these structures. Some interview participants feel that the proposed changes to
the Plan do not adequately tackle these issues to ensure the protection of the Moraine. While the
proposed changes would limit infrastructure in Natural Core Areas to the edge of the designation
area, or only allow it if there is no reasonable alternative and the effects are kept to a minimum
(MMAH, 2016b, p. 67), there could be improvements made to ensure greater protection of the
Moraine. For example, municipalities and conservation authorities should be given more power to
restrict infrastructure in their jurisdiction to preserve the environmental integrity of the Moraine.
Currently municipalities and conservation authorities have little ability to reject large-scale
infrastructure projects. By providing increased restrictions and regulations in the Plan, and more
power to municipalities to challenge and overrule proposed infrastructure projects, the Moraine
can be better protected.
Additionally, a proactive provincial regulatory body should be identified and resourced to oversee
infrastructure for the Greater Golden Horseshoe region as a whole. This would be effective at
determining the broader requirements of the area and impacts on the region from infrastructure
projects individually and cumulatively.
Regulations for Issues Not Addressed in the Plan
Currently there are several issues that have arisen since the creation of the Plan that are not
addressed under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001. These issues include
commercial fill and water taking. These issues pose challenges to the Moraine’s ecological
integrity and protection and should therefore be addressed in the Plan to ensure the Moraine’s
protection.
While the proposed changes to the Plan address “excess soil and fill”, which is an improvement,
the regulations that oversee it are not very strong. The Plan should implement a regulation whereby
a limit is set as to the amount of commercial fill that is allowed in each fill site on the Moraine,
and where the fill sites are located. Additionally, there should be requirements for testing soil, and
oversight to ensure that the amount of fill being accepted is not in excess of the limits. Excess soil
and fill could also be better handled if municipal bylaws apply so that conservation authorities
have grounds to refuse to issue permits for fill if they feel it is in excess or potentially detrimental
to the Moraine.
94
Water taking, which is currently controlled through a permit process, should be addressed in the
Plan. In particular limits should be set on the amount taken and to ensure that commercial bottling
is regulated. Additionally, the Plan should require testing of the water table to ensure that it does
not cross below a certain line. Oversight of water taking in the Moraine, and potentially the entire
Greater Golden Horseshoe region, may help to determine the extent of water taking and monitoring
water levels as a whole, as opposed to by municipality, would provide better protection of
hydrological features both inside and outside the Moraine.
Consistent Language and Definitions
Currently there are slight differences in the definitions and language used throughout the Plan and
other land use plans and policies in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Protected Countryside Plan, the Growth Plan,
and the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014). In an effort to improve the ease of use of the plans and
cohesive implementation, it is recommended that consistent language and definitions should be
used throughout the various land use plans. The proposed changes to the Plan include updated
terminology and added definitions to ensure that the Plan is more in line with the other land use
plans and policies used, and these proposed changes should be adopted.
7.1.2 Tools
Several tools could be created to aid municipalities and planners in implementing the Plan. This
would help ensure more consistent implementation of the Plan throughout the Moraine.
Database
Several interview participants emphasized the need for a tool to assist municipalities and
conservation authorities who are responsible for implementing the Plan. The TRCA mentioned the
creation of an online database of definitions and case studies of how to properly implement the
Plan. The database could also provide examples of the best methods to address certain situations.
This would help provide guidance and consistency when various municipalities, conservation
authorities, and NGOs are looking for the best methods to handle a specific situation. Currently, if
a municipality does not know how to handle a situation, planners may, or may not, contact their
peers in a neighbouring municipality or MMAH to determine if they have experienced a similar
situation and how they handled it. Providing a database of best practices would help to eliminate
95
uncertainty in implementing the Plan, and aid in more consistent implementation of the Plan
throughout the Moraine.
Workshops
The TRCA suggested that a course for municipal staff about how to implement the Plan would
increase their ability to properly and consistently enforce the Plan. A workshop, facilitated by
conservation authorities or in partnership with MMAH, could be effective, and help answer any
questions municipal planners may have about the updates.
7.1.3 Additional Funding
Additional funding would help to improve implementation of the Plan and ultimately the
protection of the Moraine. While it is easy to say that additional funding is required, it is sometimes
more challenging to gain resources. Additional funding would best be used for: land acquisition
and securement; to increase monitoring efforts; and to provide resources for smaller municipalities
or conservation authorities to support better implementation of the Plan.
Currently the Province of Ontario provides funding to the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation,
however sometimes the goals of the Friends of the Greenbelt Foundation may differ from the Oak
Ridges Moraine Foundation. Several interview participants suggested funding be reinstated to the
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation to support Moraine-specific initiatives.
Land Acquisition and Securement
Land acquisition and securement play a large role in protecting environmentally sensitive areas of
the Moraine from development. In order for the conservation authorities and municipalities to
conduct land purchases and acquisition, they require funding to purchase land from private land
owners or developers; additional funding would allow more land to be purchased for protection.
Many interview participants supported the notion of additional funding for land acquisition and
securement.
Additionally, if funding was available for land securement, it may also be used to compensate
landowners under the sunset clause provisions for transitional development.
96
Monitoring Efforts by Conservation Authorities and ENGOs
Monitoring efforts are required to build on base line data regarding the ecological health of the
Moraine, to improve the implementation of the Plan, and ultimately the health of the Moraine.
Currently, monitoring the ecological health of the Moraine is primarily conducted by conservation
authorities and ENGOs. Monitoring is a resource intensive process, but is necessary to ensure the
environmental integrity of the Moraine. Long-term funding and additional resources to aid in
monitoring efforts by conservation authorities and ENGOs is key to the effectiveness of the Plan.
Ensuring the creation and maintenance of a monitoring database with targets and indicators by
MMAH, municipalities, and other stakeholders would aid in ensuring consistent monitoring efforts
across the Moraine.
Resources for Smaller Municipalities and Conservation Authorities to Implement the Plan
Several interview participants commented that municipalities and conservation authorities have
varying resources based on the amount of funding available through tax bases. Smaller
municipalities are particularly challenged because they have less funding available for their
planning departments and the conservation authorities that oversee their jurisdictions, resulting in
fewer resources to properly implement the Plan.
Additional funding and resources to support smaller municipalities and conservation authorities
would help smaller municipalities, thus benefiting the Moraine as a whole. While MMAH supports
smaller municipalities in implementing the Plan, smaller conservation authorities would also
benefit from increased funding and resources.
