council information package · • construction value of permit applications for all ici...
TRANSCRIPT
COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKAGE
July 2, 2020
Table of Contents
Item From Subject Page
1 Building & By-law Department 2019 Construction Activity Annual Report
1-15
2 Conservation Halton Updated 2020 Floodplain Mapping for Grindstone Creek Watershed (City of Hamilton and City of Burlington) and Morrison Wedgewood Diversion Channel (Town of Oakville)
16-26
3 Recreation Services COVID-19 Response: Community Support Fund
27-28
4 Halton Region LPS34-20 - Comments on the Proposals to Amend Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act
29-118
5 Halton Region LPS47-20 – Comments on the Future Greater Toronto Area Electricity Transmission Corridor
119-138
6 Halton Region PW-16-20 – Uniform Traffic Control By-law No. 1984-1
139-158
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Nick Anastasopoulos, Chief Building Official Cc: Tim Commisso - City Manager
Heather MacDonald - Executive Director of Community Planning, Regulation and Mobility
Date: June 29, 2020
Re: 2019 Construction Activity Annual Report
Attached please find a copy of the 2019 Construction Activity Annual Report. The report provides a summary of construction activity for the various categories of building permit applications in the residential and industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI) sectors. Any question related to the 2019 Construction Activity Annual Report can be directed to the Chief Building Official – Building & By-law Department.
Nick Anastasopoulos, P.Eng. Chief Building Official
1
CITY OF ~ Burlington
~~ --~ --
___
Building & By-law Department 2
2019 Construction Activity
Annual Report
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ………. .…………………………………………………… 2
Building Permit Applications 2017 – 2019 ……… ………………...………….
5
Total Number of BP Applications 2015 - 2019 …………………...…….…….
6
Sector Breakdown of Construction - 2019 …………………………………….
7
Total Construction Value 2015 – 2019 …… …………………………………..
8
Total Industrial Construction Value 2015 - 2019 ……………….………….....
9
Total Commercial Construction Value 2015 - 2019 ……………………….....
10
Total Institutional/Government Construction Value 2015 - 2019 ……………
11
Total Residential Construction Value 2015 - 2019…………………………….
12
3
2019 Construction Activity Annual Report
The following is the 2019 year-end summary report for Building Permits (BP) and overall construction activity that took place in the City of Burlington during the past calendar year.
In 2019 the City continued to have a healthy year in terms of construction activity in both residential and ICI construction (industrial, commercial and institutional). The number of permit applications received in 2019 remained much the same in comparison to 2018. On the application side, there were 1810 BP applications, compared with the 5-year average of 1905 applications. On the issuance side, 1665 permits were issued compared to the five-year average of 1838.
Construction value in 2019 hit a record high for permit applications received with a construction value of $623M. When comparing this total to the 5-year average of $476M the City witnessed an increase of 31%. There was an increase in construction value for all categories of new building construction in 2019. The largest increase was observed in the apartment category with a construction value of $278M, a 828% increase compared to 2018.
The attached tables and charts display comparative construction activity data over a period of three to five years. It is important to examine the numbers in that context in order to highlight the mix of projects, delays and corrections that take place year over year, particularly in today’s fluctuating market.
Construction Value for BP Applications Received:
• Overall construction value for building permit applications received in 2019 totaled $623,191,926 which was 219% higher than in 2018.
• Construction value of applications received for permits in the residential sector increased significantly with a 285% increase when compared to 2018. Increases were witnessed in all dwelling unit categories (apartments, single family, townhouses).
• Construction value of permit applications for all residential construction represented 65% of the total 2019 construction value.
• Non-residential construction provided an increase in all ICI (industrial, commercial and institutional) construction categories. The largest increase was seen in the institutional sector with a 205% increase from 2018.
• Construction value of applications received for permits in the ICI sector increased by 53% when compared to 2018.
• Construction value of permit applications for all ICI construction represented 35% of the total 2019 construction value.
Burlington witnessed a diversity of construction activity in both the residential and ICI sectors, which is a result of increasing intensification and infill developments. In 2019, the City witnessed a large increase in the number of apartment building applications (hi-rise/mid-rise), attributed to many project developments receiving final planning approvals. Residents also focused their efforts on their existing homes and the data clearly shows that residential additions/accessory structures remained strong throughout 2019.
4
Top 10 Projects in 2019:
• The following is a list of the top 10 building permits issued in 2019:
Project Description Address Estimated
Construction Value
ADI Developments Inc. 2 - 6 Storey Apartment Buildings with Underground Parking
101 Masonry Crt. $20 M
4C Real Estate Ventures Inc. New Warehouse and Office Building
4440 South Service Rd. $17 M
Halton Board of Education Additions and Interior Renovations to Existing Building
4181 New St. $12 M
New Horizon (Bridgewater) Inc. Interior Finish to New Hotel
2050 Lakeshore Rd. $10 M
Gateway Drive Property Inc. Interior Finish to Pharmaceutical Production Facility
921 Gateway $9 M
Ali Arbab 2 - 3 Storey Row of Townhouses (Building A & B)
3225 New St. $8 M
Halton Catholic District School Board, Phase 2 3 Storey Addition and Interior Renovation to Existing School
3230 Woodward Ave. $7 M
HD Burlington LP Single Storey Industrial Shell Building (Building E)
3485 North Service Rd. $5 M
Halton District School Board 3 Storey Addition and Interior Renovation to Existing School
2425 Upper Middle Rd. $5 M
HD Burlington LP Single Storey Commercial Shell Building (Building A)
3455 North Service Rd. $4 M
2020 Forecast:
Looking forward, it is anticipated that in 2020 the City will continue to see a diversity of construction activity and associated construction value for all building permit categories. We forecast an increase in the number of townhouse applications for 2020, while we are expecting to see a drop in the volume of apartment building applications. The Interim Control By-law (ICBL) came into effect in early 2019 which put a hold on development within a controlled area. The Building Section will be monitoring the outcome of the ICBL and its effects on the construction activity in 2020.
As in previous years, building permit applications for renovations, redevelopment and additions are expected to continue to grow across the board. On the residential front, the City will continue to see townhouse projects and custom detached dwellings as a result of infill developments and intensification.
Infill development routinely presents further complexities in comparison to new development due to technical site challenges and additional complex building designs. The planning/building process for these projects typically requires two to three years from start to completion with a proportionate increase in staff time and effort.
5
Anticipated Projects in 2020:
• Some of the anticipated building permit applications for key developments/projects expected to be received in 2020 include:
Project Description Address Estimated
Construction Value
ADI Developments Inc. 2 - 17 storey Apartment Buildings, 2 - 6 Storey Apartment Buildings, Stacked and Row Townhome Development
4853 Thomas Alton Blvd.
$114 M
2367167 Ontario Ltd. Air Supported Structure - Indoor Soccer Dome
1179 Northside Rd. $17 M
Dymon Capital Corporation 5 Storey Self Storage Building
1650 Appleby Line $16 M
4880 Valera Road Inc. Back-to-Back Townhomes and Block/Street Townhouses
4880 Valera Rd.
$16 M
1124 Guelph Line Storage GP Corporation 5 Storey Self Storage Building
1124 Guelph Line $15 M
Questerra Developments Incorporated Expansion to Mercedes-Benz Dealership
441 North Service Rd. $9 M
1583075 Ontario Ltd. Construct a New Office, Rotunda and Workshop Buildings
3095 Harrison Crt. $5 M
Access Self Storage Inc. 2 Storey Addition to the Existing Facility
4305 Fairview St. $5 M
1937570 Ontario Inc. Renovate the Historic House and Construct a New Daycare Centre
2477 Queensway Dr.
$3 M
The 2020 anticipated list of projects incorporates a variety of projects from all construction categories. The diversification of projects also ensures long-term sustainable development, healthy construction activity and growth/support for the local economy.
Prepared by:
Nick Anastasopoulos, P.Eng. Chief Building Official Director Building and By-law Department
6
5
Building & By-law Department City of Burlington
7
Total Number of BP Permit Applications 2015 - 2019
6
8
Sector Breakdown of Construction - 2019 (Permit Applications)
*Single-Family Dwellings, SemiDetached Homes and Townhouses
**Renovations, Additions, Accessory structures
7
9
Total Construction Value By Applications 2015-2019
8
10
Total Industrial Construction Value By Applications 2015-2019
9
11
Total Commercial Construction Value By Applications 2015-2019
10
12
Total Institutional/Government Construction Value By Applications 2015-2019
11
13
Total Residential Construction Value By Applications 2015-2019
12
14
CITY OF ~ Burlington
15
REPORT TO: Conservation Halton Board of Directors REPORT NO: # CHBD 05 20 08 FROM: Barbara Veale, Director, Planning and Watershed Management DATE: June 25, 2020 SUBJECT: Updated 2020 Floodplain Mapping for Grindstone Creek Watershed (City of
Hamilton and City of Burlington) and Morrison Wedgewood Diversion Channel (Town of Oakville)
CH File No.: ADM 345, ADM 346 Recommendation THAT the Conservation Halton Board of Directors approve the updated 2020 floodplain mapping for Grindstone Creek Watershed (City of Hamilton and City of Burlington) and Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel Watershed (Town of Oakville) AND THAT a copy of Report No. CHBD 05 20 08 be sent to the City of Burlington, City of Hamilton, Town of Oakville and the Halton Region for their information. Executive Summary In 2018, Conservation Halton (CH) embarked on a new Floodplain Mapping Program. New technologies and tools offer opportunities to provide more accurate depiction of the flood hazard. This information is important to support CH’s regulatory and planning programs, infrastructure management decisions, flood forecasting and warning, emergency planning and response, prioritization of flood mitigation efforts and infrastructure design. CH has completed two floodplain mapping studies which define the limits of the flood hazard in the Grindstone Creek watershed and the Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel. The modelling and analysis done for these studies comply with Federal and Provincial Guidelines for floodplain mapping. An extensive public consultation process was undertaken to ensure that local, provincial and federal agencies, other stakeholders, and the general public were made aware of the studies and had opportunities to participate in PICs and provide input. CH staff recommends that the CH Board of Directors approve the updated 2020 floodplain mapping for Grindstone Creek watershed and the Morrison Wedgewood Diversion Channel.
16
Report Background Conservation Halton (CH) is responsible for administering Ontario Regulation 162/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation). Ontario Regulation 162/06 restricts development in hazard areas. Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06, CH regulates:
• All development in or adjacent to river or stream valleys, wetlands and surrounding lands where development could interfere with the hydrologic function of the wetland, Lake Ontario shorelines, and hazardous lands such as karst and any prescribed allowances
• Alterations to a river, creek, stream or watercourse; and
• Interference with wetlands. Permission is required from CH for undertaking any works within regulated areas. CH’s Board-approved Policies and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 162/06 and Land Use Planning Policy Document (2016) outline the policies and technical requirements which must be met before permission may be granted. The areas regulated by CH are generally shown on Approximate Regulation Mapping (ARL) which is available to municipalities as digital map layers and to the public through the CH website. Not all regulated areas are mapped, but natural hazards, whether mapped or not, are regulated. CH’s ARL mapping is an important screening tool used by CA staff, municipal staff, consultants, real estate agents, and others to determine if a site may contain natural hazards and be regulated by CH. To ensure that the most current and comprehensive hazard mapping is provided in the ARL maps, Conservation Halton Board of Directors approved a new Mapping Maintenance Protocol on November 21, 2019 for updating hazard mapping for sites where technical studies supporting a planning or permit application refine the hazard limits to the satisfaction of CH (Res. No. CHBD 11 08). Major changes made at the watershed, subwatershed, watercourse or shoreline reach, or multi—property scale, not associated with a planning or permit application, require CH Board approval prior to incorporating them into the public-facing ARL mapping layer. For these types of changes, CH follows Conservation Ontario’s (CO) Guidelines for Updating Section 28 Mapping: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations. This document, updated and approved by Conservation Ontario Council in 2018, indicates that hazard mapping should be done in accordance with provincial standards and follow the public consultation and notification processes contained within it. Floodplain mapping for many creeks within CH’s jurisdiction were undertaken in the 1980s and 1990s. Since that time, technology has advanced significantly. For example, advanced mapping tools, such as LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), allow capture of highly detailed topographic data, which better describes the natural land features. Increased computing power and more sophisticated software can apply detailed LiDAR data and model complex natural processes to better predict the path and nature of a flood. This results in a more accurate flood hazard limit.
17
In 2018, CH embarked on a new floodplain mapping program to systematically update flood lines for watersheds and creek reaches across its jurisdiction. Once these changes have been approved by the Board, they will be added to the internal digital mapping. Major changes, along with any minor changes completed according to the Mapping Maintenance Protocol, will be reflected in the annual update and consolidation of the publicly available CH ARL mapping layer. In addition to supporting CH’s regulatory and planning programs, updated models and mapping may also be used to support infrastructure management decisions, flood forecasting and warning, emergency planning and response, prioritization of flood mitigation efforts and infrastructure design. Conservation Halton received National Disaster Mitigation Program (NDMP) funding for three mapping projects, including Grindstone Creek, Morrison Wedgewood Creek, and Urban Milton. Flood line mapping has been completed for the Grindstone Creek watershed and the Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel, while refinements to the Urban Milton models and mapping are on-going. Grindstone Creek Floodplain Mapping The Grindstone Creek watershed drains a diverse landscape which encompasses large wetland areas, the Niagara Escarpment, rural lands and several small settlement areas (e.g., Waterdown, Aldershot, Millgrove, Flamborough Centre, Clappison’s Corners). The catchment area of appropriate 90 km2 is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Grindstone Creek Watershed
18
The last flood risk study for the watershed was completed in 1983. In 2018, Conservation Halton retained Matrix Solutions Inc. to update models and mapping on a watershed basis. The focus of the study was to assess how Grindstone Creek and its tributaries would respond to storms like Hurricane Hazel and the 1:100-year storm, as the larger of these storms defines the limit of the flood hazard. As part of the analysis, the study explored:
• Peak flows resulting from specific rainfall events
• Flow pathways, water levels and velocities expected from these flows
• Effects of climate change on flood risk
• Extent of the regulatory flood hazard (mapping the floodplain) To support study development and CH’s technical peer review, CH coordinated and chaired a Technical Advisory Committee that included representatives from the City of Hamilton, City of Burlington, Halton Region and Hamilton Conservation Authority. An important element of the Grindstone Study focused on understanding whether flood flows exceed the capacity of the valley system and spill into another watershed or subwatershed. Spills and spill areas are considered a flood hazard by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. For major spills the peak flow being transferred between systems, and the extent of flooding associated with the spill are important to understand. The study confirmed that during the Regional Storm event, Grindstone Creek would receive significant spill flows (>140 m3/s) from Bronte Creek. While this is a natural spill (resulting from valley topography), the Highway 6 crossing, immediately north of Carlisle Road, impacts how and where spills may occur. The study also identified numerous locations where flow spills out of the Grindstone Creek and is diverted into adjacent watersheds, including: Spencer Creek (which receives 122 m3/s of spill flows split between two locations), Boers Creek (receiving 11.4 m3/s), Hamilton Harbour and Falcon Creek (receiving > 5.6 m3/s), and to Bronte Creek (receiving 1.5 m3/s). Figure 2 shows the location of the various spills into and out of Grindstone Creek and an overview of the proposed regulated floodplain as defined through Matrix Solutions Inc.’s Flood Hazard Mapping Report – Grindstone Creek Watershed, dated March 31, 2020. While similar to previous mapping, the updated floodplain limits show some significant differences. A high-level comparison is provided on Figures 3 and 4. CH’s current regulated floodplain limit is shown by the thick magenta line, while the light purple fill shows the updated regulated floodplain limits. Factors causing these changes include:
• Modelling the impact of the Bronte Creek spill results in a significant expansion of the floodplain east of Highway 6 between Carlisle Road and Concession 8 East, impacting approximately 60 structures, including rural residences, greenhouses, barns, sheds, and other buildings.
• Extending modelling to a 50 ha catchment limit results in mapping new floodplain areas.
• Areas previously identified as spills have now been mapped, including an intra-basin spill between two parallel channels adjacent to Centre Road between 6th and 7th Concession East, and the expanded floodplain upstream (and outside) of Millgrove.
• Within Burlington’s urban area, spill to Falcon Creek was identified, as was a spill south of Masonry Court. Note: The spill south of Masonry Court should be re-assessed when updated LiDAR data becomes available. The 2018 LiDAR data captured temporary grades associated with on-going
19
development and may not reflect ultimate grades. Additionally, there is potential for relief flow under the Waterdown Road railway underpass, which may further reduce spill potential.
• Detailed topographic data has impacted our understanding of drainage and watershed boundaries.
Figure 2: Spill Locations (Credit: Matrix Solutions, 2020)
20
Figure 3: Key Differences Between Current and Proposed Floodplain Limits (Including rationale)
21
Figure 4 – Key Differences Between Current and Proposed Floodplain Limits (Including rationale)
Morrison-Wedgewood Creek Floodplain Mapping The Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel (Diversion Channel) located south of Dundas Street in the Town of Oakville was originally built in the late 1960s to reduce the flood risk to downstream residential neighborhoods. The 20 km2 drainage area associated with the Diversion Channel includes six subwatersheds from the contributing creeks. The Diversion Channel intercepts natural flow from these watersheds into a single channel, diverting flow to Sixteen Mile Creek (Figure 2).
The Diversion Channel is concrete-lined, with a trapezoidal shape from East Wedgewood to downstream of Sixth Line with increasing size travelling downstream. From downstream of Sixth Line to Sixteen Mile Creek, the shape becomes rectangular. The conveyance capacity of the Diversion Channel is affected by the shape and slope of the channel and the degree of berming adjacent to it.
22
While the original 1964 Diversion Channel design was intended to convey Regulatory flows, recent studies have shown that the diversion channel does not have the capacity to convey the Hurricane Hazel Regional Storm.
Figure 2: Subwatersheds Draining into the Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel (Credit: Morrison Hershfield)
In 2019 Conservation Halton retained Morrison Hershfield to update Flood Risk Mapping for the Morrison Wedgewood Diversion Channel and its tributaries. To support study development and CH’s technical peer review, CH coordinated and chaired a Technical Advisory Committee that included representatives from the Town of Oakville and Halton Region. The Study evaluated and mapped flood risk for the Diversion Channel, contributing watercourses (Munn’s Creek, East and West Morrison Creek, and East and West Wedgewood Creeks) between Dundas Street and the Diversion Channel, and spill pathways between the Diversion Channel and QEW/Highway 403. No significant changes to flood risk were identified along the contributing tributaries, however, significant flood risk was identified along the Diversion Channel. Modelling indicated potential for spills from the Diversion Channel to extend between Grosvenor Street (upstream of West Wedgewood Creek) and Kent Avenue, however, more detailed dynamic spills modelling indicated three major spills, as shown in Figure 4. The most westerly spill is located between Kent Avenue and Robarts Road, with ponding along the QEW/403 extending westerly to 6th Line. This spill
23
directly impacts approximately 85 residential lots, with additional properties subject to potential flooded access routes. The central spill is located upstream of Trafalgar Road and the easterly spill is located upstream of 8th Line. These spills primarily impact commercial lands and represent newly-defined flood hazard areas. All three spills are predicted to result in significant ponding (>2m) that would be expected to ultimately overtop the QEW/Highway 403 before spilling to the south.
Figure 4 – Spill Pathways from the Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel (Credit: Morrison Hershfield)
Study findings are summarized within Flood Risk Mapping and Spill Quantification – Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel Volume I – Hydrology Modelling Report, and Volume II – Hydraulic Modelling Report, prepared by Morrison Hershfield Ltd., dated March 31, 2020.
Public Consultation Process In accordance with Conservation Ontario’s Guidelines for Updating Section 28 Mapping: Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulations as well as public consultation requirements under the MDNP Program, Conservation Halton provided extensive opportunities for municipalities, agencies and the general public to participate. Two Public Information Centres (PICs) were held for each study to make people aware of the work being done and to provide them with the opportunity to view and provide feedback on preliminary mapping results. Notification was provided in several ways including:
• ads in the local newspapers before each PIC at least 2-3 weeks before
• social media posts (e.g. CH Facebook and Twitter)
• direct e-mail notification (e.g., CH Board of Directors, municipal staff and decision makers, First Nations (Six Nations of the Grand River Territory, Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations, Métis Nation of Ontario), School Boards, MPPs, provincial agency representatives (Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Infrastructure Ontario), Department of Fisheries and Oceans, provincial and local utilities, railways, local councillors, local chambers of commerce, home builders associations, and the general public by request)
• CH website Additionally, to raise awareness of the Grindstone Study, a presentation was made to the Halton Hamilton Agricultural Panel on December 7, 2018.
24
The PICs for Grindstone Creek were held on November 8, 2018 and February 18, 2020 at the CH Administrative Office. PIC #1 was attended by approximately 25 people while PIC#2 as attended by about 40 people. PIC# 1 for the Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel study was held at Conservation Halton’s Administrative Office and PIC # 2 was held at Halton Region’s Headquarters on September 19, 2019 and March 5, 2020 respectively. PIC #1 was attended by one individual while PIC #2 was attended by about 20 people. Technical Advisory Committee members, CH staff and project consultants were available at all PICs to answer specific questions about the study. To ensure those unable to attend PIC’s had an opportunity to participate, the informational boards were made available on CH’s website and draft mapping was available for public viewing at Conservation Halton’s administrative office. PIC attendees and all interested parties were invited to provide their insights and comments. All comments received in writing were recorded and responded to. Final comments were requested to be submitted by March 3, 2020 for the Grindstone Creek study and March 15, 2020 for the Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel study. Comments received were predominately favourable. For the Grindstone Study, we received several positive messages from landowners expressing support for the work, a willingness to share knowledge of the local watershed, and interest in our potential need to access private properties. Hydro One indicated the presence of facilities of interest within the Study Area. None of the comments received expressed concern over the study findings, however, three residents expressed frustrations related to local drainage or erosion concerns. As these issues fell outside of the scope of this study, these comments were shared with the corresponding municipality. For the Morrison-Wedgewood study, Conservation Halton received minimal written comment, and no specific comment about the identified spills. Formal comments were made by the Region of Halton regarding potential study impacts on planned capital projects and by the Halton District School Board requesting updated mapping information. Staff committed to meeting with the Region to discuss the new mapping and sending updated GIS information to the school board after the study was finalized and endorsed. Two public comments were received, the first requested consideration for channel naturalization, beautification, and increased public access for recreation along the channel. This comment was submitted in advance of the second PIC when draft study findings on the spill were shared publicly. Staff’s response identified capacity and safety concerns, and recommended the respondent refer to Conservation Halton’s website to learn more about these challenges by viewing PIC 2 boards on-line. The second public comment identified the value of the Public Information Centre and praised the level of study detail and the knowledge of staff in attendance. A detailed account of the public consultation process is appended to the final consultant reports, which have been shared with Technical Advisory Committee representatives (comprising all municipalities within each respective study area). Next Steps The updated flood line maps will be incorporated into CH’s internal regulation mapping. The extent of the regulated area is the extent of the greatest hazard (flooding or erosion) plus a prescribed allowance of 15m for Grindstone Creek and 7.5m for Morrison-Wedgewood Creek. Conservation Halton is advancing a study to evaluate hydraulic effectiveness of potential mitigation options to address spills from the Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel. This study is to be
25
completed by March of 2021. CH will work closely with the Town of Oakville and Region of Halton as this study advances. Both the Grindstone Creek and the Morrison-Wedgewood Floodplain mapping show spill areas. Given that the nature and extent of spills are now being characterized though CH’s new floodplain mapping program and other technical studies, a revised policy to describe how CH will address defined spill areas was approved by the Board on March 26, 2020 (CHBD Report 04 20 17). This is an interim policy until such time as the spill is mitigated, new provincial regulations or direction on spills is issued, or new CH spill policies are approved by the CH Board of Directors, after consultation with municipalities and the public. The policy indicates that development and redevelopment in spill areas will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Permission may only be granted where the site is subject to low risk and, where appropriate, mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce potential impacts to the satisfaction of Conservation Halton (e.g., flood proofing). Conclusion and Recommendation CH has completed two floodplain mapping studies which define the limits of the flood hazard in the Grindstone Creek watershed and the Morrison-Wedgewood Diversion Channel. An extensive public consultation process was undertaken to ensure that local, provincial and federal agencies, other stakeholders and the general public were made aware of the studies and had opportunities to participate in PICs and provide input. CH staff recommends that the CH Board of Directors approve the updated 2020 floodplain mapping for Grindstone Creek watershed and the Morrison Wedgewood Diversion Channel.
