Staff Report for Northern Bruce Peninsula

Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula

Planning Report

Application:Official Plan 5 year review and New Comprehensive Zoning By-law

File: NBP OPA 13, Z-91-16

Meeting Date:May 15, 2017

From:Jack Van Dorp,Planner
County of Bruce Planning and Development

Subject:Proposed Implementation of Pilot Project Steering Committee Recommendations

Recommendation:

That the Pilot Project Steering Committee receive this report regarding implementation of PPSC recommendations for information; and

That the Pilot Project Steering Committee endorse the draft Environmental Hazard Maps for the purpose of initiating the statutory consultation process for the Northern Bruce Peninsula Official Plan update and Zoning By-law.

Background:

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula initiated a Pilot Project Steering Committee together with the County of Bruce to work towards a standard set of criteria for what should be mapped as “Environmental Hazard” and as “wetlands” for the purposes of the Bruce County Official Plan, the Local Official Plan for Northern Bruce Peninsula, and the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for Northern Bruce Peninsula.

Phase 1 of the project called for a set of agreed upon criteria for what should be mapped as hazard, and was completed by the Committee in 2016, with 9 Recommendations.

Phase 2 of the project (mapping) began in 2016; draft maps of Environmental Hazards have been prepared by the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) to correspond to the criteria approved by the Pilot Project Steering Committee. Information about the GSCA’s process is available online at the Municipality’s website

Next steps: Maps

The Statutory process includes making the maps available for public review and comment. The GSCA will review any issues that are raised regarding the hazard boundaries that have been identified, and will conduct site visits if required.

Due to time constraints in convening this meeting and meeting the project work plan, draft maps showing Environmental Hazard areas have been prepared and have been posted online.

Next Steps: Other PPSC Recommendations

The PPSC recognized the importance of clarifying the concepts of “natural hazards” to life and property and “natural heritage features, and provided recommendations related to distinctly defining and addressing these concepts in plans and by-laws.

In order to advance the official plan and by-law projects and provide for an extensive public consultation process staff has prepared some ideas for incorporating the recommendations of the PPSC into the 5-year review of the Municipality’s Local Official Plan and proposed new Comprehensive Zoning By-Law.

These ideas are subject to the same statutory process as the maps; ultimately, recommendations regarding these changes will be provided to Council for consideration of adoption in the Plan and Zoning By-law. County Council will be responsible for final approval of the Local Official Plan and for amendments to the County Official Plan to implement these changes.

Attachments and Resources:

As noted above, timelines in the work plan for the Official Plan and Zoning by-law project have required some information to be posted online in advance of this meeting.

Background information for this project is available online at:

Resources include:

Pilot Project Steering Committee Report
A Brief prepared by the GSCA regarding Hazard Mapping methods
Hazard Mapping Examples prepared by the GSCA
Draft Hazard Maps (an interactive tool is also available)

These resources are also available in hard copy at the Municipal Office.

Appendix ‘A’ to this report (which is provided below) offers provides a summary of the PPSC Recommendations and ideas for implementing them in the Official Plan update and new Zoning By-law.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jakob Van Dorp,

Senior Planner

Bruce County Planning and Development

Appendix ‘A’: Summary of PPSC Recommendations and Actions:

Recommendation One:

As a means to separate or provide clarity of concepts, it is recommended that Council adopt the following general definitions as guiding principles for policy and regulatory documents:

"Natural Hazards" are generally defined as property or lands that could be unsafe for development due to naturally occurring processes. Along the shorelines of the Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, this means the land, including that covered by water, between the international boundaries, where applicable, and the furthest landward limit of the flooding hazard, erosion hazard or dynamic beach hazard limits.

Along the shorelines of large inland lakes, this means the land, including that covered by water, between a defined offshore distance or depth and the furthest landward limit of the flooding hazard, erosion hazard or dynamic beach hazard limits.