7.1.4 Oversight
Several interview participants commented that additional oversight is required by a proactive
central regulatory body. The areas that would benefit the most from provincial oversight are:
infrastructure across the Moraine and entire Greater Golden Horseshoe area; water taking;
commercial fill; expansion of Settlement Area boundary lines; appeals at the OMB; and ensuring
consistent implementation of the Plan by municipalities across the Moraine. Some interview
participants suggested a small team, perhaps one or two individuals to oversee the Moraine and
potentially the entire Greater Golden Horseshoe area as a whole to ensure consistent
97
implementation of the Plan, and that the Moraine is being protected from larger issues that affect
the entire region. One interview participant suggested a joint team between MMAH and MNRF to
ensure a combination of a planning and policy background along with an environmental science
background. This team could also aid in creating a database of situations; monitoring efforts; and
training initiatives such as workshops.
7.2 Contributions and Future Research
This research has broader contributions to the field of land use planning literature. The first
implication is that environmentally protective land use legislation, such as a greenbelt, should be
seen as a long-term planning tool that is designed to protect greenspace for centuries in the future,
not merely decades. Land use planning legislation can easily be modified in the future as
population needs increase, however, protective environmental legislation should be seen as long-
term planning solutions to ensure the protection of greenspace despite growing population
demands.
The second take-away of this research is that any new land use legislation introduced should work
with existing legislation to ensure they have consistent goals and methods to avoid confusion and
conflict when being implemented. Environmental protection legislation is also more effective
when used in conjunction with legislation that directs urban growth in a sustainable way. For
example, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan protects greenspace in the Moraine from
development, while the Growth Plan directs sustainable urban development, which is an effective
method to coordinate greenspace protection and direct urban growth, which supports the literature
by Seltzer (2009); Fung & Conway (2007); and Boussauw, Allaert, and Witlox (2013).
Additionally, stakeholders’ perspectives should also be considered when creating land use
legislation. The EBR requires stakeholder consultation, and this is necessary to ensure that
legislation reflects the perspectives of stakeholders. If there is greater support of land use
legislation among stakeholders, it has a better chance of being supported in the future. This also
demonstrates the importance of periodic reviews of the legislation to ensure that it is meeting the
needs of stakeholders and the environment. Finally, oversight is required in land use planning
legislation to ensure that the legislation is consistently being implemented, and that it is meeting
the needs of stakeholders and its goals.
98
There are several areas of interest that emerged in this study that merit further research and
examination. Future research could focus on data gaps that exist in current monitoring efforts in
the Moraine. For example, currently the extent of forest cover is monitored by conservation
authorities, however the quality of forests are not (Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition,
2015). There is also a lack of continual monitoring of subwatersheds, and additional locations for
groundwater monitoring should be identified (Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition, 2015).
Additionally, the monitoring network for data regarding fish and stream temperature, such as
frequency and distribution of sampling sites, particularly in the eastern region of the Moraine,
could be strengthened (Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition, 2015). Furthermore, the
impacts of stressors such as dams and barriers could be monitored (Conservation Authorities
Moraine Coalition, 2015). Finally, there could be additional monitoring efforts regarding the
species richness in the Moraine. Additional monitoring efforts could be investigated to ensure the
ecological integrity of the Moraine moving forward.
Continued research could investigate the use of sunset clauses currently used and their potential
implementation in Ontario. Sunset clauses are currently being implemented in the City of
Kawartha Lakes, and potentially various other areas in southern Ontario. Additional examination
of their implementation and subsequent effects may add to the body of knowledge regarding their
implementation, potential legal ramifications and solutions, and possibly provide an example of
the best methods of implementing them for existing and new development approvals.
Additional research could also investigate planning initiatives of the Plan that offer policy learning
opportunities. For example, the creation of minimum vegetation protection zones or mandatory
buffer zones around key natural heritage features were a new initiative implemented in the Plan.
Since their initial implementation in the Plan, they have increased in popularity and influenced
other land use planning. Additionally, environmental impact studies are commonly used in
environmental assessments and land use planning now, however they were relatively new when
required in the Plan. Future research could investigate the use of these and other land use planning
initiatives that have occurred in the Plan, and how they have continued to influence land use
policies.
Water taking is identified as a continued threat to the Moraine. Additional research is required to
determine the best method of overseeing water taking in the Moraine, and the Province of Ontario.
99
For example, research could determine whether water taking should be part of the Plan or if a
revised Ontario Water Resources Act is required. There could also be investigation into whether a
provision for water taking in the Moraine could be added to the Plan and the current water taking
permit process updated.
Further research could also examine the impacts of the Plan and proposed changes of the Plan. For
example, the potential contributions of the Plan and Greenbelt Plan on leapfrog development could
be examined to determine whether the plans have contributed to leapfrog development outside of
the Greenbelt area. Additionally, the impacts of Settlement Area boundary expansion could be
investigated to determine the potential impacts on the Moraine and municipalities. There are many
unknowns regarding the impacts of Settlement Area boundary expansion, and the best methods to
regulate it, and additional research could help ensure sustainable development and growth while
protecting the Moraine. The flexibility proposed to the agricultural sector would benefit from
further study to determine how the Moraine and stakeholders may be affected by the potential
changes. Finally, the impacts on the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is an avenue
for future research. For example, greater research could investigate the impacts of the Growth Plan
on smaller and rural municipalities regarding the proposed increases for population target
densities.
7.3 Conclusion
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan is intended to protect the ecological integrity of the
Moraine from potential threats, while balancing the needs of a growing population. Overall, the
Plan is considered to be a success due to its protection of the Moraine. The Plan has been effective
at modifying building practices to direct urban growth to particular areas of the Moraine thereby
reducing urban sprawl. The Plan has also helped ensure the protection of key natural heritage
features by providing additional restrictions to environmentally sensitive areas. Finally, the Plan
has been effective at raising the public’s awareness and support of the Moraine to help ensure its
protection now and into the future.