Impact on Strategic Goals This report supports the Metamorphosis strategic theme of Taking care of our growing communities. The theme is supported by the objective to remain dedicated to ecosystem-based watershed planning that contributes to the development of sustainable rural, urban and suburban communities. Financial Impact There is no financial impact as a result of this proposal. Signed & respectfully submitted: Approved for circulation:
Barbara J. Veale Hassaan Basit Director, Planning and Watershed Management CAO/Secretary-Treasurer FOR QUESTIONS ON CONTENT: Amy Mayes, Coordinator, Floodplain Mapping, (905) 336-1158 ext. 2302, [email protected]
26
Recreation Services
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Angela Paparizo, Manager of Arts and Culture, Recreation Services Denise Beard, Manager of Community Development, Recreation Services
CC: Tim Commisso, Allan Magi, Chris Glenn, Kevin Arjoon
DATE: June 25, 2020
SUBJECT: COVID-19 Response: Community Support Fund
As part of the City of Burlington’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the intention of supporting the community’s wellbeing and diversity during these challenging times, the City will be relaunching its existing community support programs into a streamlined program called the Community Support Fund (CSF) by mid July 2020. Community Support Fund Overview:
The Community Support Fund brings Love My Hood, the Community Development Fund, The Neighbourhood Matching Fund and the Arts and Culture Fund together temporarily during COVID-19. This umbrella program will join existing programs to provide financial support to residents and community groups who want to enrich and connect the Burlington community through sport, recreation, art and cultural experiences. The combined fund will simplify the process and make it easier for Burlington residents and community groups to access financial support to enhance their community’s wellbeing. Community Support Fund will help a variety of sport, recreation, art, and cultural events, programs and projects in Burlington neighbourhoods and communities, up to a maximum value of $5000 per application. Applications will be reviewed monthly by a staff team. It is a one-time per year funding program designed to recognize the importance of Burlington’s communities during these challenging times. By providing access to funding, the City is looking for innovative ideas to connect and enhance our community;
27
events/activities that can offer exciting and meaningful opportunities to strengthen and nourish community spirit.
Recreation department staff is working with Communications department in implementing necessary website changes and the communication plan. The City is planning to relaunch the redesigned Community Support Fund in mid July. We would appreciate if you could share with the community the redesigned funding program opportunity via your newsletter and social media feeds when launched. Community Support Fund Objectives:
• Inspire and lift the community spirit. We are in this together.
• Support the wellbeing and mental health of our community members.
• Encourage neighbourhoods, arts, recreation, sports and culture groups to create new ways of connecting with each other.
• Support local investment/economy.
• Celebrate diversity and create a sense of belonging.
• Encourage the community to respond and safely participate in the Province’s and the City’s reopening stages.
• Simplify the funding process to allow broad participation and easy access during unprecedented times.
Sincerely,
Angela Paparizo Denise Beard Manager of Arts and Culture Manager of Community Development Recreation Services Recreation Services 905-335-7600 ext. 7352 905-335-7600 ext. 7518 [email protected] [email protected] Reviewed By: Chris Glenn Director Recreation Services
28
VIA EMAIL June 30, 2020
Legislative & Planning Services Department Office of the Regional Clerk 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1
The Honourable Ted Arnott, MPP, Wellington-Halton Hills Jane McKenna, MPP, Burlington Parm Gill, MPP, Milton Stephen Crawford, MPP, Oakville Effie Triantafilopoulos, MPP, Oakville North – Burlington Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Brad Allen Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Susan Ecclestone Niagara Escarpment Commission, Debbie Ramsay Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Monika Turner Conservation Halton, Barb Veale Credit Valley Conservation, Joshua Campbell Grand River Conservation, Nancy Davy City of Burlington, Kevin Arjoon Town of Halton Hills, Suzanne Jones Town of Milton, Meghan Reid Town of Oakville, Vicki Tytaneck
Please be advised that at its meeting held Wednesday, June 17, 2020, the Council of the Regional Municipality of Halton adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION: LPS34-20 - Comments on the Proposals to Amend Ontario
Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act
1. THAT Regional Council endorse Report No. LPS34-20 re: “Comments on
the Proposals to Amend Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act”.
2. THAT the Regional Clerk forward a copy of Report No. LPS34-20 and
Attachment #2 to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills, the Town of Milton, the Town of Oakville, Conservation Halton, Credit Valley Conservation Authority, the Grand River Conservation Authority, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and Halton’s Members of Provincial Parliament for their information.
29
Enclosed please find a copy of Report No. LPS34-20 for your information. If you have any questions please contact me at extension 7110 or the e-mail address below. Sincerely,
Graham Milne Regional Clerk [email protected]
30
The Regional Municipality of Halton
Report To: Regional Chair and Members of Regional Council
From: Bob Gray, Commissioner, Legislative and Planning Services and Corporate Counsel
Date: June 17, 2020
Report No. - Re: LPS34-20 - Comments on the Proposals to Amend Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Regional Council endorse Report No. LPS34-20 re: “Comments on the Proposals to Amend Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act”.
2. THAT the Regional Clerk forward a copy of Report No. LPS34-20 and Attachment #2 to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills, the Town of Milton, the Town of Oakville, Conservation Halton, Credit Valley Conservation Authority, the Grand River Conservation Authority, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and Halton’s Members of Provincial Parliament for their information.
REPORT Executive Summary
On February 12, 2020, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“MNRF”) posted a Notice on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO Number 019-1303) entitled “Proposals to Amend Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act”.
The proposed regulatory changes build on the December 2019 modifications to the Aggregate Resources Act (the “ARA”) that were made through Bill 132, the Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019.
The proposed changes are aimed at modernizing the management of aggregate resources and promoting economic growth within the aggregate industry while simultaneously protecting the environment and addressing community impacts.
31
The proposed regulatory changes would apply to new pits and quarries, as well as existing pits and quarries, and would restrict the review role of Conservation Authorities to flooding, erosion, and hazard controls within their regulated areas.
Although the proposed changes would by and large improve notification and assessment of aggregate applications across the Province, further guidance and details are needed to ensure contemplated improvements are realized.
Regional staff request to be engaged in any future consultation concerning changes to regulations and standards under the ARA.
Detailed Regional comments were shared and discussed with the Halton Area Planning Partnership and are included as Attachment #2 to this Report. Given the original expedited 47-day timeframe for review and comment to the ERO posting, preparation of a joint Halton Municipal and Conservation Authority response was difficult and consequently not pursued. The commenting deadline was subsequently extended to May 15, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In order to meet the ERO deadline, staff submitted comments on the proposals to the Ministry on May 15, 2020 and indicated that Council-endorsed comments will be submitted to the Ministry as soon as they are available, and that the Council-endorsed comments will replace staff’s comments and reflect the Region’s official response to the ERO posting.
Background Since 2012, the Province has been undertaking reviews of the ARA. Three proposals were previously released through the Environmental Registry (EBR/ERO) including:
“A Blueprint for Change: A proposal to modernize and strengthen the ARA policy
framework” in October 2015;
Bill 39, Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 in October
2016; and,
“Summary of Proposed Changes” together with some regulatory changes for
consideration in September 2019.
The stated intent of the “Summary of Proposed Changes” was to “reduce burdens for businesses while maintaining strong protection of the environment and managing impacts to communities”. Through Report No. LPS117-19, Regional staff commented on the “Proposed amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act” noting the absence of specific details, and requested to be engaged in consultations on proposed changes to the ARA and the regulations. In December 2019, the Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019 (Bill 132) received Royal Assent. Schedule 15 of Bill 132 contained amendments to the ARA, including provisions providing that costs associated with the ongoing wear and tear
32
resulting from aggregate haulage over the lifetime of the licence is not to be considered when making a decision about the issuance or refusal of a licence. On February 12, 2020, through ERO Number 019-1303, the MNRF posted “Proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act”. The details of the proposed changes are found in a supporting document entitled “Proposals to amend Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act” (the “Proposal”). The proposed changes are aimed at modernizing the management of aggregate resources and promoting economic growth within the aggregate industry while simultaneously protecting the environment and addressing community impacts. The Proposal pertains to new pits and quarries, as well as existing pits and quarries, and stems from perspectives gathered from industry, municipalities, the public, Indigenous communities, and other stakeholders interested in the regulation of aggregate resource extraction in Ontario. The original 47-day commenting deadline of March 30, 2020 was a short commenting window which precluded preparation of a joint submission through the Halton Area Planning Partnership. However, detailed Regional comments were shared and discussed with the Halton Area Planning Partnership and are included as Attachment #2 to this Report. The commenting deadline was extended to May 15, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussion
The Proposal is based on the following themes which were garnered through consultation
in 2019:
Ensure environmental protection, particularly related to water;
Increase opportunities for community engagement on applications;
Improve access to aggregates;
Cut red tape by reducing duplication and inefficiencies that create barriers to
industry; and,
Ensure pit and quarry rehabilitation.
No changes to aggregate fees and royalties are proposed at this time.
The Proposal which pertains to new pits and quarries, as well as existing pits and
quarries, is included as Attachment #1 to this report. The Proposal is organized into five
sections and proposed changes which are most pertinent to Halton Region are discussed
below. Detailed descriptions of the proposed changes and staff’s full comments to these
sections are included in Attachment #2.
33
Section 1. Proposed Changes for Applications to Establish a New Site
Water Report The Ministry is proposing to better clarify how the water table is determined, who is qualified to prepare a water report and enhance the information required as part of the report. The proposed changes are intended to clarify the preparation and requirements of a water report in assessing the significance and potential of impacts to the water and the feasibility of mitigation on private wells, municipal wells, surface water courses, and water bodies. Since aggregate applications for new and expansion sites in Halton Region over the last 20 years have involved below water table extraction, there is concern about water level monitoring. Water level monitoring for new or expansion sites typically commences several years before an application is submitted to the MNRF and typically continues through the application review process. Three years of monitoring data is a common standard used by Halton Region and should be considered as the minimum for any extraction, particularly where sensitive receptors (e.g. Natural Heritage features or water supply wells) are in the vicinity. The proposed requirement of a minimum one-year monitoring should not be the standard across the Province. Also, monitoring standards should consider individual site conditions/characteristics, and not be homogenous for urban, rural and remote areas of the Province. Notification and Consultation Timeframe The Ministry is proposing to extend the existing “notification period” to 60 days (calendar days) to allow more time for agencies and interested parties to review and comment on the application. There is also a proposal to allow applicants on private land to request an extension of the current two-year overall notification and consultation process deadline, to continue making attempts at resolving objection.
The notification and consultation timelines for reviewing and commenting on aggregate applications are too short for agencies and interested parties to appropriately respond. The proposed extension to the “notification period” from the current 45 days to 60 days would provide agencies with more time to review and comment on aggregate applications. The proposal to allow requests for extension of the total notification and consultation period (aimed at resolving objections) beyond the current 2-year limit could be beneficial to both an applicant and review agencies. The Ministry should consider incorporating some criteria for extending the current two-year deadline to ensure applications do not remain open indefinitely.
34
Objection Process on Private Land
The Ministry is proposing to clarify when submissions are considered to be formal ‘objections’. Submissions made during the “notification period” (proposed to be 60 days) would not be considered objections. Currently, any person or agency objecting to a proposed pit or quarry on private land must submit concerns to the applicant and Ministry within a prescribed notification period. Applicants must then attempt to resolve these objections. Submissions received outside the notification period are not considered as objections. Without guidance or legal advice, citizen objectors find the objection process confusing and challenging. The intent of the proposed change is to better manage the objection process by clarifying
the difference between the commenting process (i.e. comments submitted within the
extended notification period of 60 days) and an official objection process (i.e. objection
on a standardized form and containing information as required by the form, submitted
within 20 days from the receipt of response letter from an applicant, and with expectation
to attend the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal).
This proposed change could be beneficial to both an applicant and review agencies. The
standardized form and the specific requirements concerning an “official objection” have
not been included in the Proposal and should be disclosed as part of the on-going
consultation process. Also, the Ministry should prepare communication materials to
ensure that the general public understands the difference between the two forms and
understands how to use them.
Circulating New Applications to Agencies
The list of agencies that are circulated new applications would be updated to reflect current government organization and responsibilities. Agencies would not be asked to review aspects of applications that are beyond their mandate. The Provincial government has made changes to its organizational structure and wants this structure to be used when new aggregate applications are circulated for review and comment. Agencies are to stick to their mandates when reviewing applications. As an example, applicants would be required to circulate applications to Conservation Authorities to determine whether the proposed site is within a Conservation Authority’s regulated area, and if it is, whether the application has the potential to impact the control of flooding, erosion or other natural hazards.
In the early 2000’s, Halton Region established a Joint Agency Review Team (JART) consisting of municipalities, Conservation Authorities, and the Niagara Escarpment Commission (where applicable) to conduct reviews of technical studies in support of each ARA application in the Region. The JART coordinates these technical reviews to eliminate duplicative review and provide streamlined comments, including practical
35
recommendations for issue resolution, to both aggregate applicants and the MNRF. This collaborative review process allows the JART agencies to exchange ideas, pull together staff and consulting resources with different expertise, and benefits from local knowledge not held by Provincial agencies. The JART serves to inform municipal councils and boards of the merits of an ARA application and this is particularly important for residents, objectors, and other stakeholders alike. In February 2020, Regional Council endorsed an update to the JART protocol entitled Halton Consolidated Mineral Aggregate Review 2020 Protocol Update, through Report No. LPS11-20. In Halton Region and other jurisdictions, Conservation Authorities have invaluable ecological and environmental expertise not held by municipalities, and contribute to the application review and commenting process in significant and positive ways. In a few instances in Halton Region, Conservation Authorities own rehabilitated quarry lands (where an operator has entered into a legal agreement with the Conservation Authority). In such instances, a Conservation Authority’s involvement in the broader ARA application review and commenting process is important and must be maintained. Also, in updating its Provincial Standards, the Ministry should recognize municipal jurisdictions where Joint Agency Review Teams (or alternate multi-agency collaborative bodies) exist, enable them to remain, and consider similar collaborative approaches as models for other jurisdictions across the Province. Section 2. Prescribed Rules for Minor Excavations The Ministry is proposing that persons or farm operations on private land that meet
specific criteria would not need to obtain a licence from the Ministry if they follow
rules set out in the regulations. No changes are being proposed to the definition
of a pit or quarry under the ARA.
Minor excavations are fairly common practice in the aggregate industry. In an effort to ease review processes, the Ministry is proposing to establish specific criteria to eliminate the requirement for a licence, if rules set out in the regulations are followed. Activities would need to be registered with the Ministry through the completion and submission of forms, supplemented by documentation such as photographs and satellite images, and also comply with other required government approvals. Examples of conditions for exemptions include only unconsolidated material being excavated, no blasting or processing of aggregate and remaining above the water table. The provisions and conditions for minor excavations on private land or land registered by a farm business appear to be reasonable, subject to review by agencies as required to obtain applicable approvals. The regulation-prescribed criteria should permit additional criteria (as warranted) based on local agency’s permit-related reviews.
36
Section 3. Proposed Changes to How New and Existing Sites are Managed and Operated Site Plan Amendment Process
To improve consistency of information being submitted to the Ministry in regards to site plan amendment requests, the Ministry is proposing to clarify in regulation that the required information be submitted using a standard form. Currently, there is inconsistency in the type of information submitted in support of site plan amendment requests to the Ministry. To resolve this, the proposed change includes a standardized form for an applicant to make such requests. Through the proposed changes, the Ministry may also require additional information such as new or updated studies to assess potential impacts, and circulation of the proposed amendment to municipalities, other agencies and interested parties. While positive, the proposed changes do not address notification to municipalities and Conservation Authorities on applications for significant amendments to the site plans, and do not refer such applications to municipal agencies for review. The practice of generally notifying municipalities of site plan amendments after the fact is proposed to remain. As municipalities and Conservation Authorities play a significant role in the ARA application review process, any requests for major site plan amendments should involve reviews by these agencies.
Amendment to Expand an Existing Site Below the Water Table
The Ministry is proposing to require specific information and notification (from an applicant) as part of an amendment application to expand an existing pit or quarry on private land below the water table. Not all applicants provide sufficient and detailed information in support of applications to
expand an aggregate operation below the water table. The proposed change would
require applicants to prepare and submit hydrogeological reports, similar to those
required for new applications, prepared by a qualified person.
While this is supported, more information is needed regarding the scope, study
components and recommended content of the supplemental water report in support of a
site plan amendment application to “widen” the existing below-water extraction.
The Ministry may ask for additional information in terms of new natural environment, new
noise assessment, new blast design or new cultural reports.
While this is supported, the Ministry needs to provide guidance on the content of these
reports and establish screening criteria for both the timing and requirement of additional
studies/information, especially when the established below-water extraction site does not
37
have broader-scale monitoring requirements built into the existing/grandfathered site
plan. Clarity should be provided on when the new natural environment reports will need
to be updated to take into account the effects of going below the water table. For
example, the screening criteria might include the presence of groundwater dependent
natural heritage systems in the area.
The Ministry is proposing to require updated site plans showing any proposed changes
to extraction phases and changes to operational and rehabilitation plans.
This change is supported, however, an expansion below water (whether initial or
subsequent), constitutes a major change, and all site plan revisions for major changes
should be subject to oversight from a qualified person.
The Ministry is proposing to require posting of a notice, erecting a sign, and holding a
public information session for these site plan amendments, except for applicants wishing
to widen their existing below water extraction area.
As lateral expansion of below-water extraction may cause widening of the dewatering
cone and/or reduction in protective buffering of sensitive receptors (if any), the Ministry
should also require postings, signs, and a public information session in these instances.
Self-Filing of Site Plan Amendments The Ministry is proposing to allow existing operators to make changes to site plans for certain small and routine amendments that reflect normal operation of pits and quarries, including those that are subject to an approval by another agency. Ministry approval is currently required for significant and routine site plan amendments. In an effort to streamline the process, the Ministry is proposing to dispense with its review of small and routine amendments or such amendments which are subject to an approval by another agency. The Ministry should clearly define eligibility screening criteria for self-filing of site plan amendments. The Ministry should also require a signed declaration from an operator or an authorized third party indicating that the proposed changes would not increase risk to the public and/or to the environment. It is unclear whether changing the location of blasting-material storage, fuel storage or refueling station location, repair and maintenance shop, etc., would qualify for self-filing. As these types of facilities could pose higher risk to public, they should not be eligible for self-filing.
38
Section 4. When Changes Are Proposed to Come into Effect
The Ministry proposes that some changes would come into effect once the regulation is approved and other changes would come into effect 6 months and 1.5 years after the regulation would be approved. The Ministry is proposing an incremental approach to implementing the proposed changes in which some changes would be immediate upon regulation approval including:
Notifications and consultation requirements for new applications
Exemptions from requiring a licence if rules in regulations are followed
Site plan amendments eligible for self-filing
Application requirements to expand an existing site into a road allowance
Application requirements to expand an existing site below water table
Other proposed changes would come into effect 6 months after the regulation is approved including:
New requirements relating to the information, studies and site plans required for
new applications
Annual Compliance Assessment Reports
Other proposed changes would come into effect 1.5 years after the regulation is approved including:
Licence and permit conditions for new sites
Operating requirements that apply to all sites
Given the intent to improve and modernize aggregate reviews and approval, the
timing/scheduling is critical. As such, the staging of these changes would hinder
administrative ease and understanding by applicants, agencies, and the public. It is
recommended that all changes come into effect at the same time and be implemented as
soon as possible.
Section 5. Regulatory Impact Assessment
The regulatory impacts of the proposed changes do not contain capital costs, but
do contain consideration of on-going operational costs and administrative costs.
Aggregate applicants have three categories of costs to consider, including capital costs
(e.g. site preparation, monitoring, and excavation), on-going operational costs (e.g.
technical studies, monitoring and compliance), and administrative costs which are
incurred at the time of filing an application. These proposed changes are intended to
result in a net positive savings for aggregate resource applicants and operators.
The largest increase in costs are expected to arise from the enhanced technical report
requirements and the application of new operational standards to existing sites. These
changes would, however, facilitate a better understanding of the impacts of aggregate
operations and protect the environment and society from such impacts. This is to be
commended. Aggregate operations although temporary, can be present on the
39
landscape for many decades, and as such, broad ecological and environmental protection
is paramount.
Conclusion The Ministry is intent on providing clarity with respect to documentation required to support aggregate applications and on enhancing notification and consultation timelines and processes across the Province. Such clarification and enhancement is required and the Proposal is indicative of positive steps by the Ministry for both the aggregate industry and the general public. However, while these proposed changes are desirable and would be beneficial in the overall ARA application review process, a homogenous approach is not appropriate for all jurisdictions; applications in populated urban areas should be subject to higher review and commenting standards than those that apply in less populated rural and remote areas. Also, in order to advance the proposed changes, the Ministry needs to provide further guidance and elaborate on the details of these proposed changes. The Ministry should look at best practices in municipal jurisdictions such as Halton Region, for ways to better streamline technical reviews, commenting processes and resolution of technical issues. The Halton JART approach could be a model for other jurisdictions. Given Halton Region’s role in reviewing applications for pits and quarries and in monitoring these aggregate operations post approval, the Region wishes to be part of any future consultations concerning the ARA regulations and standards. The comments contained in this staff report, as well as those contained in Attachment #2, represent Regional staff’s opinions and perspectives on proposed changes to Ontario Regulation 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the ARA. These staff comments were submitted to the Ministry in order to meet the ERO May 15, 2020 deadline. Official Regional comments will be submitted to the Ministry following Regional Council’s consideration of this staff report.