Along river, stream and small inland lake systems, this means the land, including that covered by water, to the furthest landward limit of the flooding hazard or erosion hazard limits.

"Natural Heritage Features and Areas" are generally defined as features and areas, including significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, other coastal wetlands, fish habitat, significant woodlands and significant valley lands, habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, which are important for their environmental and social values as a legacy and representation of the natural landscapes of an area.

Ideas for Implementation:

Revise “Natural Area” policies of the Official Plan:
Rename “Natural Features and Areas”
Delete references to Natural Hazards and physical constraints to development; etc. and Move “Hazard Lands” to its own Section, separate from Natural Areas;
Amend descriptions of Natural Features and Areas to reflect the definitions provided in Recommendation 1;
Recognize that not all natural features and areas are mapped within the settlement area

Recommendation Two:

That the following features be included in the list of what is to be considered "Natural Hazards"

Flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards associated with the shoreline of Lake Huron and Georgian Bay;

Flooding, erosion and dynamic beach hazards associated with the shoreline of Inland Lakes;

Flooding and erosion hazards associated with rivers and streams;

Wetlands (lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water or water table close to surface)

Steep slopes

Ideas for Implementation:

Establish “Environmental Hazard Lands” as a separate section from Natural Areas;
Amend Descriptive paragraph to include hazards described in the definition;
OP Map Natural Hazards in the settlement areasmapped according to these criteria.

OP Map Environmental Hazard boundaries mapped to reflect these criteria

Recommendation Three:

That the Boundary of Provincially Significant Wetlands be incorporated into "Natural Hazard" mapping on the land use schedules for County and Local Official Plans, and the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and exclude the "adjacent" lands.

Ideas for Implementation: Map per recommendation

Recommendation Four:

That lands adjacent to Provincially Significant Wetlands be included as a constraint layer in the County Official Plan and Local Official Plan.

Ideas for Implementation:

Map per recommendation; suggest including this area on the zoning by-law schedules

Recommendation Five:

As we are not recommending that lands "adjacent" to Provincially Significant Wetlands be zoned to prohibit development outright, that the County and Local Official plans clearly authorize the uses of site plan control as a tool to regulate potential off site impacts of development in lands adjacent to Provincially Significant Wetlands

Ideas for Implementation:

Modify Site Plan Control policies in the Local Official Plan; consider general authorization for site plan control for natural heritage features and functions as this tool can be used effectively for PSWs or other features.

Recommendation Six:

That the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula develop and adopt site plan control standards to the extent that the requirements for site plan approvals on "adjacent lands" are known and predictable.

Ideas for Implementation:

Amend General Environmental Review policies and Provincially Significant Wetlands policies to address this recommendation
Maintain policy that an EIS may be required on adjacent lands, until standards or developed or for developments that have impacts that are not known/predictable in terms of impacts.

Recommendation Seven:

Given the definition of "Coastal Wetland" in the PPS, there was general agreement that these areas would be picked up as "wetlands", as per the stated criteria (under Recommendation Two). As such, they do not need to be mapped or shown as a separate feature for the purposes of the Zoning By-law.

Ideas for Implementation: Map per recommendation.

Recommendation Eight:

That the County Plan and Local Plans within Northern Bruce Peninsula recognize from a policy perspective that accurate shoreline/wave uprush mapping is not, in all cases, available and that the impacts associated with great lakes can be addressed through written provisions in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

Ideas for Implementation

Include provision for Text-based shoreline flooding and wave uprush descriptions in a new “Environmental Hazards” section of the NBP Official Plan;
Note in this section that site specific floodproofing requirements, if demonstrated to be appropriate by a coastal engineer, may be proposed through a minor variance to the Zoning By-law;
Include text-based provisions in the zoning by-law, such as a 100-year flood elevation and a wave uprush setback and/or minimum floodproofing requirement;
Consider a note to the by-law to assist in understanding these provisions (which have historically required explanation by Planning and/or Building Department staff).