Notwithstanding the positive impacts of the Plan, there are a myriad of challenges in the
implementation of the Plan. The actual implementation can pose a challenge through inconsistent
implementation of the Plan among municipalities. Additionally, many stakeholders who
contributed to this research feel that assessments and appeals tend to favour developers over
100
environmental protection, or that multiple land use policies can also make it challenging to
properly implement the Plan. There are also some challenges with interpreting the language used
in the Plan and inconsistent definitions used among various land use plans, which can result in
confusion and ultimately inconsistent application of the Plan across municipalities. Other issues
that threaten the Moraine are the grandfathering of transitional development in perpetuity and the
lack of municipal input to provincial infrastructure development. Additionally the Plan is based on
a land planning approach that does not fully regulate potentially harmful activities such as
excessive depositing of commercial fill or large-scale water taking. A decline in funding has also
resulted in a lack of resources for land securement and monitoring efforts in the Moraine. Limited
funding also impacts smaller municipalities and conservation authorities. The lack of a central
regulating body to oversee implementation of the Plan also creates challenges in ensuring the
protection of the Moraine. Finally, leapfrog development, additional requirements for approval of
minor development, and issues experienced by those in the agricultural sector pose challenges in
the implementation of the Plan.
There are several updates that could be made to improve the Plan and its implementation to better
protect the Moraine. The proposed changes to the Plan address several of these issues, and are
largely supported by interview participants and regional open house participants. Some of the more
noteworthy proposed changes focus on aligning the various land use plans in the area to have
consistent goals and terminology. There are also significant changes proposed to provide increased
flexibility and support for the agricultural sector. Another substantial improvement to the Plan is
that development and infrastructure must consider climate change, hydrological features, and
stormwater management to ensure sustainable development. The issue of excess soil and fill has
been a proposed addition to the Plan, although requires increased strength to ensure it is effective
in regulating fill in the Moraine.
Another more significant proposed change to the Plan is that Settlement Area expansion can occur
through a municipal comprehensive review. The majority of interview and open house participants
feel the proposed changes reflect their suggestions to the Plan, and with minor modifications, such
as increased oversight, support the proposed changes.
However, even with its shortcoming, virtually all interview participants and many town hall
participants are supportive of the Plan and feel that its goal of protecting the Moraine is admirable.
101
Planners, conservation authorities, ENGOs and other stakeholders are supportive of methods of
directing urban growth to Settlement Areas, and restricting land use in the Natural Core and
Natural Linkage Areas. The majority of interview participants also feel that the Plan is a new type
of planning regulation that advocates for the protection of natural heritage features.
One issue that came to light in this research is that conservation authorities and municipalities do
not always have control over what takes place in their jurisdiction. For example, the Plan does not
allow conservation authorities and municipalities to reject commercial fill or water taking permits
notwithstanding the detrimental impact of these practices. Additionally, they do not have the
authority to say no to provincial projects such as energy or transportation infrastructure. Finally,
OMB hearings can overrule municipal or conservation authority decisions. These examples
illustrate the practical limitations on the efforts of conservation authorities and municipalities to
protect the Moraine.
This research also highlights that there are varying perspectives when it comes to how best to
implement the Plan. Stakeholders from diverse fields and jurisdictions have varying interests and
are affected differently by the Plan, which provides each with a unique perspective that influences
their perceived successes and challenges in implementing the Plan. Stakeholders have conflicting
perspectives on three main issues: transitional development; settlement area boundary lines; and
monitoring the ecological health of the Moraine.
Transitional development is a divisive topic for interview and regional town hall participants.
Some regional town hall participants who live in the Moraine and interview participants from
ENGOs are very concerned regarding the amount of transitional development that is taking place
in the Moraine, and feel that it is a substantial threat to the ecological health of the Moraine. Other
interview participants from conservation authorities and MMAH, however, do not view
transitional development as a continuing threat to the Moraine. They believe the majority of
transitional development has already taken place.
The use of sunset clauses to protect the Moraine from transitional development is a popular idea
among interview participants from ENGOs, conservation authorities, planners, and particularly
among regional town hall participants. MMAH, however, is somewhat less supportive of the idea
of sunset clauses due to their legal ramifications such as revoking development approval or
potentially having to pay out landowners who may have legal rights to develop their lands.
102
Additionally, while no one from the development sector was interviewed in this research, it is
unlikely they would support sunset clauses since it would limit their ability to pursue developments
which would in turn affect their revenue. These varying perspectives illustrate the complexity and
need for balancing protection with the planning framework that supports appropriate residential
and commercial land uses. Worth noting, is that the proposed changes to the Plan do not include
any reference to sunset clauses for transitional development, therefore it is unlikely it will be
included in the revised Plan upon the completion of the co-ordinated land use review.
Various stakeholders also have differing views regarding the boundary lines of the Moraine and
having land within the Moraine. The majority of planners from municipalities in the Moraine
consulted in this research want the Settlement Area boundary lines of their municipality to remain
as they are without expanding. They believe that there is enough room for infill development in
their municipalities and in Settlement Areas in other parts of the Moraine to accommodate the
growing population, and that the boundary lines should not be expanded at this time.
Individuals with land in the Moraine, however, have differing perspectives. For example, some
regional town hall participants from the agricultural sector and local residents outside of Settlement
Areas are frustrated by the additional regulations imposed on their land by the Plan, such as site
plan approval for minor development. These land owners feel that the Plan limits their rights and
freedom. The majority of regional town hall participants, however, are very supportive of the Plan
and its ability to protect environmentally sensitive areas and agricultural land.
Those from ENGOs and conservation authorities advocate for greater environmental protection of
the Moraine. For example, interview participants from conservation authorities and ENGOs
recommend increases in buffer zones around key natural heritage features, and the expansion of
the Moraine to incorporate environmentally sensitive lands that are just beyond the Moraine’s
current borders. These differing perspectives highlight that there can be varying experiences and
views from stakeholders regarding boundary lines and land in the Moraine.
There was also some debate as to whether commercial fill and water taking are land uses or land
activities. Currently they are classified as land activities by the province, and therefore cannot be
regulated under the Plan. Some interview participants from ENGOs, however, feel that they should
be reclassified as land uses and therefore can be added to the Plan. The proposed changes to the
103
Plan, however, have modified the concept of commercial fill so that it is known as ‘excess soil and
fill’ so that it is a land use and is now added to the Plan.
Another issue that is widely debated is who should be responsible for monitoring the ecological
health of the Moraine. Interview participants from ENGOs feel that monitoring should be
completed by the provincial government, most likely MMAH. MMAH, however, feel that
conservation authorities and ENGOs are better suited to conduct monitoring since they are already
completing the majority of monitoring efforts. Failure by either the province or the conservation
authorities and ENGOs to accept primary responsibility for monitoring of the Moraine increases
the risk that threats to the Moraine will go undetected or that insufficient information will be
available to further refine provisions of the Plan to best meet its objectives.