40
FINANCIAL/PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations contained in this report. Respectfully submitted,
Curt Benson Director, Planning Services and Chief Planning Official
Bob Gray Commissioner, Legislative and Planning
Services and Corporate Counsel
Approved by
Jane MacCaskill Chief Administrative Officer
If you have any questions on the content of this report, please contact:
Curt Benson Tel. # 7181
Attachments: Attachment #1 – Proposal to Amend Regulation and Standards under the ARA Attachment
Attachment #2 – Regional Comments on ERO #019-1303
41
42
43
Contents ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Section 1 - Proposed Changes for Applications to Establish a New Site ...................................................................... 7
Part 1.1: Study and Information Requirements ....................................................................................................... 7
1.1.1 Water Report ................................................................................................................................................ 7
1.1.2 Cultural Heritage Report .............................................................................................................................. 9
1.1.3 Natural Environment Report ...................................................................................................................... 10
1.1.4 Agricultural Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................. 10
1.1.5 Blast Design Report .................................................................................................................................... 11
1.1.6 Summary Statement .................................................................................................................................. 12
1.1.7 Application Requirements for Extraction from Land under Water ........................................................... 12
1.1.8 Forestry Aggregate Pits .............................................................................................................................. 13
Part 1.2: Site Plan and Licence/Permit Conditions ................................................................................................. 13
1.2.1 Site Plan Standards – Improving Flexibility ................................................................................................ 13
1.2.2 Site Plan Standards – Modernization ......................................................................................................... 14
1.2.3 Qualified Professionals to Prepare Site Plans ............................................................................................ 15
1.2.4 Prescribed Licence and Permit Conditions (New Sites) ............................................................................. 16
Part 1.3 Notification and Consultation Requirements ........................................................................................... 18
1.3.1 Notification and Consultation Timeframes ................................................................................................ 18
1.3.2 Notification and Consultation Process ....................................................................................................... 18
1.3.3 Objection Process on Private land ............................................................................................................. 19
1.3.4 Circulating New Applications to Agencies.................................................................................................. 20
Section 2 – Prescribed Rules for Minor Excavations .................................................................................................. 22
2.1 Excavation from Private Land or Land Owned by a Farm Business .............................................................. 22
2.2 Excavation within a Highway Right of Way for Road Construction .............................................................. 24
Section 3 – Proposed Changes to How New and Existing Sites are Managed and Operated.................................... 25
Part 3.1 Operating Requirements for All Sites (New and Existing) ........................................................................ 25
44
3.1.1 Miscellaneous Changes .............................................................................................................................. 25
3.1.2 Dust ............................................................................................................................................................ 26
3.1.3 Blasting ....................................................................................................................................................... 27
3.1.4 Recycling ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
Part 3.2 Annual Compliance Reporting .................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.1 Compliance Assessment Reports ............................................................................................................... 28
3.2.2 Rehabilitation Reporting ............................................................................................................................ 29
Part 3.3 Site Plan Amendments .............................................................................................................................. 30
3.3.1 Site Plan Amendment Process ................................................................................................................... 30
3.3.2 Amendment to Expand into a Road Allowance ......................................................................................... 32
3.3.3 Amendment to Expand an Existing Site Below the Water Table ............................................................... 33
3.3.4 Self-Filing of Site Plan Amendments .......................................................................................................... 36
Section 4 – When Changes are Proposed to Come into Effect .................................................................................. 41
Section 5 – Regulatory Impact Assessment ............................................................................................................... 42
Results Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 50
45
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is responsible for managing Ontario’s aggregate
resources. Aggregate resources, like sand, stone and gravel, support the quality of life that Ontarians enjoy and
play a vital role in Ontario’s economy. Aggregates are essential for building critical infrastructure like homes,
schools, hospitals, roads, airports and subway tunnels, which help support the needs of communities across the
province. Aggregates are also used in a variety of products like brick, glass, paper and even toothpaste. The
aggregate industry had a production revenue of approximately $1.6 billion in 2017 and supports over 29,000
aggregate sector related jobs in Ontario.
The excavation of aggregates is primarily regulated under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA). The act applies to
Crown-owned aggregate and topsoil and privately-owned aggregate located on private land (within geographic
areas identified in regulation). Other laws and regulations may also apply to aggregate sites, such as municipal
planning approvals, permits to take water and environmental compliance approvals. There are approximately
6,000 pits and quarries authorized under the ARA. A pit is a site where unconsolidated material, such as sand and
gravel, is removed and quarries are sites where consolidated material or “bedrock” (e.g., limestone, granite) is
removed. Nearly 60 percent of pits and quarries are on private land. Most of the aggregate produced in Ontario
comes from southern Ontario where most of the demand exists. Studies have shown that our need for aggregate
material is expected to increase .
While Ontario requires a continued supply of aggregate resources, it is equally important to recognize and
manage the impact excavation operations can have on the natural environment and on the communities that
surround them. These operations are located across our diverse province, and the regulatory framework that
manages them must be modern, fair, consistent and efficient to support Ontario’s needs today and into the
future.
This document outlines proposed regulatory changes under Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) and the Aggregate
Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards (i.e., “Provincial Standards”) and builds from recent changes to the ARA
that were made through the passing of Bill 132, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019. The legislation,
regulations, Provincial Standards and policy that comprise the key policy framework for regulating the extraction
of aggregates in Ontario in Figure 1. The changes being proposed are intended to modernize the way aggregate
resources are managed and to promote economic growth within the aggregate industry while also protecting the
For more information about pits and quarries, visit and
follow the link at the top of the page.
Source: State of Aggregate Resources in Ontario, 2010.
46
environment and addressing community impacts. In addition to the regulatory changes proposed in this paper,
the ministry will also be developing guidance materials to better communicate best practices for preparing
applications under the ARA.
Over the last year, MNRF has been listening to members of the aggregate industry, the public, municipalities,
non-governmental organizations, and Indigenous communities to find ways to reduce the regulatory burdens
facing the aggregate industry while also maintaining strong environmental controls to ensure our water, air and
natural environment are protected.
Key themes heard so far include:
• Ensure environmental protection, particularly related to water resources
• Increase opportunities for community engagement on applications
• Improve access to aggregates
• Cut red tape by reducing duplication and inefficiencies that create barriers to industry
• Ensure pit and quarry rehabilitation
No changes to aggregate fees and royalties are being proposed at this time. If changes are proposed in the
future, additional consultation would occur.
47
• Aggregate Resources Act [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90a08]
• Ontario Regulation 244/97 [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/970244]
• Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards, which is incorporated by reference under Ontario
Regulation 244/97[ https://www.ontario.ca/page/application-standards-proposed-pits-and-quarries]
• Policies and procedures [https://www.ontario.ca/rural-and-north/aggregate-resources-policies-and-
procedures]
You can provide comments through the Environmental Registry posting (#019-1303) at , or
by sending comments via email to [email protected].
The ministry is interested in your perspectives on the proposals outlined in the discussion paper, including:
• how these proposed changes may affect you or your business (e.g. implementation costs and timelines,
community impacts and concerns),
• how effective these changes would be at reducing regulatory burdens while maintaining appropriate
levels of environmental protection,
• suggestions for improvements to these proposals, and
• ideas for additional changes or improvements.
Dimension stone quarry with equipment used to mechanically remove the
limestone bedrock.
48
The Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards or “Provincial Standards” outline the application
requirements for establishing a new pit or quarry in Ontario. These requirements include reports that help
inform the proposal and identify potential impacts of the activities that are proposed to take place.
Recommendations from the reports to mitigate potential impacts are incorporated on the site plan that acts like
a blueprint for the operation. The following sections outline proposed changes to the technical report
requirements for applicants under the Aggregate Resources Act.
1.1.1 Water Report
Currently, all new pit and quarry applications must identify the proposed maximum depth of extraction in
relation to the water table. In addition, most applications that propose to extract below the ground water table
must include a hydrogeological report (“water report”). These reports must be prepared by a person with
appropriate training and experience in hydrogeology (i.e., a ‘qualified person’). The objective of the report is to
identify any potential adverse effects to ground water and surface water resources and their uses (e.g., private
and municipal wells, aquifers, waterbodies) as a result of the proposed activities. If the potential for adverse
effects is identified, an impact assessment is required to determine the significance of the effects and the
feasibility of mitigation.
Applications that are not proposing to extract below the water table must determine the elevation of the water
table at the proposed site or demonstrate that the final depth of extraction will be at least 1.5 metres above the
water table if a pit is proposed or at least 2.0 meters above the water table if a quarry is proposed.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to better clarify how the water table is determined, who is qualified to prepare a water
report and enhance the information required as part the report.
The following changes would apply to all new applications, regardless of whether the proposal is to extract below
water or not:
49
• Require that the water table be established using the maximum predicted elevation of the water table.
The water table (to be referenced as the “maximum predicted water table”) would be assessed by
monitoring the ground water table at the site for a minimum of one year to account for seasonal
variations and influences due to precipitation. If information sources already exist on or adjacent to the
site (e.g., previous hydrogeological study, existing well data) a determination of the maximum predicted
water table elevation could be made by a qualified person with the submission of supporting data.
• For sites proposing to extract in Precambrian shield where it is difficult to determine the elevation of the
water table, a qualified person would need to drill to the depth of the proposed extraction plus 2.5 metres
to determine if the water table will be encountered. The number of drill holes and seasonal timing would
be determined by the qualified person and based on site conditions.
• Require that the maximum predicted water table must be determined for all proposed pits and quarries
on Crown land that are proposing excavation below the water table, even those in remote or isolated
areas .
The ministry is proposing to clarify some of the current requirements for the assessment of impacts to water in
order to determine the significance and potential of impacts and the feasibility of mitigation. For example:
• Water wells, including private and municipal wells.
• Surface water courses and water bodies, including sensitive ground water dependent features (e.g.,
wetlands, water courses).
Also, a water budget, determining the relationship between input and output of water through the site with
consideration of precipitation and potential evapotranspiration of the supply of water and the natural demand
for water may be required.
Clarification would also be made to better describe what qualifications are required in order to prepare a water
report. Specifically, this person must be a registered Professional Geoscientist or exempted Professional Engineer
as set out in the Professional Geoscientists Act, 2000 who has appropriate ground water experience and
expertise.
A new requirement would be added to the water report that summarizes how local source water protection plans
and policies are addressed. Specifically, in this new section, applicants would be required to identify:
Remote or isolated areas are defined as areas not within: 500 metres of a coldwater stream, 1000 metres of a
water well, whether dug or drilled, and 5000 metres of a sensitive receptor.
50
• If the proposed operation is within a Wellhead Protection Area A or B (WHPA-A or B).
• If activities (e.g., fuel or salt storage) proposed at the site have the potential to cause a significant threat
to local source water. This assessment would include referencing local existing source water protection
plans or policies approved under the Clean Water Act.
• If proposed aggregate extraction at the site has the potential for changes to the ‘vulnerability’ within a
Wellhead Protection Area (A or B). Note: The vulnerability score determines how other proposed on-site
activities would be managed under the source water protection plan.
• If the proposed site is in a Wellhead Protection Area for Quantity (WHPA-Q), the potential for impacts to
the sustainability of a municipal water taking. Note: a WHPA-Q is the area around a municipal well
associated with the potential for water quantity threats.
1.1.2 Cultural Heritage Report
The Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) is responsible for the administration of
the Ontario Heritage Act and may determine policies, priorities and programs for the conservation, protection
and preservation of the cultural heritage of Ontario. Cultural heritage resources include archaeological resources,
built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. All applicants under the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA)
must prepare a cultural heritage report to determine if any significant archaeological resources may be present
on the proposed site, and if so, to assess potential impacts and propose mitigation strategies.
The current report requirements focus on archaeological resources, however, an assessment of impacts to built
heritage and cultural heritage landscapes may sometimes be required.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to update the cultural heritage report requirements to ensure that the scope and
content is consistent with the Province’s cultural heritage policy framework. With this alignment, applicants can
benefit from the tools and information developed by the province to streamline approvals for other types of
development.
For example, one approach that is sometimes used in other types of development, is to allow temporary
avoidance and protection strategies as a mechanism in archaeological assessments. Where a licenced
archaeologist has recommended a detailed investigation in a limited area of a development footprint, it may be
possible to permit extraction (subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards) outside of the area that requires
further investigation. The archaeologist would recommend appropriate mitigation (e.g., setbacks to excavation,
use of equipment) to protect the resources and the site plan would make these restrictions enforceable. These
restrictions would be in place until the outstanding reports are completed and accepted by MHSTCI and the
appropriate consultation has occurred.
51
The process to implement the proposed changes need to consider how the objectives of the proposal are
achieved while avoiding unnecessary burden on the applicant and on review agencies, especially where built
heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes are already considered through the Planning Act process.
Aligning the Provincial Standards with the Province’s cultural heritage policy framework creates a process that
allows information necessary to better support meaningful engagement of potentially affected stakeholders and
Indigenous communities to be shared through the ARA process and ensures that any mitigation relevant to the
operation of the pit or quarry is reflected on the ARA site plan.
1.1.3 Natural Environment Report
All pit and quarry applications are required to include a natural environment report, as outlined in the Provincial
Standards. The report is required to identify natural heritage features on or within proximity to the proposed pit
or quarry. These features currently include significant wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, significant habitat of
endangered or threatened species, fish habitat, significant areas of natural and scientific interest; and, depending
on where the site is located, significant woodlands and significant valleylands. If any of these features are located
on or within 120 metres of the proposed pit or quarry, the report must determine any potential negative impacts
on the features or their ecological functions and propose any necessary measures to prevent, mitigate or
remediate the negative impacts.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to update the requirements in the natural environment report to align with the current
natural heritage policies in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the four Provincial Plans (Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,
and the Niagara Escarpment Plan). Requirements for a natural environment report were developed in 1997. Since
that time, the PPS and Provincial Plans have been updated and they now include policies related to, for example,
coastal wetlands (in ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E), and natural heritage systems (in Ecoregions 6E and 7E). Changes
would ensure that the requirements for the natural environment report align with the PPS and Provincial Plans,
as amended from time to time.
1.1.4 Agricultural Impact Assessment
The four Provincial Plans contain policies that require the completion of an Agricultural Impact Assessment for
new aggregate operations. However, the Provincial Standards do not currently require these assessments to be
submitted as part of an application for a licence.
52
Proposed Approach:
In order to align with what is currently required under Provincial Plan policies, the ministry is proposing that all
applications for new pits and quarries on private land be required to include an Agricultural Impact Assessment if
the proposed pit or quarry is within a prime agricultural area that is also located within a portion of a Provincial
Plan that is subject to an Agricultural Impact Assessment policy requirement. Prime agricultural areas are defined
in the applicable Provincial Plan.
1.1.5 Blast Design Report
A blast design report is required for all new quarry applications on private land that are proposing to remove
more than 20,000 tonnes per year (i.e. Class A licences) where there is a sensitive receptor (e.g., residences,
hospitals, schools) within 500 metres of the proposed limit of extraction. A blast design report is currently not
required for new quarries on Crown land or for new quarries on private land that are proposing to remove 20,000
tonnes or less per year (i.e., Class B licences). The blast design report must demonstrate that provincial guidelines
(NPC 119 - Blasting) for ground vibration and overpressure (i.e., noise) can be met during blast events.
Proposed Approach:
To better align application requirements on Crown land with those on private land, the ministry is proposing to
require blast design reports for new quarries on Crown land that propose to remove more than 20,000 tonnes
per year and that have a sensitive receptor within 500 metres of the limit of extraction.
A construction aggregate limestone quarry conducting a blast.
53
1.1.6 Summary Statement
Currently, a summary statement is required as part of a new pit or quarry application. Information required in a
summary statement varies depending on where the proposed site is located, whether the site will be extracting
below the water table and how much aggregate is proposed to be produced each year. The Provincial Standards
require, among other things, that a summary statement for Class A licence applications include information about
planning and land use considerations.
Proposed Approach
The ministry is proposing that the summary statement for all proposed pits and quarries on private land and
Crown land contain planning and land use considerations. Information about how the operation of the site would
align with these considerations would need to be reflected on the site plan. For example, no below water table
extraction is permitted within the Natural Linkage Area of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
Applications proposing extraction above the water table, would be required to identify activities (e.g., fuel or salt
storage) proposed at the site that are significant threats to source water and they would be required to reference
existing source water protection policies approved under the Clean Water Act on the site plan. Note: for
applications proposing to extract below the water table, this information would be addressed in the water report.
1.1.7 Application Requirements for Extraction from Land under Water
Applications for operations proposing to extract aggregate from land under water (e.g., from the bed of a lake or
river) are required to provide different information than other pit or quarry proposals
[https://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/aggregates/provincial-standards/mnr_e000038.pdf]. Most of
the beds of lakes and rivers in Ontario are Crown land and managed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Forestry. This type of approval is rare, and the ministry has not received any applications since these
requirements were established.
Proposed Approach
The ministry is proposing to review the requirements relating to the excavation of aggregate materials from the
bed of a lake or river. Since the consideration of impacts related to these types of applications are specific to the
location, the ministry is proposing that the technical reports, information and notification and consultation
requirements be customized for each site. As such, the applicant would submit a proposed custom plan to the
ministry for approval. The custom plan would set out the technical reports, information and consultation
approach necessary to ensure potential impacts resulting from the proposed activities are minimized.
54
1.1.8 Forestry Aggregate Pits
Currently, the forest industry is exempt from the requirement to obtain an aggregate permit for small, above-
water pits on Crown land if they meet specific exemption criteria and follow the operating requirements set out
in the Forest Management Planning Manual approved under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. These forestry
aggregate pits may be operated for a maximum of 10 years, but there are existing streamlining provisions
available to the forest industry if they are seeking an aggregate permit to allow the pit to operate longer than 10
years. Specifically, if they meet certain criteria they are exempt from submitting the technical reporting
requirements (e.g., natural environment, cultural heritage) with their aggregate permit application.
Proposed Approach
As part of proposed changes to revise the forest manuals regulated under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act
[https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-0715], a proposal was put forward to remove the 10-year time limit for
forestry aggregate pits. Should these proposed changes be approved, the forest industry would no longer need to
transition to an aggregate permit to continue operations beyond a 10-year period and the associated technical
reporting exemption would be eliminated from the aggregate permit application standard.
Every licence and permit must have a site plan that describes how the site will be managed. The Provincial
Standards outline what information must be addressed on the site plan – this includes information about:
• existing features on or nearby the proposed site,
• details about how the site will be operated, and
• information about how the site will be rehabilitated.
1.2.1 Site Plan Standards – Improving Flexibility
While much of the information required is the same for all pit and quarry applications, there are some differences
that reflect the type of operation (e.g. pit or quarry), the location of the operation (e.g., on private or Crown land)
and the relative scale of the operation (e.g. a Class A licence versus a Class B licence). Site plans may also contain
additional site-specific information. For example, to implement recommendations from the required technical
studies or to address concerns raised during consultation.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to provide more flexibility regarding how certain items are identified on the site plan.
Currently, site plans must speak to many things, including (but not limited to) the location of
55
• buildings and structures (e.g. storage shed, scale house, office building),
• temporary/portable processing equipment,
• scrap storage area,
• portable concrete and asphalt plants,
• piles of aggregate, topsoil and overburden,
• internal haul roads (licences only, currently not required for permits).
The proposed changes would clarify that the location of the items listed above may be illustrated on the site plan
or that details could be provided in the site plan notes to indicate the general areas of the site such items are
permitted. Licence and permit holders would still be required to ensure that these items are not located within
setbacks specified in the Operational Standards [https://www.ontario.ca/page/application-standards-proposed-
pits-and-quarries] that apply to all sites (unless specifically varied).
Currently, pit and quarry applications on private land are required to include the location, type and
installation of fencing around the licenced boundary of the site. The ministry is proposing to allow applicants
greater flexibility in how they demarcate the boundary of the pit or quarry. Instead of fencing being required,
boundaries would need to be clearly demarcated and maintained to help ensure the operator knows the
boundary of the site and measures would need to be taken to discourage inadvertent access to the site by the
public in accordance with the Trespass to Property Act (as a minimum). Note: this proposal aligns with a proposed
change to the Operational Standards (see section 3.1).
Currently, pit and quarry applications are required to include details on the site plan
regarding how trees and stumps will be disposed of or used. It is proposed that this information would no longer
be required on the site plan; instead, a new operating requirement would specify that trees and stumps need to
be properly disposed of (e.g., not buried). Note: see the proposed change to operating requirements (section
3.1).
1.2.2 Site Plan Standards – Modernization
The issuance of a licence or permit under the Aggregate Resources Act is often not the only requirement to
establish a pit or quarry. There are often other approvals or land use policies that apply to the development.
Proposed Approach:
To better align with other policy frameworks and to improve consistency between Crown land and private land
applications, the following additional information is proposed to be required on a site plan for a new pit or
quarry:
56
• Applications for a pit or quarry on Crown land would be required to provide details on the importation
of excess soil to facilitate rehabilitation on the site (this is already a requirement for new applications
on private land).
• When a proposed pit or quarry is located within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan,
applicants would need to identify the “maximum disturbed area” on their site plans.
Currently, applicants are required to include a statement on the site plan to indicate the maximum number of
tonnes of aggregate that would be removed from the site in any calendar year (known as a ‘tonnage condition’).
It is proposed that any recycled aggregate removed from the site in each calendar year be counted towards the
tonnage condition for the site and would need to be reported annually in the production report.
Currently, site plans are required to include details on the hours of operation of the site. To better align with the
definition of “operate” under the Aggregate Resources Act, it is proposed that this be clarified to include all on-
site activities associated with the operation of a pit or quarry.
In addition, it is proposed that applicants would need to provide details on the proposed method of excavation
(e.g. cutting or drilling), as well as details on the general type of equipment that will normally be used on the site.
Several changes are also being proposed to modernize how sites plans are prepared and submitted. This includes:
• Encouraging electronic submissions of site plans (e.g. pdf format).
• Requiring that Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates be provided to identify the
boundaries of the site.
• Ensuring compliance with provincial accessibility standards (e.g. black and white or greyscale site
plans).
• Requiring a separate schedule to be included as part of the site plan to describe amendments,
including self-filed site plan amendments (see section 3.3.4).
1.2.3 Qualified Professionals to Prepare Site Plans
Currently, a site plan accompanying an application for a Class A licence (private land) must be prepared under the
direction of and certified by a professional belonging to one of three specific associations: professional engineers,
Ontario land surveyors, or landscape architects. The ministry may approve other qualified persons as well.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to update the list of professionals that are considered to be qualified to prepare a site
plan for Class A licences to include professional geoscientists and professional planners. It is also proposed that
57
site plans for pit and quarry applications on Crown land that are proposing a tonnage condition of greater than
20,000 tonnes per year, also be required to be prepared by a qualified professional.
1.2.4 Prescribed Licence and Permit Conditions (New Sites)
Standard conditions that are placed on the licence or permit at the time of issuance are known as “prescribed
conditions”. These conditions address potential impacts that are common to pits and quarries, such as dust and
blasting. Prescribed conditions have been required on new licences and permits since 1997. They vary depending
on the type of operation and cannot be changed later.
Proposed Approach:
Class B licences are currently issued with a condition requiring that noise be mitigated at source with appropriate
noise attenuation devices and site design. Aggregate permits (Crown land) are also required to mitigate noise at
the source, but only if a sensitive receptor is located within 2000 metres of the site boundary.
The ministry is proposing that all new Class B licences and aggregate permits would be required to mitigate noise
at source with appropriate noise attenuation devices and site design, if a sensitive receptor is located within 500
metres of the site boundary.
Construction aggregate limestone quarry with muck pile produced from
blast.
58
Several of the prescribed conditions that are currently in place on new licences and permits are intended to
ensure that, where required, certain approvals from other ministries are obtained (e.g., environmental
compliance approvals for air emissions and Permit to Take Water). Because these are requirements under other
legislation and not the Aggregate Resources Act, the ministry is proposing to remove the need to add such
conditions to new licence and permits. To help make operators aware of other approvals that might be required,
this information would instead be communicated as part of the ministry’s correspondence to the operator that
accompanies a new licence or permit approval.
The ministry is proposing that some conditions, which are currently only applied to new sites, also be applied to
existing pits and quarries (unless an existing site plan already addresses these activities). This change would
involve ‘prescribed conditions’ related to:
• requiring dust to be mitigated on site,
• requiring a dust suppressant to be applied to internal haul roads and processing areas,
• requiring monitoring of all blasts for ground vibration and blast overpressure, and
• requiring blast monitoring reports to be retained and made available to the ministry upon request.
For more information, please refer to the proposed changes outlined in section 3.1.
Large scale, Class A pit comprised mostly of sand.
.
59
1.3.1 Notification and Consultation Timeframes
At present, the notification and consultation process is applicant driven. This means the applicant manages the
process themselves. The Provincial Standards specify timeframes for consultation that are dependent on whether
the proposed site is on Crown land or private land. For example:
• The ministry has 20 days to determine that an application on private land is complete, but only 15 days on
Crown land. This is a required step before notification can begin.
• Applicants are currently required to consult for 45 days on private land or for 20 days on Crown land (the
“notification period”).
• After beginning the notification period, applicants on private land have two years to complete the overall
notification and consultation process whereas, on Crown land, applicants have six months (but have the
ability to extend beyond).
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to extend the existing “notification period” to 60 days (calendar days) to allow more
time for agencies and interested parties to review and comment on the application. This would apply to all
applications (both private and Crown land).