There are some limitations in this research that should be noted. The first is that individuals from
the development sector were not interviewed for this research, so their perspectives may not be
fully represented. Second, individuals from the agricultural sector were not interviewed in this
research, although they were consulted during regional town hall meetings and regional open
houses, which has helped to provide insight into their perspectives.
While there are a large number of challenges in implanting the Plan, the Plan is overall considered
to be a success since it helps to protect the Moraine. With several minor updates to the proposed
changes to the Plan, it will continue to protect the Moraine for years to come. The Plan can also
serve as an example of an effective method to preserve environmental features in a rapidly
developing area. The Plan, in conjunction with the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan, is an effective
way to protect an environmentally sensitive area of land while balancing the needs of a growing
population.
104
References
Amati, Marco, & Taylor, Laura. (2010). From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure. Planning Practice & Research, 25(2), 143-155.
Amati, M., & Yokohari, M. (2006). Temporal changes and local variations in the functions of London’s green belt. Landscape and urban planning, 75,125–142.
Amati, M., & Yokohari, M. (2007). The Establishment of the London Greenbelt: Reaching Consensus over Purchasing Land. Journal of Planning History, 6(4), 311-337.
Austen, Madeline J.W., Francis, Charles M., Burke, Dawn M., & Bradstreet, Michael S.W. (2001). Landscape context and fragmentation effects on forest birds in southern Ontario. The Condor, 103(4), 701-714.
Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., & Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 271-286.
Bocking, Stephen. (2005). Protecting the rain barrel: Discourses and the role of science in a suburban environmental controversy. Environmental Politics, 12(5), 611-628.
Boussauw, K., Allaet, G., & Witlox, F. 2013. Colouring Inside What Lines? Interference of the Urban Growth Boundary and the Political-Administrative Border of Brussels. European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1509-1527.
Bradford, Andrea. (2008). Water policy for ecosystem integrity: Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Ontario, Canada. Water International, 33(3), 320-332.
Brueckner, Jan. (2000). Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies. International Regional Science Review, 23(2), 160-171.
Cadieux, K.V., Taylor, L.E., & Bunce, M.F. (2013). Landscape ideology in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt Plan: Negotiating material landscapes and abstract ideals in the city's countryside. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 307-319.
Caldwell, W., & Hills, S. (2005). Farmland preservation: innovative approaches in Ontario. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 60(3), 66A–69A.
Carter-Whitney, Maureen. (2008). Ontario’s Greenbelt in an International Context: Comparing Ontario’s Greenbelt to its Counterparts in Europe and North America. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy.
Chess, Caron, & Purcell, Kristen. (1999). Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? Environmental Science & Technology, 33(16), 2685-2692.
Conservation Authorities Moraine Coalition (CAMC). (2015). Report Card on the Environmental Health of the Oak Ridges Moraine and Adjacent Greenbelt Lands. Retrieved from http://www.nvca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/ORM-Greenbelt-Report-Card-2015.pdf.
Crandall, D.D., & Fahey, N.S.C. 2006. Status Report on the Implementation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan: Implications for the Greenbelt Plan. Retrieved from http://www.escarpment.org/_files/file.php?fileid=fileWmmNdIaZxK&filename=file_Crandall.Fahey.pdf.
105
Crofts, R. (2004). Linking protected areas to the wider world: a review of approaches. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 6(2), 142–156.
Daoust-Filiatrault, Lou-Anne, & Connell, David. (2014). Protecting Canada’s Farmland: Research Bulletin, July 2014. Principles and Beneficial Practices of Integrated Agricultural Land Use Planning Solutions. Retrieved from http://foodsecurecanada.org/sites/default/files/aglup_research_bulletin_summer_2014_0.pdf.
Ding, C., Knaap, G.J., & Hopkins, L.D. 1999. Managing urban Growth with Urban Growth Boundaries: A Theoretical Analysis. Journal of Economics, 46. 53-68.
Earthroots. (n.d.) Oak Ridges Moraine. Retrieved from http://earthroots.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=141&Itemid=91.
EcoSpark, & Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition. (2010). Monitoring the Moraine: Citizens’ Guide to the Oak Ridges Moraine. Toronto: EcoSpark.
EcoSpark, & Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition. (2012). Monitoring the Moraine 2012 Status Report: Compliance, Infrastructure, and Community Concerns on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Edey, C., Seasons, M., & Whitelaw, G. (2006). The media, planning and the Oak Ridges Moraine. Planning Practice and Research, 21(2), 147-161.
Eidelman, G. (2010). Managing urban sprawl in Ontario: good policy or good politics? Politics & Policy, 38(6), 1211-1236.
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2011). "The Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation." Engaging Solutions, ECO Annual Report, 2010/11. Toronto: The Queen's Printer for Ontario. 122. Retrieved from http://www.ecoissues.ca/The_Oak_Ridges_Moraine_Foundation.
Environmental Defence. (2014). Ontario’s Greenbelt Under Threat: A Study on What’s at Risk. Retrieved from http://greenbeltunderthreat.ca/
Evans-Cowley, Jennifer, & Hollander, Justin. (2010). The New Generation of Public Participation: Internet-based Participation Tools. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), 397-408.
FarmLINK. (2016). Farmland Protection: How can I protect my farmland for farming now and in the future? Retrieved from https://www.farmlink.net/en/farm-owners/farmland-protection.html.
Feiock, R.C., Tavares, A.F., & Lubell, M. (2008). Policy Instrument Choices for Growth Management and Land Use Regulation. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(3), 461-480.
Findlay, Scott C., & Houlahan, J. 1997. Anthropogenic Correlates of Species Richness in Southeastern Ontario Wetlands. Conservation Biology, 11(4), 1000-1009.
Forman, R.T. (2008). Urban Regions: Ecology and Planning Beyond the City. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fung, F., & Conway, T. (2007). Greenbelts as an Environmental Planning Tool: A Case Study of Southern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(2), 101-117.
106
Gerber, Richard E., & Howard, Ken. (2002). Hydrogeology of the Oak Ridges Moraine aquifer system: Implications for protection and management from the Duffins Creek Watershed. Journal of Earth Sciences, 39(9), 1333-1348.
Global Forest Watch Canada. (2008). Urban Sprawl and Other Major Land Use Conversions in Ontario’s Greenbelt From 1993 to 2007: A Change Analysis Project Using Satellite Imagery. Edmonton, Alberta: Global Forest Watch Canada.
Gordon, D. & Scott, R. (2008). Ottawa’s Greenbelt Evolves from Urban Separator to key Ecological Planning Component. In M. Amati (Ed.), Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-first Century. (pp. 129-148). England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Hanna, K., & Webber, S. (2005). Sustainability, Planning Practice, Housing Form and Environmental Protection in the Toronto Region’s Oak Ridges Moraine: Project Report. Toronto: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Hanna, Kevin, & Webber, Steven. (2010). Incremental planning and land-use conflict in the Toronto region’s Oak Ridges Moraine. Local Environment, 15(2), 169-183.
Hartley, Nicola, & Wood, Christopher. (2005). Public participation in environmental impact assessment – implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(2005), 319-340.
Head, L., & P. Muir. (2006). Edges of Connection: Reconceptualising the human role in urban biogeography. Australian Geographer, 37(1), 87-101.
Hiramatsu, T. (2014). Expansive Urban Growth Boundary. Modern Economy, 5(7), 806-820.
Holysh, Steve, & Gerber, Richard. (2013). Groundwater knowledge management for southern Ontario: An example from the oak Ridges Moraine. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 39(2), 240-253.
Howard, Ken, Eyles, Nicholas, Smart, Philip, Boyce, Joseph, Gerber, Richard, Salvatori, Sean, & Doughty, Mike. (1995). The Oak Ridges Moraine of Southern Ontario: A Ground-water Resource at Risk. Geoscience Canada, 22(3), 101-120.
Ko, Connie, & Cheng, Qiuming. (2004). GIS spatial modeling of river flow and precipitation in the Oak Ridges Moraine Area, Ontario. Computers & Geosciences, 30(4), 379-389.
Lakeridge Citizens for Clean Water [LCCW]. (2016). Fill and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP). Retrieved from http://lakeridgecitizens.ca/lccw/fill-issues/fill-and-the-ormcp/.
Lambin, E.F., Turner, B.L., Geist, H.J., Agbola, S.B., Angelsen, A., Bruce, J.W., … Folke, C. (2001). The Causes of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change: Moving Beyond the Myths. Global Environmental Change, 11(4), 261-269.
Landis, John. (2006). Growth Management Revisited. Journal of the American planning Association, 72(4), 411-430.
Lemieux, Christopher, Beechey, Thomas, & Gray, Paul. (2011). Prospects for Canada’s protected areas in an era of rapid climate change. Land Use Policy, 28(4), 928-941.
Logan, Shannon, & Wekerle, Gerda R. (2008). Neoliberalizing environmental governance? Land trusts, private conservation and nature on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Geoforum, 39(6), 2097-2108.
107
Macdonald, Sarah, & Keil, (2012). Roger. The Ontario Greenbelt: Shifting the Scales of the Sustainability Fix? The Professional Geographer, 64(1), 125-145.
McElhinny, Bonnie. 2006. Written in Sand. Critical Discourse Studies, 3(2), 123-153.
McLaughlin, Ralph. (2012). Land use regulation: Where have we been, where are we going? Cities, 29(1), S50-55.
McWilliam, Wendy, Brown, Robert, Eagles, Paul, & Seasons, Mark. (2014). Barriers to the effective planning and management of residential encroachment within urban forest edges: A Southern Ontario, Canada case study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1), 48-62.
Metro Vancouver. (2011). Metro Vancouver 2014: Regional Growth Strategy, Bylaw No. 1136 2010. Greater Vancouver Regional District Board. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/docs/eastern-core/regional-growth-strategy.pdf.
Ministry of the Environment. (2014). Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for Best Management Practices. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. (2016a). Green Investment Fund. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. (2016b). Management of Excess Soil: A Guide for Best Management Practices. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2001). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2002). Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2005). The Greenbelt Plan. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2010). Oak Ridges Moraine: Legislation and Plan. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page323.aspx.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2015). Our Region, Our Community, Our Home: A Discussion Document for the 2015 Co-ordinated Review. Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2016a). Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Retrieved from https://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=420&Itemid=12.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (2016b). Proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page13788.aspx.
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). (n.d.) Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Technical Paper Series: #2 – Significant Wildlife Habitat. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=4887.
Ministry of Natural Resources & Dillion Limited. (1994). Assessment of Land Use Impacts on the Oak Ridges Moraine: Background Study No. 11. Maple, Ontario: Oak Ridges Moraine Technical Working Committee.
108
Nelson, A.C., Dawkins, C.J, & Sanchez, T.W. (2007). The Social Impacts of Urban Containment: Urban Planning and the Environment. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Neptis Foundation. (2005). Neptis Commentary on the Draft Greenbelt Plan. Retrieved from http://www.neptis.org/publications/neptis-commentary-draft-greenbelt-plan.
Neptis Foundation. (2015). Understanding the Fundamentals of the Growth Plan. The Neptis Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.neptis.org/sites/default/files/understanding_the_fundamentals_of_the_growth_plan_march20.pdf.
Newbold, Bruce, & Scott, Darren. (2013). Migration, Commuting distance, and Urban Sustainability in Ontario’s Greater Golden Horseshoe: Implications of the Greenbelt and Places to Grow Legislation. The Canadian Geographer, 57(4), 474-487.
Noble, Bram. (2015). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practice, 3rd edition. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. (2005). About the Moraine. Retrieved from http://www.moraineforlife.org/living/aboutmoraine.php.
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. (2011). Our Projects: Red Flags on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Retrieved from http://www.moraineforlife.org/projects/redflags.php.
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. (n.d.a). Moraine For Life. Retrieved from www.moraineforlife.org.
Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation. (n.d.b). Oak Ridges Moraine Foundation Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.moraineforlife.org/about/documents/ORMFFactSheet_001.pdf.
Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust. (2010). Save the Oak Ridges Moraine. Retrieved from http://www.oakridgesmoraine.org/storm.html.
Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust. (n.d.a) Quick Facts. Retrieved from http://www.oakridgesmoraine.org/qfacts.html.
Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust. (n.d.b) Water and the Moraine. Retrieved from http://www.oakridgesmoraine.org/water.html.
Oak Ridges Trail Association. (2012). Oak Ridges Moraine Trail Guidebook. Ontario: Oak Ridges Trail Association.
Oak Ridges Trail Association. (2015). The Oak Ridges Trail Association (ORTA). Retrieved from www.oakridgestrail.org.