To improve the consistency between application processes on private and Crown land, the ministry is also
proposing to:
• Align the timeframes for the ministry to review the application package and deem it ready for notification
and consultation. The ministry would have 20 days to deem an application complete on both private and
Crown land.
• Provide the same flexibility to applicants on private land to request an extension past the two-year
overall notification and consultation process deadline, in order to continue making attempts at resolving
objections (this would be optional).
Changes would also make all ministry service times (e.g., 20-days to deem an application complete) business
days, rather than calendar days.
1.3.2 Notification and Consultation Process
Applicants on private land and Crown land must circulate individual notifications to landowners within 120
metres of the proposed boundary of the pit or quarry. The 120 metre distance threshold is the same for all
proposed operations regardless of the size of the proposed site or the nature of activities being proposed in
association with the excavation. On private land, applicants are required to publish notification of their
60
application in a local newspaper and provide the public with an invitation to a public information session, which
they must host. On Crown land, information sessions, signage and newspaper postings are not required,
however, additional consultation may be required as part of the Class Environmental Assessment for Resource
Stewardship and Facility Development Projects.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing changes that could improve the notification and consultation process for the public and
provide some flexibility for the applicant; proposed changes include:
• Requiring Class A licence applicants (i.e., authorizations to remove more than 20,000 tonnes per year on
private land) to notify residents (e.g., residents who may not be landowners) located within 150 metres of
a proposed pit or within 500 metres of a proposed quarry. Class A licence applicants would continue to be
required to notify landowners within 120 metres of the proposed pit or quarry as well.
• Providing all licence applicants with more flexible options related to the method of notification, by
allowing, for example, the use of digital versions of local newspapers rather than print newspapers for
posting notices. Requiring pit or quarry applicants on Crown land to notify nearby resource users. Contact
information for resource users would be obtained from the ministry.
• Clarifying that applicants are to obtain landowner contact information from municipalities so that they
can undertake the required notification process.
Note: The Crown has a legal duty to consult Indigenous communities when it has knowledge of a credibly
asserted or established Aboriginal or treaty right and contemplates conduct that has the potential to adversely
impact those rights. The ministry may delegate procedural aspects of consultation to the applicant as they are
best positioned to respond to and address community concerns. This existing practice would be more clearly
outlined in the Provincial Standards.
1.3.3 Objection Process on Private land
For applications on private land, any person or agency objecting to the proposed pit or quarry must submit their
concerns to the applicant and ministry within the prescribed “notification period”. Applicants must then attempt
to resolve objections. Submissions received outside of the “notification period” are not considered objections. If
all objections are not resolved, the applicant must submit to the ministry and the remaining objectors by written
notice, delivered personally or by registered mail the following:
• A list of unresolved objections,
• Documented attempts to resolve the objections,
• The applicant’s recommendations for resolving the objections, and
• Notice of a 20-day response period for upholding the objection.
61
Objectors then have 20 days to respond if they feel their objections have not been adequately addressed. These
responses need to be delivered personally or by registered mail. If nothing is received from the objector within 20
days, it is deemed that there is no longer an objection.
The minister may refer any objections arising out of the notification and consultation process to the Local
Planning and Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) for a hearing and may direct that the LPAT address only the issues specified
in the referral.
Proposed Approach
In order to better reflect the nature of comments received during a licence application, the ministry is proposing
to clarify when submissions are considered to be formal ‘objections’. Submissions made during the “notification
period” (proposed to be for 60 days) would not be considered objections.
Much of the current process would remain the same. For example, the applicant would still need to attempt to
resolve concerns raised during the notification period, they would still send a letter to commenters detailing their
final proposed changes to address concerns and, commenters would still have 20 days to determine whether the
changes are sufficient to address their concerns or whether they want to formally object, using a standardized
form. The objection form would clarify what it means to officially object (i.e. expected to attend LPAT hearing)
and would clearly indicate how a formal objection must be submitted and what information must be included.
It is also proposed that the objection and any correspondence between the applicant, the ministry and
commenters or objectors can be undertaken electronically upon agreement of all parties, rather than requiring
written paper notices or registered mail. The applicant will need to ensure that any personal information is
properly managed and protected.
1.3.4 Circulating New Applications to Agencies
Agencies and the public have the same window of opportunity to submit comments on an application. The
Provincial Standards identify to which agencies (e.g., municipalities) the applicant is required to circulate the
application. Many of the same agencies are circulated on both licences (private land) and permits (Crown land),
however there are some differences.
Proposed Approach:
The list of agencies that are circulated new applications would be updated to reflect current government
organization and responsibilities. Agencies would not be asked to review aspects of applications that are beyond
their mandate. For example, applicants would be required to circulate the application to Conservation Authorities
(where one exists) to determine whether the proposed site is within an area regulated by the Conservation
62
Authority, and if it is, whether the application has the potential to impact the control of flooding, erosion or other
natural hazards.
In addition, agency circulation requirements for private land would be aligned with those on Crown land. The
ministry is also proposing to require the applicant to circulate the application to Fisheries and Oceans Canada if
the natural environment impact assessment (level 2) identifies negative impacts to fish habitat.
The ministry will continue to explore with other ministries and our municipal partners how applications can be
reviewed to reduce duplication during the review and improve efficiency.
63
2.1 Excavation from Private Land or Land Owned by a Farm Business
The following proposal is related only to excavations that would be exempted in regulation if a set of prescribed
rules are followed. No changes are being proposed to the definition of a pit or quarry under the Act.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing that persons or farm operations on private land that meet specific criteria would not
need to obtain a licence from the ministry if they follow rules set out in the regulations.
Those taking advantage of these rules in regulation would need to register their activity with the ministry by
completing and submitting a form confirming that they meet the conditions set out in regulation. As part of the
registration, the location of the excavation site would need to be documented (e.g., with ground-level
photographs, satellite images from Google Maps, GPS coordinates). Failure to follow the rules or conditions set
out in regulation would mean that the activity is not authorized under the ARA and may be subject to
enforcement action.
Regardless of whether or not a person would be eligible for an exemption under the Aggregate Resources Act,
other approvals may apply (e.g., Planning Act, Municipal Act, Environmental Protection Act). It would be the
responsibility of those undertaking the excavation to ensure that they obtain any required approval(s) (i.e., this
would not exempt a person from other requirements or approvals).
All documentation related to the excavation and/or related to ensuring that the above regulatory conditions are
met would need to be obtained prior to beginning the excavation and retained by the person registering for the
exemption throughout the duration of the excavation and for seven years following completion of the
rehabilitation. Documentation would need to be provided to MNRF for inspection upon request.
The following conditions would need to be met in order for the excavation to qualify for exemption:
• Only unconsolidated material (e.g., sand and gravel) is being excavated.
• No blasting or processing of aggregate (e.g., crushing, washing, etc.) is occurring.
• The excavation remains above the water table; however, if while excavating the water table is
unintentionally intercepted, the excavation area would need to be immediately backfilled with 1.5 metres
of the same excavated material.
• The excavation does not occur within:
o 30 metres of the property boundary,
64
o 90 metres of any part of the property boundary that abuts neighbouring land in use for residential
purposes,
o 90 metres of a sensitive receptor (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools),
o 30 metres of a body of water,
o 30 metres of septic system or a water well,
o 15 metres of a plugged petroleum well or 30 metres from an active petroleum well,
o a category A or B wellhead protection area under the Clean Water Act,
o an area where development is prohibited by a conservation authority.
While undertaking the excavation, the individual or farm business would be required to ensure that:
• Sediment from the excavation is prevented from entering any water body.
• The working face is sloped at the angle of repose or the vertical height of the working face is not more
than 1.5 metres above the maximum reach of equipment being used.
• The excavation will only occur over a period of up to three consecutive calendar years.
• Within one year of the final year of excavation, the excavation area is rehabilitated to its former land use
or rehabilitated by sloping all faces to a minimum of 3:1 and vegetated to prevent erosion.
• Only one excavation is occurring on a property at any one time (a previous excavation would be
considered completed once rehabilitation of the excavation site has occurred).
Note: that once rehabilitated, a site excavated under this rule could not be excavated again.
Additional conditions that would only be applied to aggregate excavation on private land for personal use: • The aggregate being excavated would be for the person’s private use and would not be used in relation to
an aggregate-related business or commercial enterprise and is not sold by the individual.
• The excavation could only be undertaken by or on behalf of the landowner on their own private property.
• No more than 300 cubic metres would be excavated.
• The area of excavation would not exceed 0.5 hectares.
• Excavated aggregate would not be removed from the property from which it was excavated or would only
be moved between adjacent properties owned by the same landowner.
Additional conditions that would only be applied to aggregate excavation from land by a farm business: • The excavation would occur on an agricultural property owned or leased by a registered farm business.
• Excavated aggregate would not be removed from the property from which it was excavated or would only
be moved to another property owned by the same registered farm business.
• No more than 1000 cubic metres would be excavated.
• A 300 cubic metre excavation site would roughly fill three in-ground pools (7x12 meter) or 24
average tri-axle dump trucks.
• A 1000 cubic metre excavation would equal about 81 average tri-axle dump truck loads.
65
2.2 Excavation within a Highway Right of Way for Road Construction
Currently, no approvals are required to extract within a municipal or provincial road right-of-way during initial
construction or maintenance of a road within that right-of-way. It is proposed that it be made clear in regulation
that municipalities or the Crown would not require a licence or permit to excavate aggregate if the following
conditions are met:
• the aggregate is being excavated as part of a public road construction project, and
• the excavation is occurring within the established right of way of a highway owned by a municipality or
the Crown.
Crushed aggregate in a quarry.
66
3.1.1 Miscellaneous Changes
All pits and quarries, regardless of date of issue, are required to be operated in accordance with a set of
requirements described in the Provincial Standards (known as “Operational Standards”), unless a variance has
been approved by the ministry. Operators are required to make note of any variances from the operational
standards on their site plans.
Proposed Approach:
The following proposed changes would apply to pit and quarry sites unless an approved variance has been noted
on the site plan:
• Currently, a 1.2 metre tall fence is required to be erected and maintained around the boundary of pits or
quarries on private land (sites on Crown land do not have this requirement). The ministry is proposing to
remove this requirement on private land and instead require boundaries to be clearly demarcated and
maintained. Fencing may still be required to address concerns raised through the notification and
consultation process (e.g. where a proposal is in proximity to sensitive land-uses such as residential
properties or recreational trails). This change would align with the proposed changes to site plan
requirements (see section 1.2).
• Currently, the boundaries of an aggregate site on Crown land need to be identified, but not fenced. It is
proposed that all pits and quarries on Crown land would be required to mark any accessible areas of the
boundary of the site in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Trespass to Property Act. This
would not be required on sites that have not yet begun operating (e.g., sites that have not yet been
disturbed, including but not limited to stripping of land).
• A new requirement would be added to indicate that trees and stumps removed during site preparation
would need to be properly disposed of (e.g. this material would not be buried on the site).
67
• Currently, on private and Crown land operations, gates are required at each entrance to the site.
Clarification would be added to specify that chains and cables are not acceptable.
• Currently, scrap must be removed on an ongoing basis and it cannot be located within 30 metres of any
body of water or 30 metres from the boundary of the site. Requirements would be added to ensure that
scrap stored on the site:
o only includes material related to approved operations on the site,
o does not leak fluid,
o is separated from other materials and,
o is removed from the site throughout the calendar year.
3.1.2 Dust
There are currently no operating requirements that apply to all sites that address dust mitigation. However,
certain dust mitigation measures are required to be placed on new licences and permits. Since 1997, new licence
(private land) and permit (Crown land) holders have been required to ensure that dust is mitigated on site,
however, this requirement only applies to permits if a sensitive receptor (e.g., residence, hospital, school) is
located within 2000 metres of the site boundary. Similarly, new licence and permit holders are required to apply
water or another provincially approved dust suppressant to internal haul roads and processing areas to mitigate
dust (for permits, this condition only applies if a sensitive receptor is located within 500 metres of the boundary
of the site).
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to require all licence and aggregate permit holders to mitigate dust to prevent it from
leaving the site. Licence holders would need to mitigate dust regardless of their proximity to a sensitive receptor.
Aggregate permit holders would only need to mitigate dust if a sensitive receptor is located within 1000 metres
of the boundary of the site.
In addition, it is proposed that all licence and aggregate permit holders with a sensitive receptor located within
1000 metres of the boundary of the site be required to apply water or another provincially approved dust
suppressant to internal haul roads and processing areas as needed to control dust.
It is also proposed that all licence and permit holders be required to prepare and follow a Best Management
Practices Plan (BMPP) for fugitive dust control. This new requirement would apply to all licences and permits if a
sensitive receptor was located within 1000 metres of the boundary of the site. The BMPP could be prepared by
the site operator using provincial best management practices (e.g.
68
. Operators that already have a BMPP as part of an Environmental Compliance Approval
(ECA) may follow that plan to meet this requirement.
Note: None of the above changes would apply to wayside permits.
3.1.3 Blasting
Since 1997, new quarries on private and Crown land have been required to operate in accordance with several
conditions related to blasting. Some of these include:
• A requirement to monitor blasts for ground vibration and blast overpressure (e.g., noise) and operate to
ensure compliance with provincial guidelines (note: new Crown land sites are only required to monitor if
there is a sensitive receptor within 500 metres of the boundary of the site).
• A requirement to retain blast monitoring reports and provide them to the ministry upon request.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to clarify that blasting means the use of explosives to break rock for excavation.
The ministry is also proposing that all new and existing quarry sites (private and Crown land) that are approved to
blast would be required to:
• Monitor all blasts for ground vibration and blast overpressure (noise) and adhere to provincial guidelines
(NPC-119 - Blasting).
• Implement measures to prevent fly rock from leaving the site during blast events if a sensitive receptor is
within 500 metres of the boundary of the site.
• Retain all blast monitoring reports and make them available upon request to the ministry.
3.1.4 Recycling
There are currently no operating requirements that relate specifically to aggregate recycling within pits and
quarries.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to require that, where aggregate recycling activities are already approved to occur on a
site, the site would need to be operated in accordance with the following requirements:
• Recyclable asphalt may not be stored within 30 metres of a water body or within two metres of the
established ground water table and may not be co-mingled with scrap material(s).
• Any rebar or other structural metal must be removed from recyclable aggregate materials during
processing and placed in a separate scrap pile.
69
• Recyclable asphalt and concrete materials cannot be stored on a site where processing is prohibited.
• If recycling is authorized on the site, aggregate recycling activities may not affect operational phasing or
significantly delay progressive or final rehabilitation.
Note: the ministry is also proposing to update its recycling policy to ensure recycling is an accessory activity to the
primary use (i.e. excavation of aggregate material from the site) of the pit or quarry and the volume of imported
materials stored and processed annually for recycling does not exceed the annual tonnage of the site.
3.2.1 Compliance Assessment Reports
The Aggregate Resources Act requires all licence and permit holders to submit an annual Compliance Assessment
Report (CAR) to the ministry and local municipality(ies). Operators self-assess their compliance with the act,
regulations (including the operational standards), their site plan, and any conditions listed on their licence or
permit. This assessment must take place between May 1st and September 15th, and the form is to be submitted
by September 30th each year. Regular assessment of compliance helps operators stay familiar with what activities
are permitted on their site and helps to ensure any potential impacts are avoided or appropriately mitigated.
If a contravention is disclosed in the report, the operator must immediately stop any related activities and
remedy the contravention within 90 days, unless an extension was approved by the ministry. Prosecution of the
contravention cannot commence during this time period. If the operator fails to submit an annual compliance
report, or the operator fails to remedy the contravention within the time frame, their approval to operate the site
is deemed suspended until they submit the annual report or remedy the contravention.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing the following changes to the compliance assessment reporting form to assist the
operator in completing the form and to improve the information that is received by the ministry. Changes
include:
• making one combined form for reporting on both licences and permits,
• developing a “smart form” that would pre-populate sections of the form based on previously submitted
information,
• streamlining the required assessment information for sites that have been inactive for more than three
years to focus on assessing compliance to requirements for gates, demarcation of boundaries and
monitoring,
• enhancing the rehabilitation information required (see section 3.2.2 for more information), and
• making changes needed to reflect other proposals in this document.
70
The ministry is also proposing to allow compliance assessments to be completed earlier in the year. The
proposed assessment period would be April 1st to September 15th. The report submission deadline would
remain September 30th.
3.2.2 Rehabilitation Reporting
The rehabilitation of a site must be done in a manner that is consistent with the site plan. Through the annual
compliance report, operators report on compliance with their rehabilitation requirements and provide
information with regard to the size of area that has been disturbed, any areas undergoing progressive or final
rehabilitation, as well as details with regard to the sloping of faces, the importation of material to support
rehabilitation (if permitted), final elevation, and vegetation.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to require pit or quarry operators to report additional information on progressive and
final rehabilitation activities. Operators would be required to provide information on which phase of their
planned excavation they are working in (if phases are identified on their site plan). Operators would also be asked
to provide more details on what rehabilitation activities they have undertaken that year (e.g., seeding, planting of
trees, rough grading, backfilling slopes).
The operator would also be asked to provide a description of final rehabilitation activities that were conducted
that year and, if known, the final intended use (e.g., agricultural, recreational, natural).
Rehabilitation using meadow grass.
Photo credit: Mark Browning, MNRF
71
Annual compliance reports are made available to the public upon request. The additional details on rehabilitation
activities are intended to provide further transparency on how sites are advancing towards full rehabilitation and
encourage operators to better reflect their ongoing efforts.
The ministry is also working on additional guidance for operators and municipalities, such as best management
practices for rehabilitation.
Applicants under the Aggregate Resources Act try to plan ahead and create site plans that will work for their
operations for many years, however, there may be a need to change the site plan to reflect new operating
realities. A holder of a licence or aggregate permit can apply to the ministry for an amendment to change their
approved site plan. External consultation is conducted when proposed amendments involve significant changes
to the operational or rehabilitation aspects of a site.
3.3.1 Site Plan Amendment Process
Currently, an existing licence or aggregate permit holder wishing to request an amendment to their site plan,
needs to submit a written request to the ministry, typically with the following information: a description of the
proposed amendment, rationale for requesting the amendment, a sketch of revised pages of the site plan
depicting the proposed amendment and any other information required by the ministry to assess the implications
of the proposed amendment.
Proposed Approach:
To improve consistency of information being submitted the ministry is proposing to clarify in regulation that the
following information must be submitted using a standard form in order to request a change to a site plan:
• name, address, geographic location and licence/permit number,
• a description of the proposed amendment(s),
• a description of how the proposed amendment(s) will change the operation, and
• the reason for the request(s).
Depending on the nature and significance of the change being requested, additional information may also be
required (e.g. new or updated studies to assess potential impacts). Circulation of the proposed amendment(s) to
municipalities, other agencies and interested parties for comment may also be required.
An existing licence or permit holder who is required or approved to make an amendment to the site plan would
prepare the site plan as follows:
72
• For amendments that do not require new technical drawings to be created, changes to the site plan
can be made without redrafting the site plan. If changes are made in this manner, high resolution
copies and/or scans of the updated site plan pages, clearly showing the changes, must be submitted to
the ministry.
• For more significant amendments that require new technical drawings or extensive changes to the site
plan notes, new amended pages would be required. Any substituted page must be signed and dated.
For changes to technical drawings in a site plan for a Class A licence, the new page may need to be
prepared by a qualified person.
• A schedule would be added to the site plan clearly describing the amendment(s) made and the date
they were approved by the ministry.
The ministry would continue to forward copies of the revised site plans to local municipalities where the pit or
quarry is located.
Excerpt from a site plan showing the required setback from the site boundary.
73
3.3.2 Amendment to Expand into a Road Allowance
Road allowances are generally 20 metres (66 feet) wide, narrow strips of land that are set aside for potential
public roads and highway needs. A road allowance not currently being used for a public road or highway is called
an unopened road allowance. Unopened road allowances are generally owned by the municipality that has
jurisdiction over them.
As a result of changes made to the Aggregate Resources Act in 2019, when a road allowance is adjacent to an
existing pit or quarry, existing licence holders (private land) can apply to the ministry for an amendment to
expand their pit or quarry into the adjacent road allowance (note, prior to recent 2019 changes to the Aggregate
Resources Act, this had to be done as a new application).
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to require the following information and notification as part of an amendment
application to expand into a road allowance that is directly adjacent to an existing pit or quarry on private land.
The applicant would be required to submit:
a) Documentation to confirm that the municipality with jurisdiction over the road allowance supports the
application or that the landowner does (i.e., if the road allowance had been closed and sold).
b) Where a road allowance is bordered on either side by a pit or quarry and the intent is that the sites will
eventually be connected by extracting through the road allowance: documentation that both licence
holders have a plan to harmonize final rehabilitation aspects of the sites and that there is a common
boundary agreement between both licence holders.
c) A description of all proposed amendment(s) to the existing licence and site plan, with rationale.
d) An updated site plan showing the revised licence boundary, excavation boundary and setbacks, as well as
phasing and updated rehabilitation plan. For expansions of Class A licences, a qualified person would be
required to prepare the revised site plan.
e) Technical information to ensure impacts to the environment are addressed and rehabilitation planning
has been done. The required technical report requirements may differ from what is required for a new
application. The applicant would be required to submit information describing potential impacts that
could be anticipated to the natural environment, cultural heritage, surrounding land uses or surface and
ground water resources (e.g., hydrogeological information prepared by a qualified professional) as a result
of excavation operations in the adjacent road allowance. Information would focus on determining the
74
potential for any new or incremental impacts that might result from excavation into the road allowance
area, and on providing mitigation measures.
Applicants would be required to circulate the amendment application to landowners within 120 metres of the
boundary of the road allowance area proposed to be added to the existing pit or quarry. The application would
also need to be circulated to any agencies identified by the ministry. A notice would be required to be posted to
make the public aware of the proposed expansion (e.g., a print or electronic newspaper notice) and a sign would
be required to be posted. Landowners, the public, and agencies would be given 60 days to comment on the
proposed expansion and the applicant would work to resolve any comments before submitting a final application
to the ministry for approval.
3.3.3 Amendment to Expand an Existing Site Below the Water Table
Existing pits and quarries on private land can apply to the ministry for a site plan amendment to extract below the
water table. Applicants are required to notify landowners within 120 metres of the pit or quarry and various
agencies (including the local municipality and the county or region where the site is located) of the proposed
amendment. The applicant works with commenters to try to resolve any concerns that are brought forward. As a
result of recent 2019 changes to the Aggregate Resources Act, if concerns cannot be resolved, the ministry can
refer the application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) for a hearing. Until application requirements
are set in regulation, requirements default to what is required for a new application.
Road allowance adjacent to existing pit operation.
75
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to require the following information and notification as part of an amendment
application to expand an existing pit or quarry on private land below the water table.
a) Applicants would be required to prepare and submit a hydrogeological (“water”) report, prepared by a
qualified person, requiring all of the same information that an application for a new pit or quarry to
extract below the water table would need to prepare (see section 1.1.1 for proposed changes to what is
currently required).
o Note: it is recognized that some existing pits and quarries, which are already approved to extract
below the water table in specified areas of their site, may need to apply for approval to widen
their existing below water extraction area. If such sites had previously prepared a hydrogeological
report, only a supplemental report would be required to determine if the proposed amendment
would result in the potential for any new impacts and necessary mitigation measures.
b) If no new surface area would be disturbed as a result of the amendment, the applicant would usually not
need to prepare a new natural environment report, a new cultural heritage report, a new noise
assessment or a new blast design report. However, the ministry may ask for additional information from
the applicant to help assess potential impacts of the proposal (this would be determined on a case-by-
case basis).
c) An updated site plan showing any proposed changes to extraction phases and to operational and
rehabilitation plans would be required. For Class A licences, a qualified person would be required to
prepare the revised site plan.
d) Information would be required describing how the proposed amendment aligns with any relevant
Provincial Policy Statement or Provincial Plan policies (e.g. some policies may prohibit extraction below
the water table or may require site rehabilitation back to an agricultural condition). Note: This would not
be required from pits and quarries that are already approved to extract below water but who wish to
widen their existing below water extraction area.
e) A notice would be required to be posted to make the public aware of the proposal (e.g. a newspaper
notice), a sign would be required to be erected, and a public information session would need to be held.