O’Faircheallaigh, Ciaran. (2010). Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(2010), 19-27.
Ontario Federation of Agriculture. (2015). News: Land use plans must put farmland first (2015). Retrieved from http://www.ofa.on.ca/media/news/land-use-plans-must-put-farmland-first.
Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force. (n.d.a). Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force. Retrieved from http://osrtf.ca/index.php.
109
Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force. (n.d.b). The Dirt on Dirt. Retrieved from http://lakeridgecitizens.ca/lccw/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GeneralPrimerDirtOnDirt.pdf.
Orfield, M. & Luce T.F. 2009. Governing American Metropolitan Areas: Spatial Policy and Regional Governance. In C.L. Ross (Ed.), Megaregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness. (pp. 250-279). Washington: Island Press.
Pond, David. (2009a). Institutions, political economy and land-use policy: greenbelt politics in Ontario. Environmental Politics, 18(2), 238-256.
Pond, David. (2009b). Ontario’s Greenbelt: Growth Management, Farmland Protection, and Regime Change in Southern Ontario. Canadian Public Policy, 35(4), 413-432.
Razin, Eran. (2005). Determinants of Residential Sprawl in Canadian Metropolitan Areas. In O. Atzema, P. Rietveld, & D. Shefer. (Ed.) Regions, Land Consumption and Sustainable Growth (pp. 59-78). United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Russell, H.A.J., Pugin, A., Gorrell, G., Sharpe, D.R., Brennand, T.A., Kenny, F., & Barnett, P.J. (1998). On the origin of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 35(10), 1152-1167.
Sandberg, A.L., & Wekerle, G.R. (2010). Reaping Nature’s Dividends: The Neoliberalization and Gentrification of Nature on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(1), 41-57.
Sandberg, A.L., Wekerle, G.R., & Gilbert, L. (2013). The Oak Ridges Moraine battles: development, sprawl, and nature conservation in the Toronto Region. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Savard, Jean-Pierre L., Clergeau, Philippe, & Mennechez, Gwenaelle. 2000. Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48(3-4), 131-142.
Save The Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition. (2007a). About Storm. Retrieved from http://www.stormcoalition.org/pages/about.html.
Save The Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition. (2007b). Moraine Watch: A Guide to Monitoring Municipal Land Use Planning on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Ontario: Save the Oak Ridges Moraine (STORM) Coalition.
Seltzer, E. (2009). Maintaining the working landscape: the Portland Metro Urban Growth Boundary. In A. Van der Valk & T. Van Dijk. (Ed.) Regional Planning for Open Space (pp. 151-178). New York, New York: Routledge.
Sohl, Terry L., Loveland, Thomas R., Sleeter, Benjamin M., Sayler, Kristi L., & Barnes, Christopher A. (2010). Addressing Foundational elements of regional land-use change forecasting. Landscape Ecology, 25(2), 233-247.
Soule, D.C. (2006). Defining and Managing Sprawl. In D.C. Soule (Ed.), Urban Sprawl: A Comprehensive Reference Guide. (pp. 3-11).
Statistics Canada. (2015a). Human Activity and the Environment: Section 3 : Ecosystems and their goods and services at the national level. Retrieved http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-x/2013000/part-partie3-eng.htm
110
Statistics Canada. (2015b). Human Activity and the Environment : Map 3.3 Area converted to settled landscapes within the Lake Ontario and Niagara Peninsula-02H sub-drainage area, 1971, 2000, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-x/2013000/m003-eng.htm
Statistics Canada. (2015c). Visual Census – Population and dwelling counts, Barrie. [Catalogue number98-315-XWE]. Retrieved May 16th, 2016 from Statistics Canada: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/vc-rv/index.cfm?LANG=ENG&VIEW=D&TOPIC_ID=1&GEOCODE=568&CFORMAT=jpg.
Statistics Canada. (2015d). Visual Census – Population and dwelling counts, Guelph. [Catalogue number98-315-XWE]. Retrieved May 16th, 2016 from Statistics Canada: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/vc-rv/index.cfm?Lang=ENG&VIEW=D&CFORMAT=jpg&GEOCODE=550&TOPIC_ID=1.
Statistics Canada. (2015e). Visual Census – Population and dwelling counts, Ontario. [Catalogue number98-315-XWE]. Retrieved May 16th, 2016 from Statistics Canada: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dp-pd/vc-rv/index.cfm?Lang=ENG&VIEW=D&CFORMAT=jpg&GEOCODE=35&TOPIC_ID=1.
Stewart, Jennifer, & Sinclair, John. (2007). Meaningful Public Participation in Environnemental Assessment : Perspectives from Canadian Participants, Proponents, and Government. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(2), 161-183.
Talen, Emily. (2013). Zoning For and Against Sprawl: The Case for Form-Based Codes. Journal of Urban Design, 18(2), 175-200.
Taylor, Z., & Burchfield, M. (2010). Growing Cities: Comparing Urban Growth and Regional Growth Policies in Calgary, Toronto, and Vancouver. Toronto: Neptis Foundation.
Taylor, J., FitzGibbon, J., & Paine, C. (1995). From greenbelt to greenways: four Canadian case-studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33(1), 47-64.
Tayyebi, A., Pijanowski, B.C., and Tayyebi, A.H. 2011. An urban growth boundary model using neural networks, GIS and radial parameterization: An application to Tehran, Iran. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(1-2), 35-44.
Tomalty, Ray. (2012). Carbon in the Bank: Ontario’s Greenbelt and its Role in Mitigating Climate Change. Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation.
Vyn, Richard. (2012). Examining for Evidence of the Leapfrog Effect in the Context of Strict Agricultural Zoning. Land Economics, 88(3), 457-477.
Watchorn, M. A., Hamilton, P. B., Anderson, T.H., Roe, H.M., & Patterson, R.T., (2008). Diatoms and pollen as indicators of water quality and land-use change: a case study from the Oak Ridges Moraine, Southern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Paleolimnology, 39, 491-509.
Webber, Steven, & Hanna, Kevin. (2014). Sustainability and suburban housing in the Toronto region: the case of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 7(3), 245-260.
Wekerle, G., & Abbruzzese, T. (2010). Producing regionalism regional movements, ecosystems and equity in a fast and slow growth region. GeoJournal, 75(6), 581-594.
111
Wheeler, Stephen. (2003). The Evolution of Urban Form in Portland and Toronto: implications for sustainability planning. Local Environment, 8(3), 317-336.