Note: Pits and quarries that are already approved to extract below water but who wish to widen their
existing below water extraction area would not be required to post notices or host public meetings.
f) Applicants would be required to circulate the amendment application to the following:
o landowners within 120 metres of the boundary of the existing pit or quarry,
o the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry,
76
o the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks,
o the local municipality in which the site is located,
o the county or region in which the site is located, if applicable,
o the conservation authority in whose jurisdiction the site is located (subject to the proposal in
section 1.3.4), and
o the Niagara Escarpment Commission, if applicable.
g) Landowners and agencies would be given 60 days to comment on the proposal. The applicant would be
required to attempt to resolve any concerns received and then provide commenters with 20 days to
submit formal objections.
h) The applicant would need to submit documentation of the notification and consultation process to the
ministry within two years of notifying landowners and agencies of the proposal. Documentation would
include a summary of all notification and consultation activities, comments received, attempts at resolving
concerns and details about any outstanding objections. Note: The ministry may refer outstanding
objections to the Local Planning and Appeal Tribunal for a hearing and decision on the application.
An aggregate pit where excavation has extended into the water table and one side of
the pond has been rehabilitated.
77
3.3.4 Self-Filing of Site Plan Amendments
Any changes to an approved site plan currently requires ministry approval, regardless of whether the change is
significant or routine. The ministry processes hundreds of site plan amendments each year. Approvals can take
months to process, depending on the complexity of the change.
Proposed Approach:
The ministry is proposing to allow existing operators to make changes to site plans for certain small and routine
amendments without the need for ministry review and approval (e.g. self-filing). In order to be eligible for self-
filing, the operator will need to comply with all requirements set out in regulation.
In general, site plan amendments proposed for self-filing have been selected because they are typically routine
changes that reflect normal operation of pits and quarries. The proposed list of amendments are either small and
routine or are subject to an approval by another agency.
To ensure that self-filing will only occur for routine site plan amendments, the holder of a licence or aggregate
permit will need to confirm (e.g., self-attest) that the amendment will not:
• change an existing condition that explicitly prohibits the activity (e.g., cannot self-file to add a scrap
storage area to the site if the existing site plan already specifies that no scrap will be stored on site);
• alter the approved rehabilitation plan for the site (e.g., phasing, methods, slopes, vegetation,
elevation, drainage, etc.);
• change or impact a condition put in place to resolve objections or concerns at the time of application
(e.g., conditions put in place to address public or agency concerns);
• be used to correct a non-compliance action or activity; or
• alter a change to the site plan that was required by the Ministry (e.g., a ‘forced amendment’).
In addition, holders of a licence or aggregate permit will only be eligible for self-filing a site plan amendment if
they are up to date on payments of annual fees and royalties and have filed all required annual compliance and
production reports.
Holders of a licence or aggregate permit who cannot confirm or are uncertain about the above would need to
apply for a site plan amendment through the regular application process.
Proposed site plan amendments that would be eligible for self-filing are described in Table 2 below.
The holder of a licence or aggregate permit must submit a form that includes the following information:
78
• the licence or permit number,
• a description of the change to the site plan, including reasons for the change, and
• confirmation that the amendment meets all eligibility criteria.
At the time of submitting the form, the revised site plan must also be submitted. This may include a submission of
the entire site plan with replacement pages reflecting the self-filed amendment or a high-resolution scan of the
site plan clearly showing the amendment. The revised site plan must include a record of the date of the self-filing
with a description of the amendments made to the site plan at that time.
In addition to submitting the revised site plan to the ministry, the licence or permit holder must also provide a
copy to the local municipality and the county/region in which the site is located.
Ministry staff may audit the self-filled amendment to ensure compliance with the regulation. A copy of the MNRF
confirmation of receipt of the self-filed amendment and any information documenting any required external
approvals that may be necessary in order to be eligible for self-filing must be kept and provided to the ministry
for inspection upon request. Any operator who provides incomplete, false or misleading information on a form or
self-filed site plan or, who does not meet the eligibility requirements set in regulation, will be considered to be
out of compliance and may be subject to enforcement actions.
It will be the operator’s responsibility to ensure that they have obtained and are in compliance with any other
approvals or policies that may be applicable.
Topic Proposed Site Plan Amendments Eligible for Self-filing
Administrative Name Changes
Allow a change of name or address on the site plan if a transfer of a licence or permit has been approved by the Ministry.
Buildings & Structures
For private land only: Allow the addition, removal or re-location of a storage shed, scale house, weigh scale or office building on the site that is necessary for the operation of the pit or quarry, providing the following criteria are met:
• municipal approvals have been obtained (where required); and
• the structure is not located within 30 metres of the boundary of the site or within 90 metres of any part of the boundary of the site that abuts land in use for residential purposes.
79
Topic Proposed Site Plan Amendments Eligible for Self-filing
Portable Processing Equipment
Allow the addition, removal or re-location of portable processing equipment necessary for crushing, screening and processing aggregates, providing the following criteria are met:
• a mobile or site-specific Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) has been obtained from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (note: if re-locating the equipment on the site, the ECA must allow for equipment to be moved);
• any noise and dust mitigation of the processing equipment can continue to be implemented;
• use of the equipment is described as an accessory use in the municipal zoning for the property; and
• the equipment will not be located within 30 metres of the boundary of the site or within 90 metres of any part of the boundary of the site that abuts land in use for residential purposes.
Scrap Storage Areas
Allow the addition, removal or re-location of a scrap storage area on the site, providing the following criteria are met:
• the ‘scrap’ meets the definition of scrap as specified in the Operational Standards (i.e., refuse, debris, scrap metal or lumber, discarded machinery, equipment and motor vehicles);
• scrap only includes material related to approved operations on the site (i.e., scrap from elsewhere cannot be stored on the site);
• fluids are properly drained and disposed of before moving to the scrap area;
• the operator will ensure that scrap will be removed throughout the calendar year; and
• the scrap storage area will not be located within 30 metres of a body of water, within 30 metres from the boundary of the site, or within 90 metres of any part of the boundary of the site that abuts land in use for residential purposes.
Portable Concrete or Asphalt Plants
Allow the addition, removal or re-location of portable concrete or portable asphalt plants for public authority projects (e.g., road work) and will only remain on site for the duration of the project, providing the following criteria are met:
• “portable asphalt plant” and “portable concrete plant” have the same meaning as defined under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS);
• a mobile or site-specific Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) has been obtained from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (note: if re-locating the plant on the site, the ECA must allow for plant to be moved);
• municipal zoning, where applicable, permits operation of a portable plant;
• the plant will not be located within 30 metres of the boundary of the site or within 90 metres of any part of the boundary of the site that abuts land in use for residential purposes; and
• any recommendation identified in the technical reports related to noise and dust mitigation continue to be implemented.
80
Topic Proposed Site Plan Amendments Eligible for Self-filing
Stockpiles Allow the addition or re-location of a pile of aggregate, topsoil or overburden, providing the following criteria are met:
• the stockpile being re-located is in a specific location as a mitigation strategy for noise or dust; and
• the stockpile will not be located within 30 metres of the boundary of the site or within 90 metres of any part of the boundary of the site that abuts land in use for residential purposes.
“Stockpile” in this case does not apply to berms. Movement of stockpiles necessary to comply with other external approvals (e.g., an Environmental Compliance Approval) may also be eligible.
Internal Haul Road
Allow the addition, removal or re-location of an internal haul road, providing the following criteria are met:
• the internal haul road will not be located within 30 metres of the boundary of the site or within 90 metres of any part of the boundary of the site that abuts land in use for residential purposes (except for situations where internal haul roads connect to entrance/exits).
Entrances and Exits
Allow the addition or re-location of an entrance or exit to or from the site providing the road authority has approved the work and all prescribed operational standards related to entrances or exits are followed. A copy of the approval from the road authority must be attached to the submission form.
Gates Allow the addition or re-location of a gate at an entrance or exit to or from the site providing a gate continues to be erected and maintained at each entrance to, and exit from, the site.
Fencing For private land only: Allow a change in the type of fencing used to demarcate the boundary of the site and a change to remove or provide relief from fencing the boundary of the site providing all prescribed operational standards related to demarcating the boundary of the site are followed.
81
Topic Proposed Site Plan Amendments Eligible for Self-filing
Importation of Aggregates for Blending
Allow the importation of aggregates onto the site for blending or re-sale, providing the following requirements would be met:
• the amount of imported aggregate material removed from the site is recorded and reported separately on the annual production report; and
• requirements are added to the site plan to specify that: o when removing aggregate material from the site that was imported for
blending, the amount of aggregate imported for blending, when combined with the amount of aggregate (excavated during the current or previous years) removed from the site during the calendar year, would not exceed the total amount of aggregate that is authorized to be removed from the site during the year in question
o once aggregate on the site has been depleted, there would be no further importation of aggregate for re-sale.
Recycling For private land only: Allow the importation of concrete, asphalt or other materials (e.g., brick, glass, ceramic) for recycling, providing the following criteria are met:
• municipal zoning for the site specifically allows the recycling of aggregate materials (asphalt, concrete, etc) or the zoning by-law allows for accessory uses such as recycling to occur on the site;
• the amount of recycled aggregate removed is recorded and reported separately on the annual production report;
• processing activities are approved (on the site plan) to occur at the site;
• the location of stockpiled material for recycling is identified on the site plan;
• recycled asphalt will not be stored within 30 m of a water body or within 2 metres of the established ground water table and is not co-mingled with scrap material; and
• requirements are added to the site plan to specify that: o rebar or other structural material would be separated from the recycled
aggregate during processing and placed in a separate scrap pile, o once aggregate on the site has been depleted there would be no further
importation of recycled materials, o once final rehabilitation has been completed and approved in accordance with
the site plan, all recycling operations would cease, o when removing imported recycled aggregate from the site, the amount of
recycled aggregate removed, when combined with the amount of aggregate (excavated during the current and previous years) and removed from the site during the calendar year, would not exceed the total amount of aggregate that is authorized to be removed from the site during the year in question, and
o no more than 5000 tonnes of recycled material would be stored at any one time.
82
It’s important to note that not all changes proposed in this paper would come into effect at the same time. Some
changes are proposed to come into effect immediately if the regulation is approved, while others would come
into effect later, to allow for some lead time for operators to come into compliance with the new requirements.
The ministry is interested in receiving feedback on when proposed changes should come into effect. This is what
is currently proposed:
It is proposed that the following changes would come into effect once the regulation would be approved:
• notification and consultation requirements for new applications (section 1.3),
• exemptions from requiring a licence if rules in regulation are followed (section 2),
• site plan amendments eligible for self-filing (section 3.3.4),
• application requirements to expand an existing site into a road allowance (section 3.3.2),
• application requirements to expand an existing site below the water table (section 3.3.3).
It is proposed that the following changes would come into effect 6 months after the regulation would be
approved:
• new requirements relating to the information, studies and site plans required for new applications
(sections 1.1 and 1.2),
• annual compliance reports (section 3.2).
It is proposed that the following changes would come into effect 1.5 years after the regulation would be
approved:
• licence and permit conditions for new sites (section 1.2.4),
• operating requirements that apply to all sites (section 3.1).
83
The regulatory impacts of these proposals do not contain capital costs but do contain consideration of ongoing
operational costs and administrative costs (incurred at time of application). These costs are not direct costs under
the Aggregate Resources Act, regulations or the Provincial Standards (i.e. no fees) but are costs that an applicant
for a new aggregate resources extraction site or an existing operator may or may not incur based on individual
circumstances regarding their application or status of current sites and the degree to which existing operations
already conform to the new requirements.
The estimates include consideration of existing trends data from the last five years of applications and average
associated costs of completing requirements including technical reports and completion of notification and
consultation requirements, and potentially attending a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal hearing.
For existing sites, a combination of pit and quarry numbers and applicable standards at time of approval/issuance
was used to determine additional costs that may or may not be incurred to bring older sites into compliance with
new operational standards and prescribed conditions.
The degree of cost changes (either increases or reductions) will be unique to each applicant, operator and
scenario of what proposals apply to their situation and only account for costs associated with these proposals.
They do not reflect other aspects of applications or standards that are not associated with the proposed changes.
Where costs with changes were neutral or minimal (i.e. less than $100), full calculations were not performed.
Total cost impact results were calculated applying all increases and reductions across the suite of proposals
equally. We recognize that in reality, all proposed changes are unlikely to apply simultaneously to an applicant or
existing operator.
In summary, the proposals result in a net positive cost savings for aggregate resource applicants and operators,
illustrating a potential cost savings of approximately $850,000 annually, with the largest savings coming from the
proposal to enable applicants to request an extension on the two-year overall consultation timeframe for
applications. The largest increased costs are associated with enhanced technical report requirements and
application of new operational standards to existing sites. Many of the proposals articulated as increasing costs
are to bring existing application requirements and standards into alignment with other legislation, regulations
and standards that apply to aggregate extraction activities and are necessary to achieve better environmental
protection and consideration of community impacts. These are estimated costs or savings, comments are
welcome from those incurring the costs to better help the ministry understand the true costs or savings
associated with these proposals.
84
Proposal Est. Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Water report: Changes to establishing the water table: Maximum Predictable Water table (licences and permits)
$117,000
$1,169,000
Includes 1year monitoring requirement (i.e. labour costs), extra data tracking and reporting Will apply to both new licences and permits about 55 per year
Provides more reliable assessment of water table which sets the baseline for impacts assessment to water.
Clarifying below water application requirements (re: impact assessments and how local source water protection plan policies are being met
$1,600 $15,800 Assumes low additional costs for the requirement to identify impacts to water as applicants already consider these impacts in other approvals. Assumes some small increase in time to populate information and include it in application package. Assumes about 10% of new applications will go below water.
Provides assessment of impacts needed to ensure ARA instrument aligns with source water protection plans.
Cultural heritage report: Adding built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes components
$7,100 $71,000 Applies to proposals where no Planning Act approval is needed as the inclusion of consideration for built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes is already a requirement for receiving planning approval Reporting on built heritage and cultural heritage and landscapes is already referenced in current policy but not in the Provincial Standards
Aligns with the Provincial cultural heritage policy framework Will provide consistency in requirements for permits and licences
Natural Environment Report
No new costs
No new costs Already required under Provincial Policy Statement and under the four Provincial Plans
Alignment with PPS and four Provincial Plans
85
Proposal Est. Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Blast design report
$11,000 $111,000 Applies to large permits (above 20,000 tonnes) on Crown with a sensitive receptor within 500 metres. Estimated it will affect about 10 new permits a year. Includes time to visit site, consult on blast design and develop report
Provides consistency in applications for licences and permits
Most proposed changes provide flexibility for an applicant and/or delete/modernize requirements that result in
negligible cost savings OR clarify existing requirements only. (Exceptions noted below).
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Identifying Max. Disturbed Area for protected countryside within Greenbelt Plan applications
$1,400 $13,600 Constrained area of applicability to new applications within the Greenbelt which would be about 2% of new applications
Aligns with Greenbelt Plan policies
Modernizing how site plans are submitted Electronic Submission
($1,300) ($13,500) Still requires preparation of a plan but will reduced costs due to new ability to electronically scan the plan instead of printing it in hard copy for submission
Modernizing submission requirements for site plans
Proposals include options and flexibility on methods for notification and clarity on timelines for consistency for
licences and permits. Where cost savings or increases were considered minimal—they are not included below.
86
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Extending notification area to require that residents within 150m(pits) and 500m(quarries) be notified
$0.700 $6,600 Assumes change would apply to ~ 41 new Class As and/or permits with tonnage conditions above 20,000 tonnes/year. Estimated costs are based delivering more notifications Assumes that about 19% of applications are quarries which will be required to potentially notify even more residents than pits given the notification area increase.
Aligns with blasting/noise study set backs with notification of affected properties
Notification of Resource Users as per list provided by ministry for permits
$0.200 $2,400 Presumes minimal additional time and resources to implement.
Option to request extension of time beyond 2 year overall notification and consultation process
($1,112, 000)
($11,123,000) Assumes about 1/3 of new licence applications go to a hearing each year if not resolved by 2 year time limit which is currently about 10 per licences per year. Average cost savings of avoiding a hearing is $111,225 per application. Note: would welcome industry feedback on these assumptions
Enabling extension to 2-year process saves applicant having to restart the application process and consultation or not having applications referred to a LPAT hearing. Allows more time to work through objections
87
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Requiring dust mitigation plan on all sites
$184,000 $1,842,000 Dust mitigation plan changes would apply to approximately 1/3 of permits as most would not be within trigger distances Class A licenses would already have a MECP ECA approval with requirement to mitigate dust. Assumes about ½ of Class B permits aren’t already mitigating dust Assumes costs with implementing requirement in dry months of June, July, August at 1 day per week and May and September@2x per month
Provides consistency and updates operational standards across all sites
Noise Mitigation Presumed to be minimal
Presumed to be minimal
Assumes current sites already have noise mitigation measures in place for the existing trigger distances. Cost savings would be dependent upon unique site-specific conditions and equipment used (e.g. noise attenuators, topography, whether berms or screening is used, direction to the sensitive receptors, etc.)
Provides consistency across private and Crown land sites
Blast monitoring $24,000 $244,000 Assumes changes applies to pre-1997 quarries only. Assumes about 45% permits have a sensitive receptor within 500m Assumes large sites blast 3 times per month for 7 months active season and have 1 hour of labour to monitor and report.
Provides consistency across all sites in Ontario
88
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Assumes small sites blast about 1x per year and it takes 1 hour to monitor and report
Trespass to Property Signage (Crown)
$1,400 $14,500 Cost of posting No Trespassing signs on Crown land will affect about 1900 permits. Each sign costs about $15.00. Assume 10 or less signs for small sites and 20 or less signs for large sites around parameter. Costs include checking and maintaining signs through active season which is about 7 months.
Alignment with Trespass to Property Act and supports inadvertent public access to sites
Recycling Reporting
$8,900 $89,000 Only applies to half of new applications for licences and assumed 4% of permit applications.
Incorporation into tonnage limit ensures impacts from haulage of recycled materials is accounted for.
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Rehabilitation Presumed to be minimal change
Presumed to be minimal change
An operator already provides this information in a variety of ways but changes will clarify information requirements.
More consistency and efficiency in using checkboxes to describe details of rehabilitation
Dormant Sites Short Form
($1,800) ($18,000) Provides a short form to report on compliance for sites that are dormant instead of a full compliance form.
Time savings for operators with dormant sites. Truncated reporting requirements.
89
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Assumes about 28% of current sites are dormant and may avail of shorter compliance reporting. Savings is from less need for site inspections and time reductions in filling in shorter compliance form. Assumes no consultant time needed for shorter compliance form and some minimal time for consultant in completing a regular length compliance report (i.e. 5 hours savings in time and labour for consultant and 3.5 hours’ time savings for project manager per compliance form)
Provides a less burdensome compliance report for dormant sites
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Site Plans Neutral Neutral Assumes minimal operator effort changes as result of the proposals which simply modernize and clarify site plan requirements
Expansion Below Water
($10,300) ($103,000) Assumes change will affect about 2 a year. Cost of potential hearings not included as this cost was considered in previous legislative changes. Assumes some minimal cost savings due to being able to update existing studies for Natural
Provides opportunities to applicants for more streamlined approvals due to the ability to build on existing studies
90
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Environment and Cultural Heritage. Assumes cost savings as there is no public meeting requirement.
Road allowance ($10,300) ($103,000) Assumes will affect about 2 a year Minimal cost savings due to being able to update existing studies to apply to new disturbed area only. Assumes cost savings as there is no public meeting requirement.
Provides streamlined process for gaining access to aggregates within an adjacent road allowance when municipalities support it
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Cost saving from having all 12 activity types eligible for self-filing instead of having to pursue minor amendments
($31,000) ($331,000) Assumes some time savings for operators as a result of filling in template to register for self-filing and reduced time delays for MNRF approval to proceed with the changes (i.e. about 3 days wait time for project manager and about 2 days extra wait time on consultant hired to complete necessary paperwork). Assumes continued trend of about 50% of the current amounts of these types of amendments which is about 233 per year.
Provides streamlined approvals for routine site plan amendments. Allows MNRF to focus resourcing on the other key approvals which can reduce time delays
91
Proposal Est. Total Annual Cost or (Savings)
Est. Amortized (OVER 10 YRS)
Assumptions Benefit/Impact
Both eligible activities
($69,500) ($695,000) Assumes about 20 of these a year will occur and save time and costs associated with not having to undertake cultural heritage or natural environment studies or notify within 120 metres of sites Will apply 90 metres set backs from boundary lines instead. *note: this number may increase through time as more members of the public become aware of its existence and begin using it
Provides a streamlined process for approvals for smaller aggregate extraction activities that are not intended for commercial use
Savings resulting from these proposals is estimated to be approximately $850,000. The largest estimated savings
are related to the proposal that would provide ability to the applicant to request an extension to the 2-year
overall notification and consultation process as is would potentially allow an applicant more time to work through
concerns rather than have an application ‘withdrawn’ or an application be referred to a LPAT hearing when there
is still a chance for the applicant to resolve concerns.
The largest estimate that would result in additional costs to businesses is related to proposals that would require
operations approved prior to the 1997 Provincial Standards to mitigate dust if they don’t already do so and to
proposals that would require new applicants to meet higher technical report standards (e.g., establishing water
table, blast studies).
92
Final rehabilitation of an aggregate site to a functioning wetland.
93
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
ontario.ca/aggregatereform
ISBN 978-1-4868-4271-1 (PDF)
Disponible en français
94
APPENDIX 2 ERO Posting #019-1303 - Proposals to amend O. Reg. 244/97 and the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards under the Aggregate Resources Act (February 2020)
Section Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
1 Proposed Changes for Applications to Establish a New Sit
1.1 Study and Information Requirements
1.1.1 Water Report
Re. Proposed changes to how the water table is established:
The Ministry is proposing to better clarify how the water table is determined, who is qualified to prepare a water report and enhance the information required as part of the report.
The “proposed changes to how the water table is established” are to applyto all new applications, regardless of whether the proposal is to extractbelow water or not, and are to use maximum predicted elevation of thewater table (based on a minimum of one year of monitoring data) toestablish water table for the purpose of the application. A qualified personcould also use existing data from the subject or adjacent site to determinemaximum predicted water table.
For sites in Precambrian shield (such sites are not applicable in HaltonRegion), a qualified person would be required to drill to the proposedextraction depth plus 2.5 metres to assess the presence or absence ofwater table, and it would be in the domain of the qualified person todetermine the number of drill holes and seasonal timing for monitoring ofsuch table.
The establishment of the maximum predicted water table would berequired for all proposed below-water pits and quarries on Crown land,including those in remote and isolated areas (i.e. remote and isolated areasare defined in the subject Paper as areas not within 500 metres of thecoldwater stream, 1000 metres of a water well, and 5000 metres of asensitive receptor).
Over the last 20 years, all new and expansion applications in Halton Region involved below-water table extraction. Water level monitoring for new or expansion sites typically commences several years before an application is submitted to MNRF. Additionally, water level monitoring typically occurs throughout the ARA review process. The shortest period for monitoring data gathered in support of ARA applications has been 3 years. This practice has become the common standard in Halton Region. Also, a qualified person should not solely rely on existing data, such as well records, given the potential for data and well maintenance inconsistencies. In this regards, well records should not be a surrogate for water level monitoring.