Whitelaw, Graham, & Eagles, Paul. (2007). Planning for Long, Wide Conservation Corridors on Private lands in the Oak Ridges Moraine, Ontario, Canada. Conservation Biology, 21(3), 675-583.
Whitelaw, Graham, & Eagles, Paul, Gibson, Robert, & Seasons, Mark. (2008). Roles of Environmental Movement Organisations in Land-use Planning: Case Studies of the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine, Ontario, Canada. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(6), 801-816.
Wickersham, J. (2006). Legal Framework: The Laws of Sprawl and the Laws of Smart Growth. In D.C. Soule (Ed.), Urban Sprawl: A Comprehensive Reference Guide. (pp. 26-60).
Woo, M. & Guldmann, J. (2014). Urban Containment Policies and Urban Growth. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(3), 309-326.
Zipperer, W.C., Wu, J., Pouyant, R.V., & Pickett, S.T.A. (2000). The Application of Ecological Principles to Urban and Urbanizing Landscapes. Ecological Applications. 10(3), 685-688.
112
Appendices
Appendix A Interview Guide Municipality
Master’s Research on the Impacts of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan
Municipality/Area: _________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________
Contact name: _________________________________________
Position: ____________________________________
Place of employment: _________________________________________
Background:
I thought it would be helpful to share my interview guide with you in advance of our meeting. I am a master’s student at the University of Toronto researching the impact of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, (the “Act”), and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2002, (the “Plan”). I am primarily looking at changes between 2002 (when the Plan was implemented) to 2014. Specifically, my research questions are:
i) What successes and challenges have municipalities experienced in implementing the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan?
ii) How do stakeholders view the proposed changes and revisions from the 2016 Co-
ordinated Land Use Review to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan?
My study area includes the entire region of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
I will provide you with a summary of my research upon completion.
Thank you very much for your help; I look forward to speaking with you.
Kathleen Watt
Master's in Geography Candidate University of Toronto [email protected] 416-871-2503
113
Master’s Research on the Impacts of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan Interview Guide
Impacts
1. What general trends have you noticed regarding the magnitude and nature of development within the Oak Ridges Moraine since the implementation of the Plan in 2002 to 2014?
Reactions & Ramifications
2. How has the public reacted to the conservation efforts of the Plan within the Moraine?
3. How do you and/or your department view the impacts the Plan has had within:
a. Natural Core Areas
b. Natural Linkage Areas
c. Countryside Areas
d. Settlement Areas
4. What do you and/or your department view as:
a. Benefits and/or successes of the Plan?
b. Negatives and/or concerns regarding the Plan?
c. Challenges in implementation of the Plan?
5. What changes might you suggest making to the Plan? Why?
Policy
6. Have changes been made in policies due to the Act and the Plan? If so, how have these changes affected planning applications and approval for development within the Moraine since the creation of the Plan in 2002? How effective have these changes been at achieving their goal?
Appeals
7. Has your municipality been involved in any appeals regarding land use change or development within the Moraine? If so, what reasons were used for the appeal and what were the outcomes?
8. How many appeals were filed regarding land use change and development within the Moraine in your municipality since the implementation of the Plan in 2002 to 2014?
114
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 NA Other (please specify)
9. How many appeals were granted regarding land use change and development within the Moraine in your municipality since the implementation of the Plan in 2002 to 2014?
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 NA Other (please specify)
Monitoring, Conservation & Restoration
10. Does your municipality take any measures to monitor the ecological health of the Moraine? If so, what measures are used?
11. Have there been specific conservation efforts made within the Natural Core Areas and/or Natural Linkage Areas since the creation of the Plan? If so, please explain. Additionally, how effective have these efforts been at achieving their goal?
12. Does your municipality participate in any restoration programs within the Moraine? If so, please explain.
Transitional or Grandfathered Development
‘Transitional’ or ‘grandfathered’ development refers to land that was approved for development prior to the creation of the Act in 2001 and is still allowed to be developed despite its location within the Moraine.
13. To what extent has ‘transitional’ development occurred within the Moraine?
Leapfrog Development
‘Leapfrog development’ refers to urban expansion that ‘leaps’ over protected areas, which results in development outside of the greenbelt area.
14. Has ‘leapfrog development’ occurred outside of the Moraine?
a. If so, where has ‘leapfrog development’ occurred?
b. Has the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan or the Greenbelt Plan (2005) contributed to leapfrog development?
Land Swapping
‘Land swapping’ refers to land which was originally designated as part of the Moraine being removed from the Moraine designation and being substituted for land in another area not originally part of the Moraine, or land within one land use designation being changed to another land use designation.
15. Has ‘land swapping’ taken place within the Moraine? If so, please describe?
115
Changes in Land Use or Land Cover
16. Are changes in land use and land cover tracked by your organization? If so, how?
Other
Do you have any additional comments or information that might contribute to this research?
Would you be willing to forward this study information along to any of your colleagues who may be interested in assisting with this research? They are encouraged to contact me if they would like to participate in this study.
Thank you very much for your time and effort. Your contribution is very much appreciated.
Kathleen Watt
116
116
Appendix B Interview Guide Other
Master’s Research on the Impacts of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan Interview Guide
Municipality/Area: _________________________________________
Date: ____________________________________
Contact name: _________________________________________
Position: ____________________________________
Place of employment: _________________________________________
Background:
I thought it would be helpful to share my interview guide with you in advance of our meeting. I am a master’s student at the University of Toronto researching the impact of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, (the “Act”), and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2002, (the “Plan”). I am primarily looking at changes between 2002 (when the Plan was implemented) to 2014. Specifically, my research questions are:
i) What successes and challenges have municipalities experienced in implementing the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan?
ii) How do stakeholders view the proposed changes and revisions from the 2016 Co-
ordinated Land Use Review to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan?
My study area includes the entire region of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
I will provide you with a summary of my research upon completion.
Thank you very much for your help; I look forward to speaking with you.
Kathleen Watt
Master's in Geography Candidate
University of Toronto
416-871-2503
117
Master’s Research on the Impacts of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan Interview Guide
Impacts
1. What general trends have you noticed regarding the magnitude and nature of development within the Oak Ridges Moraine since the implementation of the Plan in 2002 to 2014?