From Halton Region’s experience and perspective, the collection of 3 years of on-site monitoring data should be considered as an absolute minimum in terms of any planned extraction for above or below the water table, particularly where sensitive receptors (i.e. NHS features, water supply wells) are present in the vicinity of the proposed extraction site. Also, the timing for monitoring near sensitive areas should be established in consultation with local agencies and conservation authorities. The minimum monitoring duration could be adjusted as part of pre-consultation, where long-term historical data have been collected by other agencies (e.g. as part of local water level monitoring programs) and may assist in assessment of baseline conditions for the subject site.
A one-year monitoring requirement should not be the standard across the Province. Monitoring requirements should be on site-by-site basis and should not be homogenous for urban, rural, and remote areas across the
95
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
Province. As an example, monitoring requirements for remote sites can be adjusted where there are no sensitive receptors in adjacent areas.
Re. Proposed changes to the content of a water report:
The Ministry is proposing to clarify some of the current requirements for assessment of impacts to water in order to determine the significance and potential of impacts and feasibility of mitigation. For example:
Water wells, including private and municipal wells;
Surface water courses and water bodies, including sensitive groundwater dependent features (e.g. wetlands, water courses).
Additionally:
Potential requirement for water budget is identified to determine the relationship between input and output of water through the site, with consideration of climatic factors (precipitation and evapotranspiration) and the natural demand for water.
Clarification is to be made regarding qualifications required to prepare a water report and specifically that the person must be a registered Professional Geoscientist or exempted Professional Engineer as set out in the Professional Geoscientists Act, 2000, who has appropriate groundwater experience and expertise.
A new requirement is to be added that summarizes how local source water protection plans and policies are addressed. The following components are to be identified in a new section of the water reports: (i) whether the proposed operation is within the Wellhead Protection Area A or B (WHPA – A or B); (ii) if activities proposed at the site would have a potential to cause a significant threat to local source water, including reference to local source protection plans or policies under Clean Water Act; (iii) if proposed aggregate extraction has the potential for changes to “vulnerability” within a WHPA (A or B), including application of vulnerability score, etc.; and (iv) whether the proposed site is in a WHPA for Quality (WHPA – Q), and the potential for impacts to the sustainability of a municipal water taking.
In Halton Region, these requirements have been consistently applied since the approval of the local source protection plans. Formalization, professional clarification, and consistency across the Province are positive changes. Aggregate applicants should refer to local source water protection authorities for specific input and guidance as part of the application-related pre-consultation process with local agencies and conservation authorities. The application-related water report should include a written statement from the local source water protection authority that the applicant advised and pre-consulted with a local authority regarding the subject application.
96
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
1.1.2 Cultural Heritage Report
The Ministry is proposing to update the cultural heritage report requirements to ensure that the scope and content is consistent with the Province’s cultural heritage policy framework.
Under the current ARA standards, the focus of the report is on archeological resources, assessment of potential impacts, and mitigation strategies. The proposed update refers to potential need for an assessment of impacts to build-heritage and cultural heritage landscape.
The proposed update is to ensure that the scope and content of the cultural heritage report is consistent with the Province’s cultural heritage policy framework, administered by the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI). The update is to afford applicants the tools and information developed by the province to streamline approvals for other types of development; for instance, permitting extraction outside of the limited area that requires further investigation (as recommended by a licensed archeologist) by means of temporary avoidance and protection strategies (e.g. use of mitigation strategies recommended by the archeologist).
The proposed update aims at avoiding unnecessary burden on the applicant and on review agencies, especially where built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes are already considered through the Planning Act process. By aligning the [ARA] Provincial Standards with the Province’s heritage policy framework, the proposed changes seek to better support engagement of potentially affected stakeholders and Indigenous communities in the applicable matters of ARA process.
In regards to the ARA-related Heritage Reports, the Region relies on the review comments by staff of the Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries (MHSTCI) and local municipalities (as applicable). The process should be inclusive of consultation with local municipalities and benefit from local knowledge, records, Archaeological Master Plans, and input during the ARA-related pre-consultation process.
1.1.3 Natural Heritage Report
The Ministry is proposing to update the requirements in the natural heritage report to align with the current natural heritage policies in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the four Provincial Plans (Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, a Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan).
While the proposed changes would allow an update to the 1997 Provincial Standards concerning the natural heritage report requirements, there are also regional and local official plans which comply with the PPS and the Provincial Plans. It is important to note that municipal Official Plans, in some areas, could be more restrictive and these policies and mapping should be considered when preparing the Natural Heritage Report.
97
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
The changes are to ensure that the requirements to the natural environment report align with the PPS and Provincial Plans as amended from time to time.
Such policies should be applied accordingly based on the site location relative to the NH features and their functions, and the nature of the aggregate proposal. It would also be helpful to have some specifics on how the NH report requirements will be aligned with the PPS and provincial plans.
1.1.4 Agricultural Impact Assessment:
The Ministry is proposing that all applications for new pits and quarries on private land be required to include an Agricultural Impact Assessment if the proposed pit or quarry is within a prime agricultural area that is also located within a portion of a Provincial Plan that is subject to an Agricultural Impact Assessment policy requirement.
As the four Provincial Plans contain policies requiring completion of an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) for new aggregate operations, the proposed update would bring the 1997 ARA Standards up-to-date in this regard.
While the proposed changes would allow an update to the 1997 Provincial Standards by requiring the AIA report, there are also provincial and some municipal agricultural guideline documents containing further details based on local conditions and knowledge. The ARA-related agricultural impact assessment report should be cognizant of the provincial and municipal Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines, as updated from time to time. Such Guidelines should be utilized accordingly based on the site location relative to the prime agricultural area and the nature of the aggregate proposal.
1.1.5 Blast Design Report:
The Ministry is proposing to require blast design reports for new quarries on Crown land that propose to remove more than 20,000 tonnes per year and that have a sensitive receptor within 500m of the limit of extraction.
The existing Standards require a blast design report for all new quarry applications on private lands, proposing to remove more than 20,000 tonnes of aggregate per year, where there is a sensitive receptor (e.g. residences, hospitals, schools) within 500m of the proposed limit of extraction. The blast design report must demonstrate that provincial guidelines (NPC119-Blasting) for ground vibration and overpressure (i.e. noise) can be met during blast events. Such requirement has not applied to new quarries on Crown land or new quarries on private lands proposing
While the proposed changes would align requirements concerning the blast design report for all new quarry applications to remove more than 20,000 tonnes of aggregate per year, where there is a sensitive receptor (e.g. residences, hospitals, schools) within 500m of the proposed limit of extraction, it is unclear why such requirements have not been extended to all quarry applications requiring blasting, where there are sensitive receptors present. A blast design report should be required regardless of the volume of aggregate to be removed where sensitive receptors are in close vicinity of the new quarry proposal. Additionally, a list of sensitive receptors (i.e. in
98
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
removal of less than 20,000 tonnes per year. The proposed update is to align application requirements on Crown land with those on private lands.
terms of ground vibration) should be better defined and include nearby water supplies, infrastructure (including roads, bridges, mains), and nearby sensitive NHS features, etc. Site location, setting and potential impacts should drive the need for the blast design and impact assessment report as opposed to annual aggregate extraction volume.
1.1.6 Summary Statement [Report]
i. The Ministry is proposing that the summary statement for all proposed pits and quarries on private land and Crown land contain planning and land use considerations. Information about how the operation of the site would align with these considerations would need to be reflected on the site plan. For example, no below water extraction is permitted within the Natural Linkage Area of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; and
ii. Applications proposing extraction above the water table, would be required to identify activities (e.g. fuel or salt storage) proposed at the site that are significant threats to source water and they would be required to reference existing source water protection policies approved under the Clean Water Act on the site plan.
Based on the existing standard, the information required in a summary statement varies depending on where the proposed site is located, whether the proposal refers to below-water extraction, and how much aggregate would be extracted per year. The Provincial Standards require, among other things, that a summary statement for Class A licence application (i.e. more than 20,000 tonnes per year) include information about planning and use considerations.
(i) While the proposed requirements to include information on how the operation of the site would align with planning and land use considerations should reflect the latest provincial policies, the Summary Statement would contain an outline of the proposal and justification of its viability at the time of proposal submission. However, the Summary Statement may require major revisions as a result of a comprehensive technical review of other reports submitted in support of an aggregate proposal. Such revisions may be in regards to the proposed site footprint, depth, buffers, local constraints, etc. If the Summary Statement is the primary reference document to be included in the site plan, the updated Provincial Standards should require that Summary Statements be up-to-date and reflect final scenario as per the review process. Based on our experience, while addenda to technical reports are a common practice, Summary Statements (ie. original form) which are unchanged at the end of the ARA process may cause inconsistencies with site approvals under the ARA, as well as present subsequent implementation challenges, and reporting challenges with agencies over the life of the quarry. The updated Provincial Standards should require Summary Statements, submitted in support of ARA applications, be updated and reflect agreed-upon revisions made through application review process.
1.1.7 Application Requirements for Extraction from Land under Water
The Ministry is proposing to review the requirements relating to the excavation of aggregate materials from the bed of a lake or river […]. The
There are no known active extractions of unconsolidated material or bedrock from natural lakes or rivers in Halton Region.
99
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
Ministry is proposing that technical reports, information and notification and consultation requirements be customized for each site, and that the applicant would submit a proposed custom plan to the Ministry for approval, including how potential impacts from the proposed activities are minimized.
The Paper indicates that most of the beds of lakes and rivers in Ontario are Crown land and managed by the MNRF, that this type of approval is rare, and that the Ministry has not received any applications since the specific requirements in the provincial standards had been established.
1.1.8 Forestry Aggregate Pits
Under this section, reference is made to ERO notice 019-0715 concerning proposed revisions to the Forest Manual regulated under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, and specifically a proposal that was put forward to remove the 10-year time limit for forestry aggregate pits. If approved, the forest industry would no longer need to transition to an aggregate permit to continue operations beyond a 10-year period.
The Paper indicates that the forest industry is exempt from the requirements to obtain an aggregate permit for small, above-water pits on Crown land if they meet specific exemption criteria and follow the operating requirements set out in the Forest Management Planning Manual approved under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act. And further that the forestry aggregate pits may currently operate for a maximum of 10 years but there are existing streamlining provisions available to the forest industry seeking an aggregate permit for operation of aggregate pit beyond the 10-year period.
This is not applicable to Halton Region.
1.2 Site Plan and Licence/Permit Conditions
1.2.1 Site Plan Standards – Improving Flexibility
The Ministry is proposing to provide more flexibility regarding how certain items are identified on the site plan [refer to items listed below]. The approved changes would clarify that the location of the items listed […] may be illustrated on the site plan or that details could be
While the proposed changes are strictly operational and within the domain of the Ministry’s oversight, some criteria needs to be established regarding the flexibility of structures and operational activities, based on the sensitivity
100
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
provided in the site plan notes to indicate the general areas of the site such items are permitted. Additionally, greater flexibility is allowed in regards to fencing, and handling of trees and stumps. The proposed flexibility is in regards to: buildings and structures (e.g. storage shed, scale house, office building); temporary/portable processing equipment; scrap storage area, portable concrete and asphalt plants; piles of aggregate, topsoil and overburden; and internal haul roads (licences only, currently not required for permits).
Licence and permit holders would still be required to ensure that these items are not located within setbacks specified in the Operational Standards.
In terms of fencing, the Ministry is proposing to allow applicants greater flexibility on how they demarcate the boundary of the pit or quarry (i.e. instead of fencing being required, boundaries would need to be clearly demarcated and maintained so the operator knows the boundary of the site, and measures would need to be taken to discourage inadvertent access to the site by the public in accordance with the Trespass to Property Act (as minimum)). It is noted that this item is in line with a proposed change to the Operational Standard in Section 3.1 of the Paper.
In terms of the handling of trees and stumps, the Paper proposes that current requirement for inclusion of details on removal and disposal of trees and stumps in the site plan, be part of operating requirements instead (Ref. to Section 3.1 in the Paper).
of the surrounding areas and monitoring requirements on potential impacts to local water resources. Similarly, criteria should be established in terms of flexibility for fencing, as the locations of aggregate operations/sites are not homogenous across the province. Although the proposed flexibility might be reasonable for remote areas of the Province, it is in the best interest of all parties that aggregate operations near populated areas avoid risk to public and to the environment. As an example, in Halton Region, some aggregate operations (involving rock blasting, deep below-water extraction of bedrock, aggregate transportation and processing, and lake filling) are adjacent to the Halton Regional forests which are used by public. Public safety in these areas should be considered as a priority. Also, allowing site plans to be less specific about the location of processing equipment, stockpiles, etc. could be problematic in cases where these items need to be in specific locations for noise mitigation or other reasons.
1.2.2 Site Plan Standards – Modernization
The Ministry is proposing the following information to be added to the site plan:
Information to improve consistency between Crown Land and private land and to better align with other policy framework (i.e. add details on importation of excess soil to facilitate rehabilitation, which are already required for new applications, to applications on Crown land);
Any recycled aggregate removed from the site in each calendar year to be counted towards the tonnage condition for the site and reported in annual production report;
As noted in comments under Section 3.1.4, the provisions for the recycling appear to be reasonable. However, site-by-site provisions need to be reviewed by county/region and/or local municipalities to ensure such activities are permitted under municipal by-laws and if so, to determine whether any additional monitoring is required.
101
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
Hours of operation to include all on-site activities associated with the operation;
Proposed method of excavation (e.g. cutting or drilling) and details on the general type of equipment that would normally be used on the site.
1.2.3 Qualified Professional to Prepare Site Plans
The Ministry is proposing to update the list of professionals that are considered to be qualified [currently professional engineers, Ontario land surveyors, and landscape engineers] to prepare a site plan for Class A licences [i.e. more than 20,000 tonnes per year], to include professional geoscientists and professional planners; and that pit and quarry applications on Crown land would require that site plans be prepared by a qualified professional for extractions that are greater than 20,000 tonnes per year.
The proposed additions and expansion of the list of qualified professionals to oversee preparation of ARA site plan is supported.
1.2.4 Prescribed Licence and Permit Conditions (New Sites)
Re. Conditions related to noise mitigation
The Ministry is proposing that all new Class B and aggregate permits [extraction of less than 20,000 tonnes per year] would be required to mitigate noise at source, if a sensitive receptor is located within 500 m of the site boundary.
The current licence conditions for Class B sites require that noise be mitigated at source with appropriate noise attenuation devices and site design. The proposed change requires at-source mitigation if sensitive receptor is located within 500 m of the new Class B site.
The size of the ARA operation should not be the only criterion in determining preferred/optimal distance for on-site noise mitigation requirements in regards to sensitive receptors. Other important criteria needs to be considered such as: ambient noise level in the area of a proposed aggregate site, presence or absence of physical barriers between the site and any sensitive receptors, method of extraction (e.g. blasting, scraping), operational specifics (e.g. on-site aggregate transfers, crushing activities, use of loaders, conveyor belts, etc.), hours of operation, local climatic conditions (e.g. prevailing winds), etc. In Halton Region, noise impact assessment and mitigation need to be addressed as part of industrial-type development applications under the Regional Official Plan.
Re. Conditions related to other approvals:
The Ministry is proposing to remove the need to add conditions to the licence, which relate to approvals from other ministries (e.g. environmental compliance approval for air emissions and Permit to Take Water).
The applicant for ARA licence/permits should be aware, at the outset of the project, of the potential studies required from other ministries/agencies. While the proposed changes might provide a more simplified process for some operations (e.g. extraction above water in remote areas of the Province), pre-application screening in the ARA Standards would identify required studies and permits for those operators who may be uncertain of
102
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
To make operators aware of other approvals that might be required, the Ministry proposes to communicate as part of the Ministry’s correspondence to the operator that would accompany a new licence or permit approval.
other permits requirements. The ARA Standards could direct applicants to the relevant ministries in terms of pre-consultation or provide further details regarding any potential permits required as part of all necessary approvals to operate a pit or quarry in Ontario. To this end, the ARA Standards could include a screening tool to assist with the above.
Re. Conditions related to dust and blasting
The Ministry is proposing that some conditions, which are currently only applied to new sites, also be applied to existing pits and quarries (unless an existing site plan already addresses these activities); and that this change would involve ‘prescribed conditions’ related to the following requirements:
Dust to be mitigated on-site, dust suppressant to be applied to internal haul roads and processing areas, monitoring of blasts for ground vibration and blast overpressure, and blast monitoring reports to be retained and made available to the Ministry upon request.
The proposed changes would provide for enhancement to the existing Standards. However, the tools to implement the proposed changes at the existing sites which do not have dust and blasting control and mitigation measures in place, are not clear. Comments in Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 are also applicable here.
1.3 Notification and Consultation Requirements
1.3.1 Notification and Consultation Timeframe
The Ministry is proposing to extend the existing “notification period” to 60 days (calendar days) to allow more time for agencies and interested parties to review and comment on the application (i.e. to apply to applications on private and Crown land).
The proposed changes also refer to alignment of Ministry’s service time for both private and Crown lands (e.g. 20 business days) to deem an application complete [currently, 20 days and 15 days for the respective applications].
There is also a provision for extension of the current two-year overall notification and consultation process deadline, to continue making attempts at resolving objection (defined as optional).
While the proposed changes would provide for enhancement to the existing notification and review process, especially extension of the notification period from the current 45 days to 60 days, as agencies would have more time to review and comment on the application. The proposed extension of total notification and consultation period (aimed at resolving objections) beyond the current 2-year limit could be beneficial to both an applicant as well as review parties; however, it would be prudent to add criteria and/or cut-off timeline to the extension of the 2-year resolution period, and identify how any policy changes, which may occur during such extension period, could affect issue resolution of the proposal. Also, the proposal should incorporate some criteria for extension timeline limit to ensure applications do not remain open indefinitely.
1.3.2 Notification and Consultation Process:
103
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
The Ministry is proposing changes to the notification and consultation process that could improve the notification and consultation for the public and provide some flexibility for the applicants. Proposed changes include:
Requiring that Class A licence applicants (i.e. removal of more than 20,000 tonnes per year on private land) notify residents within 150 metres of a proposed pit or within 500 metres of a proposed quarry (i.e. inclusive of the current 120 metres notification zone). The notification options would allow the licence applicants to use digital versions of local newspapers rather than print newspapers for posting notices.
Quarry applicants on Crown land would be required to notify nearby resource users (currently, not required, though additional consultation may be required as part of the Class Environmental Assessment for Resource Stewardship and Facility Development Projects). Additionally, the Ministry may delegate procedural aspects of consultation with Indigenous communities to the applicant and this already existing practice is to be more clearly outlined in the Provincial Standards.
The expanded areas for notification and consultation process provide for a positive change. It would be prudent to also expand the ARA-related assessment zone beyond the 120 m, currently required to be identified in site plans.
1.3.3 Objection Process on Private Land
The Ministry is proposing to clarify when submissions are considered to be formal ‘objections’. Submissions made during the “notification period” (proposed to be 60 days) would not be considered objections.
The Paper indicates that much of the current process would remain the same as the applicant would still need to (i) attempt to resolve concerns raised during the notification period, (ii) still send a letter to commenters detailing their final proposed changes to address concerns, and (iii) commenters would still have 20 days to determine whether the changes are sufficient to address their concerns or whether they want to formally object, using a standardized form. The objection form is to clarify what it means to officially object (i.e. expected to attend LPAT hearing) and to clearly indicate how a formal objection must be submitted and what information must be included. It is also proposed that the objection and any formal correspondence [in association with this process] could be undertaken electronically.
It appears that the main objective of the proposed changes is to better manage the objection process by: (i) differentiating between what constitutes “concerns” (i.e. comments submitted within the extended notification period of 60 days are not considered an objection) and the official objection (i.e. within 20 days from the receipt of the response letter from an applicant), by utilizing a standardized form and providing information as per the form, and with expectation to attend LPAT. The standardized form or specific requirements concerning an “official objection” have not been included in the Paper and should be disclosed as part of the Standards review process. Also, the Ministry should prepare communication materials to ensure that the general public understands the difference between the two forms and understands how to use them.
104
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
1.3.4 Circulating New Applications to Agencies:
The list of agencies that are circulated new applications would be updated to reflect current government organization and responsibilities. Agencies would not be asked to review aspects of applications that are beyond their mandate [example noted below]. The Ministry will continue to explore with other ministries and municipal partners how applications can be reviewed to reduce duplication during the review and improve efficiencies. The Ministry is proposing to require the applicant to circulate the application to Fisheries and Oceans Canada if the natural environment impact assessment (Level 2) identifies negative impacts to fish habitat.
Example of restrictions concerning agency review: applicants would be required to circulate the application to Conservation Authorities (where one exists) to determine whether the proposed site is within an area regulated by the Conservation Authority, and if it is, whether the application has the potential to impact the control of flooding, erosion or other natural hazards.
Agency circulation requirements for private land to be aligned with those on Crown land.
In Halton Region, collaborative review by agencies (municipalities, Conservation Authorities, and the Niagara Escarpment Commission where applicable) of ARA applications known as the Joint Agency Review Team (JART) have eliminated duplicative review and issuance of comments submitted to aggregate applicants and MNRF. Accordingly, this JART approach has eliminated duplication of responses to agencies by the applicant. The collaborative review process (i.e. referred to as Joint Agency Review Team) has allowed the agencies in Halton to exchange ideas and pull together staff resources with different expertise. This process has proven successful in providing streamlined comments on the application and in issuing practical recommendations for issue resolution by an applicant. Also, the JART is serves to inform municipal councils and boards of the merits of an ARA application and this is particularly important for residents, objectors, and other stakeholders alike. In February 2020, Regional Council endorsed an update to the JART protocol entitled Halton Consolidated Mineral Aggregate Review 2020 Protocol Update, through LPS11-20. Conservation authorities also need to be involved if they are ultimately going to own the rehabilitated lands, as is the case with some ARA sites in Halton Region (i.e. where an operator entered into legal agreement with the CA), the CA’s involvement in the ARA application review process is crucial. In Halton Region and other jurisdictions, conservation authorities have invaluable ecological and environmental expertise not held by municipalities, and contribute to the application review process in significant and positive ways. In a few instances in Halton Region, Conservation Authorities own the rehabilitated lands (where an operator has entered into a legal agreement with the Conservation Authority). Municipalities with established Joint Agency Review processes should be recognized in the updated Standards as a valid alternative in the proposed ARA-related review processes.
105
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
Lastly, the proposed approach could be problematic in practice if it minimizes the opportunity for municipalities to review or object on the basis of issues covered by other agencies.
2 Prescribed Rules for Minor Excavations
2.1 Excavation from Private Land or Land Owned by a Farm Business
This section in the Paper refers to proposal related to excavations that would be exempted in regulation, if a set of prescribed rules are followed. The Ministry is proposing that persons or farm operations on private land that meet specific criteria would not need to obtain licence from the Ministry if they follow rules set out in the regulations.
Registration with the Ministry would be required, including a form confirming that the conditions set out in the regulation are met, and provision of certain information on the excavation site. Failure to follow the rules and conditions set out in regulation would mean that the activity is not authorized under the ARA and may be subject to enforcement actions.
Regardless of whether or not a person would be eligible for an exemption under the ARA, three approvals may apply (e.g. Planning Act, Municipal Act, Environmental Protection Act), and it would be a responsibility of those undertaking the excavation to ensure that they obtain any required approvals and this would not exempt a person from other requirements or approvals.
In order for an excavation to qualify for an exemption, a suite of conditions is to be met, including: excavation of unconsolidated material above water (e.g. sand, gravel); no blasting or processing of aggregate; no excavation within: 30 m of property boundary, 90 m of the property boundary abutting existing residential land use, 90 m of a sensitive receptor (e.g. residence, hospitals, schools); 30 m of a body of water; 30 m of septic system or a water well; 15 m from an active petroleum well, a category A or B WHPA, and an area where development is prohibited by CA.
A set of rules would apply to excavations by individuals or farm business, which would include (in general): sediment management, sloping of working faces (as specified), extraction up to three consecutive calendar
The provisions and conditions for minor excavations on private land or land registered by a farm business appear to be reasonable, subject to review by agencies as required to obtain applicable approvals. The regulation-prescribed criteria should permit additional criteria (as warranted) based on local agency’s permit-related review.
106
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
years, followed by rehabilitation to former land use or sloping of all faces to a minimum of 3:1 (and vegetated), only one excavation at any time (i.e. any previous excavation to be considered completed once rehabilitation has occurred), and no new excavation allowed once an excavated site is rehabilitated.
Additional conditions would only apply to aggregate excavation on private land for personal use (i.e. no more than 300 cubic metres would be excavated and the area of excavation would not exceed 0.5 hectares). Additional conditions would only apply to aggregate extraction from land by a farm business (no more than 1000 cubic metres allowed to be excavated (i.e. equaling about 81 average tri-axle dump truck loads)
2.2 Excavation within a Highway Right of Way for Road Construction
The Ministry is proposing that the regulation clarifies that municipalities or the Crown would not require a licence or permit to excavate aggregate within a highway right-of-way for road construction if (i) the aggregate is being constructed as part of a public road construction project, and (ii) the excavation is occurring within the established right of way of a highway owned by a municipality or the Crown.
The Paper indicated that no approvals are currently required to extract within a municipal or provincial road right-of-way during initial construction or maintenance of a road within that right-of-way. As such, the proposed clarification appears to be in line with existing practices.
No comments at this time.
3 Proposed Changes to How New and Existing Sites Are Managed and Operated
3.1 Operating Requirements for All Sites (New and Existing)
3.1.1 Miscellaneous Changes
The Ministry is proposing that the following changes would apply to pit and quarry sites unless an approved variance has been noted on the site plan:
The Ministry is proposing to remove the current requirement for a 1.2 m tall fence around the boundary of pits or queries on private land and instead require boundaries to be clearly demarcate and maintained. Fencing may still be required to address concerns raised through the notification and
Refer to applicable comments under Section 1.2.1.
107
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
consultation process (e.g. where a proposal is in proximity to sensitive land-use such as residential properties or recreational tails).
The Ministry is proposing that all pits and quarries on Crown land be required to mark any accessible areas of the boundary of the site in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Trespass to Property Act, and this would not be required on sites that have not yet begun operating (including stripping).
The Ministry is proposing to add a new requirement, concerning the need for removal and proper disposal of trees and stumps as well as a new requirements to ensure that, in addition to keeping scrap at least 30m away from a water body and site boundary (as per the current requirements), the scrap stored at the site could only include material related to approved operation of the site, does not leak fluid, is separated from other material, and is removed from the site throughout the calendar year.
3.1.2 Dust
The Ministry is proposing to require all licence and aggregate permit holders to mitigate dust to prevent it from leaving the site.
Licence holders would need to mitigate dust regardless of their proximity to a sensitive receptor, and aggregate permit holders would only need to mitigate dust if a sensitive receptor is located within 1000 m of the boundary of the site.
It is also proposed that all licence and aggregate licence and permit holders with sensitive receptor located within 1000 m of the site boundary be required to apply water or another provincially approved dust suppressant to internal haul roads and processing areas, as needed to control dust; and that Best Management Practices Plan (BMPP) be prepared and followed by the site operator for fugitive dust control (i.e. utilizing provincial best management practices such as management approaches for industrial fugitive dust sources) or by following a BMPP which might already be in existence as part of an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA).
None of these changes would apply to wayside permits.
The proposed changes, if agreed to and complied with by the operators, could provide better protection from operational dust at greater distances from an aggregate site. It is not clear how the BMPPs would be adhered to by aggregate operators. Further criteria could be identified with regards to frequency of dust-suppressant application under dry weather condition (i.e. minimum frequency versus “as needed”). It is unclear how this would be monitored and by whom.
108
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
3.1.3 Blasting
The Ministry is proposing that all new and existing quarry sites (private and Crown land) that are approved to blast would be required to:
Monitor all blasts for ground vibration and blast overpressure (noise) and adhere to provincial guidelines (NPC-119 – Blasting),
Implement measures to prevent fly rocks from leaving the site during blast events if a sensitive receptor is within 500 m of the site; and
Retain blast monitoring reports and make them available upon request to the Ministry.
The proposed change, requiring that all existing sites (i.e. including those approved before 1997 - when current ARA standards were released) monitor the blasts for ground vibration and overpressure, would be an important enhancement.
3.1.4 Recycling
The Ministry is proposing to require that, where aggregate recycling activities are already approved to occur on a site, the site would need to be operated in accordance with the following requirements:
Recyclable asphalt may not be stored within 30 m of a water body or within 2 m of the established groundwater table and may not be comingled with scrap material(s).
Any rebar or other structural metal must be removed from recyclable aggregate materials during processing and placed in a separate scrap pile.
Recyclable asphalt and concrete materials cannot be stored on a site where processing is prohibited.
If recycling is authorized on the site, aggregate recycling activities may not affect operational phasing or significantly delay rehabilitation.
The Ministry is also proposing to update its recycling policy to ensure recycling is an accessory activity to the primary use (i.e. the volume of imported materials stored and processed annually for recycling does not exceed the annual tonnage of the site).
The provisions for the recycling appear to be reasonable. However, site-by-site provisions would need to be reviewed by county/region and/or local municipalities to ensure such activities are permitted under municipal by-laws and if so, to determine whether any additional monitoring is required. Local agencies should be advised and consulted (as applicable) regarding any site amendments concerning placement and storage of recycled materials at ARA sites, to ensure such activities are permitted.
3.2 Annual Compliance Reporting
3.2.1 Compliance Assessment Report
The Ministry is proposing changes to the compliance assessment reporting form to assist the operator in completing the form and improve the information that is received by the Ministry, including:
Making one combined form for reporting on licences and permits,
Halton Region uses the Compliance Assessment Reports (CARs) in the biennial reporting on the State of Aggregates. It is anticipated that the new reporting form would also require the operational and rehabilitation comments specific to each year. Additionally, it would be prudent to add
109
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
Developing a “smart form” to allow for repopulation of the form based on previously submitted information
For sites that have been inactive for more than three years – streamlining the required assessment information to requirements for gates, demarcation of boundaries, and monitoring
Enhancing the rehabilitation information required per Section 3.2.2; and
Making changes needed to reflect other proposals in this document. The Ministry is also proposing to allow compliance assessment to be completed between April 1st and September 15th of each year as compared to the current assessment period of May 1st and September 15th. The report submission deadline of September 30th of each year is to remain unchanged.
requirements for depicting the most recent activities (in terms of extraction, rehabilitation, processing) on the most recent aerial photographs. CARs should continue to be submitted to municipalities for their information and to assist in determining ARA-related activities in their jurisdictions.
3.2.2 Rehabilitation Reporting
The Ministry is proposing to require pit or quarry operators to report additional information on progressive and final rehabilitation activities, as follows:
Operators would be required to provide information on which phase of their planned excavation they are working on, if phases are identified on site plan.
Operators would be asked to provide more details on what rehabilitation activities they have undertaken that year (e.g. seeding, planting of trees, rough grading, backfilling slopes).
Operators would also be asked to provide description of final rehabilitation activities that were conducted that year and, if known, the final intended use (e.g., agricultural, recreations, natural).
Annual [rehabilitation-related] compliance reports are to be made available to public upon request. The Ministry is working on additional guidance for operators and municipalities, such as best management practices for rehabilitation.
It is anticipated that the new rehabilitation-related reporting would enhance public and agency understanding of the rehabilitation progress and status over the years. As noted under section 3.2.1, it would be prudent to depict the progress of rehabilitation activities on the most recent aerial photographs.
3.3 Site Plan Amendments
3.3.1 Site Plan Amendment Process:
110
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
To improve consistency of information being submitted to the Ministry in regards to site plan amendment request, the Ministry is proposing to clarify in regulation that the required information be submitted using a standard form.
The information to be included in the form reflects standard requirements concerning the site and the proposed amendment(s) as well as how the amendment(s) would change the operation and the reason for the request. Additional information may be required depending on the nature and significance of the change being requested.
The proposed approach also refers to how the changes are to be submitted (i.e. with or without redrafting technical drawings for lesser amendment, and by submission of new drawings for more significant amendments or extensive changes). For changes to technical drawings for Class A licence, the new page may need to be prepared by a qualified person.
The Ministry would continue to forward copies of the revised site plans to local municipalities.
Municipalities play a significant role in the ARA application review process. This section does not speak to notifying municipalities and conservation authorities regarding applications for significant amendments to the site plans, nor do they refer to review of such applications by local agencies. Municipal review by host municipalities should always be required, prior to approval so that issues and concerns could be discussed with an eye to resolution. Additionally, if a CA is to inherit the site post-rehabilitation, the agency should also be involved in the major site plan amendment review.
3.3.2 Amendment to Expand into a Road Allowance
As a result of changes made to the ARA in 2019, when road allowance is adjacent to an existing pit or quarry, existing licence holder (private land) can apply to the Ministry for an amendment to expand their pit or quarry into an adjacent road allowance (prior to the 2019 changes, this had to be done as a new application). The Ministry is proposing to require the following information and notification as part of an amendment application to expand into road allowance that is directly adjacent to an existing pit or quarry on private land: a) Confirmatory documentation that the municipality with jurisdiction over the
road allowance or the landowner (if road allowance was sold) support the application.
b) If there are two separate licence holders on either side of the road allowance, documentation that both licence holders have a plan to
a) In Halton Region, the Milton Quarry abuts the closed local road allowance. However, since a north-south rock pillar is required between the East and West/North Quarry Cells, to accommodate significantly different lake elevations in each cell, it is not anticipated that this road allowance would become subject of any future expansion applications. No other comments are offered at this time. b), c) and e) - no comments at this time d) Site plan revisions concerning amendments to extract in a road allowance should be reviewed by a qualified person, regardless of whether the site is Class A or B. It is in the best interest of all parties that professional sign off is provided on all major changes to site plans.
111
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
harmonize final rehabilitation aspects and have a common boundary agreement in place.
c) A description and rationale re. proposed amendment(s) to the existing licence and site plan.
d) An updated site plan depicting the license and excavation boundary and setbacks, phasing, and updated rehabilitation plan. For extensions of Class A licences, a qualified person would be required to prepare the revised plan.
e) Technical information to ensure impacts to the environment are addressed and rehabilitation planning has been done […]; information to focus on the potential for new or incremental impacts, and on providing mitigation measures.
The applicants would be required to post notices, signs, and circulate amendment application to landowners within 120 m of the road allowance boundary, and to any agencies identified by the Ministry. The public and agencies would be given 60 days to comment.
3.3.3 Amendment to Expand an Existing Site Below the Water Table:
The Ministry is proposing to require the following information and notification [from an applicant] as part of an amendment application to expand an existing pit or quarry on private land below the water table: a) A hydrogeological (“water”) report prepared by a qualified person, requiring
all the same information that an application for a new pit or quarry to extract below the water table would need to be prepared (Reference is made to Section 1.1.1 for proposed changes to what is currently required). For operations which are already allowed to extract below the water table in specified areas of the site, an application for approval to widen their existing below water extraction area, a supplemental report (assuming hydrogeological report was previously prepared) would be required to determine if the proposed amendment would result in the potential new impacts and necessary mitigation measures.
b) No new natural environment, noise assessment, new blast design report, or cultural report would be required, if no surface water area would be
a) The Ministry should establish what should constitute the scope, study components and recommended content of the “supplemental” hydrogeological report in support of the site plan amendment application to “widen” the existing below-water extraction. b) The Ministry should establish screening criteria in terms of when additional studies/information should be required, especially when the established below-water extraction site has no broader-scale monitoring requirements built into the existing/grandfathered site plan. Clarity should be provided on when NH reports will need to be updated to take into account the effects of going below the water table. Sensible criteria might include whether or not there is groundwater dependent NH in the area.
112
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
disturbed; though, the Ministry may ask the applicant for additional information to help assess potential impacts and this would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
c) An updated site plan would be required. For Class A licence, a qualified person would be required to prepare the revised site plan.
d) Alignments with relevant PPS statement and Provincial Plan Policies would be required; however, this would not be required from pits and quarries that are already approved to extract below water but wish to widen their below-water extraction area.
e) Posting of a notice and a sign as well as PIC would be required; this would not be required from pits and quarries that are already approved to extract below water but wish to widen their below-water extraction area.
f) Applicants would be required to circulate the amendment applications to the landowners within 120 m of the boundary of the existing pit or quarry; the MNRF, MECP, local municipality, county or region, CA (subject to the proposal in Section 1.3.4 of the Paper); and the NEC, if applicable.
g) Landowners and agencies would be given 60 days to comment on the proposal. The applicant would be required to attempt to resolve any concerns received and then provide commenters with 20 days to submit formal objections.
h) The applicant would need to submit documentation of the notification and consultation process to the Ministry within two years of notifying landowners and agencies of the proposal, and include a summary of notification and consultation activities, comments received, attempts at resolving concerns and details about any outstanding objections. The Ministry may refer the outstanding objections to LPAT.
c) Any expansion below water, whether initial or subsequent, constitutes, in our view, a major change. All site plan revisions for major changes should be subject to oversight from a qualified person. d) We are uncertain whether all amendments to widen the existing below water extraction would be within the existing licence limits and whether all planning matters had been addressed as part of the original below-water extraction application. Also, PPS or provincial Plan analysis should be required, particularly in relation to the NHS. e) Lateral expansion of below-water extraction may cause widening of the dewatering cone, (i.e. if the site requires dewatering) and/or reduction in protective buffering to sensitive receptor(s). The Ministry should expand criteria in terms of when posting of notices/signs and holding public information sessions should be required for expanding below-water extraction (e.g. based on the location of sensitive receptors). f) It is assumed that the 120 m zone for the circulation of amendment application applies to the licence site boundary and not the approved extraction boundary. This needs to be clarified.
3.3.4 Self-Filing of Site Plan Amendments
The Ministry is proposing to allow existing operators to make changes to site plans for certain small and routine amendments that reflect normal operation of pits and quarries, including those that are subject to an approval by another agency.
It is recommended that the eligibility screening-criteria for self-filing be clearly defined by the Ministry, and that the Ministry require a signed declaration from the operator or a third party that the proposed changes would not increase risk to public and environment. Although not identified in Table 1, it remains unclear whether changing the location of blasting-material storage, fuel storage or refueling station
113
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
To ensure that self-filing will only occur for routine site plan amendments, confirmation (self-attesting) by the holder or ARA licence or permit would be required, that the amendment would not:
Change on existing conditions that explicitly prohibits the activity […].
Alter the approved rehabilitation plan (e.g., phasing, methods, slopes, vegetation, elevation, drainage, etc.).
Change or impact a condition put in place to resolve objections or concerns at the time of application (e.g. conditions put in place to address public or agency concerns).
Be used to correct a non-compliance action or activity; or
Alter a change to the site plan that was required by the Ministry (e.g. a forced amendment).
Additionally, self-filing will only be permitted to those licence/permit holders who are up to date on payments of annual fees and royalties and have filed all required annual compliance and production report. Proposed site plan amendments that would be eligible for self-filing are provided in Table 2 of the Paper). The process for self-filling would require submission of a standard form, including description of (and the reason for) the proposed change, confirmation that the amendment meets all eligibility criteria, the revised site plan (to the Ministry and to the local municipality and the county/region in which the site is located). Ministry staff may audit the self-filled amendment and may subject the applicant to enforcement actions if an operator provided incomplete, false or misleading information on a form or self-filed site plan, or who does not meet eligibility requirements. It would be the operator’s responsibility to ensure that they have obtained and are in compliance with any other approvals or policies that may be applicable. In reference to Table 1 (pgs. 37-39 in the Paper): The Ministry is proposing to allow the following site plan amendments for self-filling:
Administrative name change (if a transfer or a licence or permit has been approved by the Ministry.
location, repair and maintenance shop, etc., would qualify for self-filing. As such facilities could pose high risk to public, applicants of such changes should not be eligible for self-filing. Also, portable concrete or asphalt plants, portable processing equipment, stockpiles and internal haul road are critical aspects of an aggregate operation and should not be eligible for self-filing. Under “Recycling”, there should be some requirement to ensure that these activities are not used to prolong the life of a licence unduly. The 5000 tonne cap on recycled material may do this. Alternatively, it might make sense for these activities to be prohibited once the quarry or pit is almost (e.g. say 90%) depleted.
114
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
Buildings & structures for private land only (addition, removal, or re-location of storage shed, scale house, weigh scale or office building, providing that: municipal approvals have been obtained (where required); and the structure is not located within 30m of the boundary of the site or within 90 m of any boundary that abuts land use for residential purposes).
Portable processing equipment (allow addition, removal or re-location of processing equipment for crushing, screening and processing, providing a number of criteria is met, including: a mobile or site-specific ECA, continuation of dust and noise mitigation, use of equipment is described as an accessory use in the municipal zoning for the property, and the equipment will not be located within 30m of the site boundary or 90m of the boundary that abuts land in use for residential purposes).
Scrap and storage areas - allow addition, removal or re-location of a scrap storage area, providing a number of criteria are met, including: the ‘scrap’ meets definition of scrap per Operational Standards; includes only material related to approved site operation; fluids are properly drained; scrap is removed throughout the calendar year; and scrap storage will not be located within 30m of the site boundary or 90m of the boundary that abuts land in use for residential purposes.
Portable Concrete or Asphalt Plants - allow addition, removal or re-location for public authority projects (e.g. road work) and to remain on-site for the duration of the project, providing a number of criteria is met, including: the “plants” have the same meaning as in PPS; a mobile or on-site ECA has been obtained; municipal zoning, where applicable, permits operation of a portable plant; the plants will not be located within 30m of the site boundary or 90m of the boundary that abuts land in use for residential purposes; and any recommendations re. dust and noise mitigation in the technical reports continue to be implemented.
Stockpiles - allow addition or relocation of a pile of aggregate, topsoil or overburden, proving a number of criteria is met, including: the stockpile is not being relocated as a mitigation strategy for noise or dust; and the stockpiles will not be located within 30 m of the site boundary or 90 m of the boundary that abuts land in use for residential purposes.
115
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
Internal Haul Road - allow addition, removal or relocation, providing that the internal haul road will not be located within 30m of the site boundary or 90m of the boundary that abuts land in use for residential purposes (except where it connects to entrance/exit).
Entrance and Exits - allow the addition or re-location, providing the road authority has approved the work and all prescribed operational standards; a copy of the approval from the road authority must be attached to the submission form.
Gates - allow the addition or re-location at an entrance or exit to/from the site, providing a gate continues to be erected and maintained at each entrance to/exit from the site.
Fencing: for private land only - allow a change in the type of fencing used to demarcate the boundary of the site and a change to remove or provide relief from fencing, providing all prescribed operational standards related to demarcating the boundary of the site are followed.
Importation of aggregate for blending - allow importation of aggregate onto the site for blending or re-sale, providing a number of requirements are met, including: the amount is recorded and reported separately on the annual production report; the amount of all blended would not exceed the total authorized amount of aggregate at the site annually; and no further importation for resale would be allowed if on-site aggregate is depleted.
Recycling, for private lands only (allow the importation of concrete, asphalt or other materials (e.g. brick, glass, ceramic) for recycling, providing a number of criteria is met, including: municipal zoning for the site specifically allows the recycling of aggregate materials (asphalt, concrete, etc.) or the zoning by-law allows for accessory uses such as recycling to occur at the site; the amount is recorded and reported separately in the annual production report; processing activities are approved (on the site plan); the location of stockpiled material for recycling is identified on the site plan; recycled asphalt would not be stored within 30 m of water body or within 2 m of the established groundwater table and is not co-mingled with scrap; and that requirements are added to site plan, which are specified on pg. 40 of the Paper
116
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
4 When Changes Are Proposed to Come into Effect:
According to this Section, not all changes would come into effect at the same time. Some may come into effect immediately, if regulation is approved, while others would come into effect later to allow for operators to come into compliance with the new requirements. The Paper further indicates that the Ministry is interested in receiving feedback on when the proposed changes should come into effect. The Ministry proposes that the following changes would come into effect once the regulation is approved:
Notifications and consultation requirements for new applications (section 1.3),
Exemptions from requiring a licence if rules in regulations are followed (Section 2),
Site plan amendments eligible for self-filing (Section 3.3.4),
Application requirements to expand an existing site into a road allowance (Section 3.3.2),
application requirements to expand an existing site below water table (Section 3.3.3)
The Ministry proposes that the following changes would come into effect 6 months after the regulation would be approved:
new requirements relating to the information, studies and site plans required for new applications (Section 1.2 and 1.2),
annual Compliance Assessment Reports (Section 3.2) The Ministry proposes that the following changes would come into effect 1.5 years after the regulation would be approved:
licence and permit conditions for new sites (Section 1.2.4),
operating requirements that apply to all sites (Section 3.1).
It is anticipated that the Ministry would provide an opportunity for agencies to review the revised Standards, once the current consultation is concluded. It is recommended that the Province notify municipalities and all other applicable agencies, once final requirements (as approved) come into effect.
5 Regulatory Impact Assessment
117
Section
Sub-Section
Summary of Proposed Changes Halton Region Comments
This section deals with regulatory impacts of the proposals on on-going operational and administrative costs associated with ARA applications to the Province. The costs are tabulated on Pages 43 to 50 of the Paper. In reference to last Para on pg. 42 of the Table:
The proposals result in a net positive cost savings for aggregate resource applicants and operators, with the largest savings coming from the proposal to enable applicants to request an extension on the two-year overall consultation timeframe for applications, as a significant number of licence applications go to a hearing each year if not resolved by 2-year timeframe limit.
The largest increased costs are associated with enhanced technical requirements and application of new operational standards to existing sites.
Many of the proposals, articulated as increasing costs, are to bring the existing applications requirements and standards into alignment with other legislation, regulations and standards that apply to aggregate extraction activities and are necessary to achieve better environmental protection and consideration of community impacts.
The Ministry is welcoming comments from those incurring the costs to better help the Ministry understand the true costs or savings associated with these proposals.
The attempt to achieve better environmental protection and consideration of community impacts in regards to the existing operations, which may have been approved before the ARA standards or Provincial Plans took effect, is recognized. The largest increase in costs are expected to be on the enhancement technical report requirements and on the application of new operational standards to existing sites. Nonetheless, these increased costs would serve to better understand and protect the environment and society from the impact of aggregate operations and this is to be commended. Aggregate operations although temporary, can be present on the landscape for many decades, and as such, broad ecological and environmental protection is paramount. Any increases in costs to ascertain protection of water resources by all operators, could provide for cost-savings over the long term, particularly if any potential water-related rehabilitation/restoration needs or water resources are significantly affected by the operation.
118
VIA EMAIL June 30, 2020
Legislative & Planning Services Department Office of the Regional Clerk 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1
The Honourable Ted Arnott, MPP, Wellington-Halton Hills Jane McKenna, MPP, Burlington Parm Gill, MPP, Milton Stephen Crawford, MPP, Oakville Effie Triantafilopoulos, MPP, Oakville North – Burlington Conservation Halton, Barb Veale Credit Valley Conservation Authority, Joshua Campbell Grand River Conservation Authority, Nancy Davy Niagara Escarpment Commission, Debbie Ramsay Ministry of Transportation, Lukasz Grobel Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines, Kirby Dier Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Aly Alibhai Independent Electricity System Operator, Susan Harrison Region of Peel, Kathryn Lockyer City of Brampton, Peter Fay City of Burlington, Kevin Arjoon Town of Halton Hills, Suzanne Jones Town of Milton, Meghan Reid Town of Oakville, Vicki Tytaneck
Please be advised that at its meeting held Wednesday, June 17, 2020, the Council of the Regional Municipality of Halton adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION: LPS47-20 – Comments on the Future Greater Toronto Area Electricity Transmission Corridor
1. THAT Report No. LPS47-20 re: “Comments on the Future Greater TorontoArea Electricity Transmission Corridor” be endorsed.