Reactions & Ramifications
2. How has the public reacted to the conservation efforts of the Plan within the Moraine?
3. How do you and/or your department view the impacts the Plan has had within:
a. Natural Core Areas
b. Natural Linkage Areas
c. Countryside Areas
d. Settlement Areas
4. What do you and/or your department view as:
a. Benefits and/or successes of the Plan?
b. Negatives and/or concerns regarding the Plan?
c. Challenges in implementation of the Plan?
5. What changes might you suggest making to the Plan? Why?
Policy
6. Have changes been made in policies due to the Act and the Plan? If so, how have these changes affected planning applications and approval for development within the Moraine since the creation of the Plan in 2002? How effective have these changes been at achieving their goal?
Appeals
7. Has your organization been involved in any appeals regarding land use change or development within the Moraine? If so, what reasons were used for the appeal and what were the outcomes?
8. How many appeals were filed regarding land use change and development within the Moraine in your jurisdiction since the implementation of the Plan in 2002 to 2014?
118
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 NA Other (please specify)
9. How many appeals were granted regarding land use change and development within the Moraine in your municipality since the implementation of the Plan in 2002 to 2014?
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 NA Other (please specify)
Monitoring, Conservation & Restoration
10. Does your organization take any measures to monitor the ecological health of the Moraine? If so, what measures are used?
11. Have there been specific conservation efforts made within the Natural Core Areas and/or Natural Linkage Areas since the creation of the Plan? If so, please explain. Additionally, how effective have these efforts been at achieving their goal?
12. Does your organization participate in any restoration programs within the Moraine? If so, please explain.
Transitional or Grandfathered Development
‘Transitional’ or ‘grandfathered’ development refers to land that was approved for development prior to the creation of the Act in 2001 and is still allowed to be developed despite its location within the Moraine.
13. To what extent has ‘transitional’ development occurred within the Moraine?
Leapfrog Development
‘Leapfrog development’ refers to urban expansion that ‘leaps’ over protected areas, which results in development outside of the greenbelt area.
14. Has ‘leapfrog development’ occurred outside of the Moraine?
a. If so, where has ‘leapfrog development’ occurred?
b. Has the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan or the Greenbelt Plan (2005) contributed to leapfrog development?
Land Swapping
‘Land swapping’ refers to land which was originally designated as part of the Moraine being removed from the Moraine designation and being substituted for land in another area not originally part of the Moraine, or land within one land use designation being changed to another land use designation.
15. Has ‘land swapping’ taken place within the Moraine? If so, please describe?
119
Changes in Land Use or Land Cover
16. Are changes in land use and land cover tracked by your organization? If so, how?
Other
Do you have any additional comments or information that might contribute to this research?
Would you be willing to forward this study information along to any of your colleagues who may be interested in assisting with this research? They are encouraged to contact me if they would like to participate in this study.
Thank you very much for your time and effort. Your contribution is very much appreciated.
Kathleen Watt
120
120
Appendix C Questionnaire
Master’s Study on Impact of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan
Municipality: _________________________________________
Date: __________________________________
Contact name: _________________________________________
Position: __________________________________
Place of employment: _________________________________________
Background:
Thank you for agreeing to complete the following questionnaire. I am a master’s student at the University of Toronto researching the impact of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, (the “Act”), and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, 2002, (the “Plan”). I am primarily looking at changes between 2002 (when the Plan was implemented) to 2014. Specifically, my research questions are:
i) What successes and challenges have municipalities experienced in implementing the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan?
ii) How do stakeholders view the proposed changes and revisions from the 2016 Co-
ordinated Land Use Review to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan?
I will provide you with a summary of my research upon competition.
Thank you very much for your help; I look forward to speaking with you.
Kathleen Watt
121
Impacts
1. What percent of your jurisdiction’s land area has changed land use designation since the Plan was introduced in 2002 (e.g. land that has changed from Natural Core Area to Natural Linkage Area, etc.)
0% 1-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20%
21-25%
Other (please specify)
Natural Core Area ____________________
Natural Linkage Area
____________________
Countryside Area ____________________
Settlement Area ____________________
2. Have any of the following changes in land use occurred within the Natural Core Area or Natural Linkage Area in your jurisdiction between the implementation of the Plan in 2002 and 2014 :
Yes No NA Please describe
a) Transportation: e.g. roads, rail
____________________________________________
b) Infrastructure: e.g. buildings, schools
____________________________________________
c) Industry or commercial ____________________________________________
d) Resource extraction: i.e. aggregate extraction, peat extraction, topsoil removal, etc.
____________________________________________
e) Residential ____________________________________________
f) Agriculture ____________________________________________
Yes No NA Please describe
122
g) Forestry: e.g. management of forest resources such as maintenance, renewal, and removal of trees
____________________________________________
h) Major outdoor recreational areas: e.g. ski hills, golf courses, other major outdoor recreational uses
____________________________________________
i) Parks/natural areas: e.g. trails, picnic areas
____________________________________________
j) Linear utilities: e.g. hydro transmission lines, hydrocarbon pipelines
____________________________________________
k) Natural environment: e.g. water resources, soil resources, landform resources, biotic resources
____________________________________________
l) Other (please specify) ____________________________________________
3. Has your municipality/organization taken any steps within Natural Core Areas or Natural Linkage Areas regarding the protection of:
Yes No NA Please explain if possible
a) Woodlands ____________________________________________
b) Wetlands ____________________________________________
c) Agricultural land from urban uses
____________________________________________
d) Water recharge areas ____________________________________________
e) Hazard lands, steep slopes, and soils susceptible to erosion
____________________________________________
123
f) Watercourses and riparian vegetation
____________________________________________
g) High potential aggregate deposits (i.e. mineral)
____________________________________________
h) Wildlife (fauna) ____________________________________________
i) Other (please specify) ____________________________________________
Reactions & Ramifications
4. In your jurisdiction, how many appeals have occurred regarding land use change and development within the Moraine since the implementation of the Plan in 2002 to 2014 within:
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 NA Other (please specify)
Natural Core Area ____________________
Natural Linkage Area
____________________
5. In your municipality/jurisdiction, how many appeals were granted regarding land use change and development since the implementation of the Plan in 2002 to 2014 within:
0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 NA Other (please specify)
Natural Core Area ____________________
Natural Linkage Area
____________________
a. Of those appeals granted, what types of issues were being appealed? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
124
Other
6. Do you have any additional comments or information that might contribute to this research? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Thank you very much for your time and effort. Your cooperation is very much appreciated.
Kathleen Watt