2. THAT Regional Clerk forward a copy of Report No. LPS47-20 to the Ministryof Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Energy, NorthernDevelopment and Mines, the Independent Electricity System Operator, theMinistry of Transportation, the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills,the Town of Milton, the Town of Oakville, the City of Brampton, the RegionalMunicipality of Peel, Conservation Halton, Credit Valley ConservationAuthority, the Grand River Conservation Authority and Halton’s Members ofProvincial Parliament for their information.
119
Included please find a copy of Report No. LPS47-20 for your information. If you have any questions please contact me at extension 7110 or the e-mail address below. Sincerely,
Graham Milne Regional Clerk [email protected]
120
The Regional Municipality of Halton
Report To: Regional Chair and Members of Regional Council
From: Bob Gray, Commissioner, Legislative and Planning Services and Corporate Counsel
Date: June 17, 2020
Report No. - Re: LPS47-20 - Comments on the Future Greater Toronto Area Electricity Transmission Corridor
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Report No. LPS47-20 re: “Comments on the Future Greater Toronto AreaElectricity Transmission Corridor” be endorsed.
2. THAT Regional Clerk forward a copy of Report No. LPS47-20 to the Ministry ofMunicipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development andMines, the Independent Electricity System Operator, the Ministry ofTransportation, the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills, the Town of Milton,the Town of Oakville, the City of Brampton, the Regional Municipality of Peel,Conservation Halton, Credit Valley Conservation Authority, the Grand RiverConservation Authority and Halton’s Members of Provincial Parliament for theirinformation.
REPORT
Executive Summary
The purpose of Report No. LPS47-20 is to provide an overview of the Ministry ofEnergy, Northern Development and Mines and the Independent Electricity SystemOperator Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor IdentificationStudy and also seek Council’s endorsement of Halton Region’s comments on thestudy area and guiding principles as posted through the Province’s EnvironmentalRegistry (Environmental Registry posting 019-1503).
Environmental Registry posting 019-1503 was released on March 23, 2020 andseeks public feedback on the proposed narrowed study area, as well as input onthe guiding principles that the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development andMines/Independent Electricity System Operator intend to consider whileconducting the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission CorridorIdentification Study.
121
The commenting deadline for responses to the Environmental Registry posting is June 8, 2020. However, Regional staff note that the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines has agreed to accept the Region’s response to the posting following Council’s consideration of Report No. LPS47-20.
The Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines /Independent Electricity System Operator anticipate that an outcome of the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Study will include a recommendation on land to be preserved for future transmission infrastructure and a consideration of options to protect this transmission corridor.
As the Region continues with the Regional Official Plan Review, the results of the Transmission Corridor Study and identification of land to be preserved for a future corridor will have to be considered.
Regional staff comments on Environmental Registry posting 019-1503 regarding the Region’s interests in the proposed narrowed study area and guiding principles are contained in Report No. LPS47-20.
Regional staff request that the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines /Independent Electricity System Operator address the Region’s comments contained in this report and fully engage Halton Region on any future consultations on the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Study.
Background In June 2019, the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines and the Independent Electricity System Operator initiated the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Identification Study to identify an appropriate corridor of land for future linear transmission infrastructure to support growing electricity demand over the long-term. The study area, announced in June 2019, aligned with the Ministry of Transportation’s 2015 Focused Analysis Area for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) West Transportation Corridor Study, but was expanded within Halton Region to include lands located east of Trafalgar Road, south of Steeles Avenue, west of Winston Churchill Boulevard, and north of the Parkway Belt West Planning area as shown on Attachment #1. The study area was expanded to enable a connection to existing electrical infrastructure located in the Parkway Belt West Planning Area south of Highway 407/Highway 401 interchange in the Town of Milton.
In September 2019, the Ministry of Transportation GTA West Project Team released the technically preferred route and a refined 2019 Focused Analysis Area at a series of Public Information Centres. Through Report No. LPS115-19/PW-48-19, an update to Council was provided on the GTA West Transportation Corridor Planning Study. The Ministry of Transportation intends to confirm the technically preferred route and confirm the reduced Focused Analysis Area by Spring 2020. On November 20, 2019, Regional Council passed a motion, in response to the Region and its four local municipalities all declaring
122
a climate emergency, that the Region of Halton Council opposes further Provincial investment by the Province in the GTA West Transportation Corridor. The Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor study area is intended to align with the GTA West Transportation Corridor. On March 23, 2020, through Environmental Registry number 019-1503, the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines posted “Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of land for future electricity infrastructure in the Greater Toronto Area” for the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Study. The posting identifies a narrowed area of interest for future transmission infrastructure that largely corresponds to the Ministry of Transportation’s 2019 Focused Analysis Area for the GTA West Highway Environmental Assessment as shown in Attachment #2, but also includes lands south of Steeles Avenue between Trafalgar Road and Winston Churchill in the Town of Halton Hills, and the lands south of Highway 401 and east of Trafalgar to the Parkway Belt West boundary in the Town of Milton.
The Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines /Independent Electricity System Operator are proposing to align the timing of the study with milestones related to the Ministry of Transportation’s Environmental Assessment for the GTA West Transportation Corridor. It is Regional staff’s understanding that the future Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor is anticipated to be approximately 60 metres wide. The outcome of the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Study will include a recommendation on land to be preserved for future transmission infrastructure and protected from development. The Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines /Independent Electricity System Operator anticipates developing options to protect the future transmission corridor land from development after the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor study is completed.
Discussion Provincial Policies and the Regional Official Plan Review
In May 2014, the Region implemented corridor protection policies through Regional Official Plan Amendment 43 (ROPA 43) for the purposes of identifying a corridor protection area and policy to prohibit the development of urban lands within the Halton Peel Boundary Area Transportation Study/GTA West Corridor study area until the completion of the appropriate EA for a transportation corridor. The approval authority for ROPA 43 rests with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) as it remains under appeal. Consideration of the release of lands from corridor protection can only be done through a LPAT process or amendment to the ROP, following the confirmation from the Ministry of Transportation on the technically preferred route.
The corridor protection policies of the Regional Official Plan are for lands impacted by the transportation corridor, and does not include a similar protection for the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Electricity Transmission Corridor. The 2020 Provincial Policy Statement states that planning authorities shall plan for and protect infrastructure corridors including electricity generation facilities and transmission systems, and encourages the co-location
123
of linear infrastructure, where appropriate (Section 1.6.8.1 and 1.6.8.5, 2020 PPS). The 2019 Provincial Growth Plan elaborates on the directives of the PPS by ensuring the protection of planned corridors and encouraging the co-location of linear infrastructure.
The Northwest Greater Toronto Area Electricity Transmission Corridor Study will have a direct impact on the ROP as the future transmission corridor resulting from the study will need to be considered when determining potential locations for new growth areas, if warranted, through the ROPR. In addition, the future transmission corridor will need to be protected from development for the long-term in the ROP in accordance with provincial policies. The location of a future transmission corridor could consume a large amount of future employment land that is intended to support job growth and economic development potential for the Region. In addition, the lands consumed by the corridor could further impact the Region’s Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System which are critical resources that need to be protected for the long-term.
Town of Halton Hills staff shared their comments in response to the ERO posting with Regional staff, which were sent to the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines. The following comments by Regional staff are consistent with the Town’s comments.
Environmental Registry posting and Regional staff comments
The Environmental Registry posting, included as Attachment #3, is seeking public feedback on issues associated with the proposed narrowed area of interest and input on the following five guiding principles, which have been informed by Provincial legislation, policies and technical planning documents and are being considered by the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines /Independent Electricity System Operator in conducting the study. Outlined below are the detailed guiding principles provided in the Environmental Registry posting, in addition to Regional staff comments on the principles:
1. Co-locate with other linear infrastructure Corridor routing should maximize the use of existing linear infrastructure corridors wherever feasible (e.g. GTA West Transportation Corridor, 400 Series highways, other infrastructure corridors). Regional Comments
While this guiding principle considers maximizing the use of existing linear infrastructure corridors where feasible, including the GTA West Corridor, consideration needs to be given to the timing of the work associated with the planning of the GTA West Transportation Corridor and the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor. The Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines anticipates that the development and considerations of options to protect the relevant corridor lands will be done after the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Identification Study is complete. Greater clarity is needed on how the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development
124
and Mines /Independent Electricity System Operator study timelines are aligning with the GTA West Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment timelines and should consider the implications of Regional Council’s November 2019 motion opposing any further investment from the Province in the GTA West Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment.
It is Regional staff’s understanding that the GTA West Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment will move forward to detailed design following confirmation of the preferred route anticipated in Spring 2020. Given that the work associated with the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor is at the preliminary stage and the detailed transmission engineering design and corresponding Environmental Assessment will be done following the completion of this study, the detailed design of the GTA West Corridor may have an impact on the overall location and land needs of the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor. Furthermore, greater clarity and alignment of the timeline with the GTA West Corridor is needed to provide certainty for the planning of the employment lands designated within the study area and to affected landowners.
2. Plan for the most cost-effective outcome
Corridor routing should protect the least cost routing where feasible. This could include identifying the shortest geographic route and reducing crossings of other infrastructure such as highways, railways, pipelines and other transmission lines. Regional Comments
Halton Region has identified a number of transportation improvements through the 2031 Transportation Master Plan and Active Transportation Master Plan to 2031. Similarly, the Region has also identified a number of water and wastewater improvements within the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor study area through the Sustainable Halton Water & Wastewater Master Plan.
The future Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor should minimize impacts and crossings of existing and planned Regional infrastructure, including transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure.
At this time, Regional staff note that the study area for the transmission corridor overlaps with the Region’s planned future water and wastewater infrastructure projects along Steeles Avenue. This infrastructure is needed to service future employment lands in the Halton Hills/401 corridor area.
Regional staff request that the project team ensures that the proposed Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor does not impact existing transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and does not preclude or impact the Region from implementing the planned infrastructure projects to 2031.
125
3. Minimize impacts on natural heritage, agricultural and hydrological features consistent with provincial policies; Minimize corridor impacts on natural heritage system, agricultural lands and hydrologic features consistent with provincial policies and plans (e.g. A Place to Grow, 2019, Greenbelt Plan, 2017, Provincial Policy Statement, 2020). Regional Comments
Halton Region supports minimizing impacts to the Region’s Natural Heritage System and water resources in the study area through comprehensive environmental impact assessments in accordance with Regional guidelines in order to minimize adverse impacts on these valuable environmental resources.
Impact on the Region’s Agricultural Area within the study area should also be addressed through agricultural impact assessments in accordance with Provincial and Regional guidelines to minimize any loss or fragmentation of agricultural land and disruption of agricultural operations in Halton Region.
Halton Region requests that following the completion of the study, the final location of the protected corridor minimizes land consumption in Halton and reduces impacts to the Region’s Agricultural Area and Natural Heritage System.
4. Minimize impacts on built up areas
Corridor routing should minimize impacts on existing municipal plans in the study area, including impacts on existing built up areas, cultural heritage, planned developments and airports. Regional Comments
The additional lands that are included in the study area, as identified as hatched in Appendix 1, are beyond the GTA West Focused Analysis Area and are currently planned for employment. These lands are within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Provincially Significant Employment Zones, which are intended as areas of high economic development potential and are strategically located to provide stable, and reliable employment. The impact to planned employment lands should be minimized.
It is requested that the land consumed by the location of the new transmission corridor be minimized to preserve opportunities for job growth and economic development on planned employment lands in Halton Region.
5. Provide flexibility for the future Corridor routing should take a long-term view and should not preclude reasonably anticipated future infrastructure requirements. Corridor routing should not preclude specific technology types, which will be determined by a future transmitter (i.e. Overhead lattice, overhead monopole, underground).
126
Corridor routing should allow for connections to existing electrical infrastructure. Corridor routing should preserve sufficient flexibility for future environmental study. Regional Comments
While Regional staff recognize the need to remain flexible in corridor route planning, this level of flexibility should not preclude the Region’s ability to deliver planned regional infrastructure to allow for the development of those lands.
The study should strongly consider alternative connections and technology such as the burial of infrastructure that would not preclude the development of employment lands in Halton Region.
Next Steps While Halton Region recognizes the need for the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines /Independent Electricity System Operator to conduct a study for a future Northwest Greater Toronto Area Electricity Transmission Corridor to address long-term electricity demands, the Region’s comments contained in Report No. LPS47-20 should be addressed as this study progresses. Given that the study and narrowed area of interest has implications on many Regional interests, including the ROPR, Regional staff request the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines /Independent Electricity System Operator to fully engage Halton Region in any future consultations on the study. Regional staff will continue to monitor the Northwest Greater Toronto Area Electricity Transmission Corridor Study and will report back to Council on any new information as this study progresses.
127
FINANCIAL/PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications associated with this report. Respectfully submitted,
Curt Benson Director, Planning Services and Chief Planning Official
Bob Gray Commissioner, Legislative and Planning
Services and Corporate Counsel
Approved by
Jane MacCaskill Chief Administrative Officer
If you have any questions on the content of this report, please contact:
Curt Benson Tel. # 7181
Attachments: Attachment #1 – 2019 Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Study Area
Attachment #2 – 2020 Proposed Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Narrowed Area of Interest Attachment #3 – Environmental Registry Posting 019-1503
128
2019 Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Study AreaAttachment #1 to LPS47-20
129
2020 Proposed Northwest Greater Toronto Area Transmission Corridor Narrowed Area of Interest Attachment #2 to LPS47-20
130
5/21/2020 Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of land for future electricity infrastructure in the Greater Toronto Area | Environmental Registry …
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-1503 1/8
Important notice: Temporary changes to posting requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic(/page/emergency-covid-19)
Environmental Registry of Ontario
ERO (EnvironmentalRegistry of Ontario)number
019-1503
Notice type Policy
Posted by Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines
Notice stage Proposal
Proposal posted March 23, 2020
Comment period March 23, 2020 - June 8, 2020 (77 days) Open
Last updated March 23, 2020
This consultation closes at 11:59�p.m.on:
June 8, 2020Proposal summaryWe want to identify and preserve a corridor of land in theNorthwest Greater Toronto Area (GTA) for future electricitytransmission infrastructure so we can support growth inHalton, Peel and York regions.
We are seeking feedback on a proposed narrowed studyarea, as well as input on the guiding principles we willconsider in conducting the study.
Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of landfor future electricity infrastructure in the GreaterToronto Area
Attachment #3 to LPS47-20
131
5/21/2020 Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of land for future electricity infrastructure in the Greater Toronto Area | Environmental Registry …
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-1503 2/8
Proposaldetails
Halton, Peel and York are among the fastest growing regions in Ontario. Asthese regions continue to develop, new transmission infrastructure isanticipated to be required to meet the growing electricity demand over thelong-term future.
We’ve identi�ed a long-term need for electricity transmission infrastructure,but the technical scope of the transmission infrastructure required, and thetiming of its need, may not be certain for many years.
Given the fast growth occurring in these regions, and the sensitiveenvironmental features in the area, it is important to keep a viabletransmission infrastructure option open by identifying a viable corridor today.
In June 2019, the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines (ENDM)and the Province’s electricity system planner, the Independent ElectricitySystem Operator (IESO) initiated the Northwest GTA Transmission CorridorIdenti�cation Study (hereafter “the study”) to identify an appropriate corridor ofland for use by future linear transmission infrastructure, if and when the needarises.
Early identi�cation and protection of infrastructure corridors has many bene�tsfor growing communities:
It supports well-planned communities by ensuring electricitytransmission infrastructure can be built to support growth.It minimizes impacts to the environment by preserving environmentallyviable routes for infrastructure.� In the absence of a preserved corridor,development may push electrical infrastructure into ecologicallysensitive areas that could otherwise have been avoided.It preserves economically-viable routes. In the absence of a preservedcorridor transmission would cost signi�cantly more to build because ofthe need to take indirect routes or to be undergrounded through builtup areas. A reserved corridor could lower infrastructure developmentcosts, leading to savings for local electricity ratepayers.It provides certainty to municipal planners, landowners and developersas they plan for growth.
We are seeking feedback on a proposed study area, as well as input on theguiding principles we will consider in conducting the study.
132
5/21/2020 Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of land for future electricity infrastructure in the Greater Toronto Area | Environmental Registry …
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-1503 3/8
While the study is underway, the study area is subject to protection underpolicies in A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe andthe Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (in e�ect on May 1, 2020).
The outcome of the study will be a recommendation on land to be preservedfor future transmission infrastructure and protected from development forother purposes.
Any future electricity transmission development in the area would be subject toEnvironmental Assessment Act requirements and other applicable regulatoryapprovals, including through the Ontario Energy Board.
Electricity infrastructure needsThe IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator), Ontario’s electricityplanner, has identi�ed a long-term need for new transmission capacity to servegrowth in the north western GTA.
Transformer stations serving northern Brampton, southern Caledon, andHalton Hills face unique geographic challenges in supplying new customergrowth which is increasingly far removed from existing transmission supplycircuits. This means that once existing capacity has been fully utilized, there arefew feasible options for serving new customer demand. Due to the distancebetween the existing transmission system and areas of anticipated growth,alternatives to new transmission infrastructure are not considered viable.
The timing of the need for transmission infrastructure and the exact nature ofthe infrastructure required will depend on the timing and location ofdevelopment in Halton, Peel and York regions.
The electricity needs of these regions will continue to be studied and re�nedover the coming years, with updated electricity plans anticipated at least every5 years.
Given the long-term nature of the needs, the fast growth occurring in theHalton, Peel and York regions, and the sensitive environmental features in thearea, it is important to keep a viable transmission infrastructure option byidentifying a viable corridor today.
The study area
133
5/21/2020 Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of land for future electricity infrastructure in the Greater Toronto Area | Environmental Registry …
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-1503 4/8
Provincial policy supports the co-location of linear infrastructure which has thepotential to mitigate the impact on surrounding agricultural land andenvironmentally sensitive areas.
Planning underway by the Ministry of Transportation related to the GreaterToronto Area West Transportation Corridor o�ers an opportunity to considerco-location. That’s why the starting point for the study, announced in June2019, was the Ministry of Transportation’s 2015 Focused Analysis Area (“2015FAA”).
MTO’s (Ministry of Transportation's) 2015 FAA (Focused Analysis Area)encompassed two of the three future transformer station connection points.�The study area was expanded relative to the MTO (Ministry of Transportation)FAA (Focused Analysis Area) corridor to enable connection to a third connectionpoint, existing electrical infrastructure which is located in the Parkway BeltWest Planning Area south of the Highway 407/Highway 401 interchange.
At this time, we are proposing a narrowed area of interest. The narrowed arealargely corresponds to MTO’s narrowed 2019 Focused Area Analysis (“2019FAA”) for the GTA West Highway Environmental Assessment with somedi�erences.
Retaining two areas that are important to accommodate transmissioninfrastructure connection points.Removing areas that are relevant only to transportation infrastructure.
A map comparing the current study area and proposed narrowed area ofinterest are included in the supporting material below. A map comparing thenarrowed area of interest with MTO's 2019�FAA (Ministry ofTransportation's>MTO’s</abbr> 2019 <abbr title=Focused Analysis Area) is alsoincluded below.� The study area and proposed narrowed area of interest datalayers are also available for download on Ontario’s Open Data Catalogue.
Guiding principles for corridor identi�cationProvincial legislation, policies and technical planning documents have informedthe guiding principles outlined below to support the identi�cation of a corridor.Balance among the principles will be required in implementing the study.
1. Co-locate with other linear infrastructure
Corridor routing should maximize the use of existing linearinfrastructure corridors wherever feasible (e.g. GTA West Transportation134
5/21/2020 Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of land for future electricity infrastructure in the Greater Toronto Area | Environmental Registry …
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-1503 5/8
Corridor, 400 series highways, other infrastructure corridors).
2. Plan for the most cost-e�ective outcome
Corridor routing should protect least cost routing where feasible. Thiscould include identifying the shortest geographic route and reducingcrossings of other infrastructure such as highways, railways, pipelinesand other transmission lines.
3. Minimize impacts to natural heritage, agricultural and hydrological featuresconsistent with provincial policies
Minimize corridor impacts on natural heritage system, agricultural landsand hydrologic features consistent with provincial policies and plans (e.g.A Place to Grow, Greenbelt Plan, 2020). (Provincial Policy Statement)
4. Minimize impacts on built up areas
Corridor routing should minimize impacts on existing municipal plans inthe study area, including impacts on existing built up areas, culturalheritage, planned developments and airports.
5. Provide �exibility for the future
Corridor routing should take a long-term view and should not precludereasonably anticipated future infrastructure requirements.Corridor routing should not preclude speci�c technology types, whichwill be determined by a future transmitter (i.e. overhead lattice,overhead monopole, underground).Corridor routing should allow for connections to existing electricalinfrastructure.Corridor routing should preserve su�cient �exibility for futureenvironmental study.
Study timelineGiven the opportunity to co-locate a transmission corridor with the Ministry ofTransportation’s proposed GTA West Transportation Corridor, we areproposing to align the timing of our study with milestones related to theMinistry of Transportation’s Environmental Assessment. This EnvironmentalAssessment is separate study and more information can be found at gta-west.com (https://www.gta-west.com/).
135
5/21/2020 Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of land for future electricity infrastructure in the Greater Toronto Area | Environmental Registry …
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-1503 6/8
Protecting the identi�ed corridorThe outcome of the study will be a recommendation on land to be preservedfor future transmission infrastructure and protected from development forother purposes.
ENDM (Environment, Northern Development and Mines) anticipates developingand considering options to protect the relevant corridor lands after the study iscomplete.
QuestionsAre you aware of potential barriers or issues that may be associatedwith the proposed narrowed area of interest?Are there other principles we should consider in conducting the study?
Supportingmaterials
�
1. Current Tx Study Area vs Proposed Tx Narrowed Area ofInterest.png (https://prod-environmental-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-03/1.%20Current%20Tx%20Study%20Area%20vs%20Proposed%20Tx%20Narrowed%20Area%20of%20Interest.png) png (Portable Graphics Format �le) 1.77 MB
2. MTO 2019 Focused Analysis Area vs Proposed Tx NarrowedArea of Interest_0.png (https://prod-environmental-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2020-03/2.%20MTO%202019%20Focused%20Analysis%20Area%20vs%20Proposed%20Tx%20Narrowed%20Area%20of%20Interest_0.png) png (Portable Graphics Format �le) 1.79 MB
Data layers for the study area and the proposed narrowed area ofinterest (https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/northwest-greater-toronto-area-transmission-corridor-study-area)
Related �les
Related links
136
5/21/2020 Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of land for future electricity infrastructure in the Greater Toronto Area | Environmental Registry …
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-1503 7/8
The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020(https://www.ontario.ca/page/provincial-policy-statement-2020)
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for a Greater Golden Horseshoe(https://www.ontario.ca/document/place-grow-growth-plan-greater-golden-horseshoe)
IESO Regional Planning in GTA West (http://www.ieso.ca/Get-Involved/Regional-Planning/GTA-and-Central-Ontario/GTA-West)
IESO Regional Planning in GTA North (http://www.ieso.ca/en/Get-Involved/Regional-Planning/GTA-and-Central-Ontario/GTA-North)
MTO’s GTA West Transportation Corridor and Route Planning andEnvironmental Ass… (https://www.gta-west.com/)
View materials in personImportant notice: Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, viewing supportingmaterials in person is not available at this time.
Please reach out to the Contact listed in this notice to see if alternatearrangements can be made.
Comment
Submit by mailKirby DierNetwork and Microgrid Policy77 Grenville St, 6th Flr. Toronto, ON M7A 2C1 Canada
Let us know what you think of our proposal.
Have questions? Get in touch with the contact person below. Please include theERO (Environmental Registry of Ontario) number for this notice in your email orletter to the contact.
Read our commenting and privacy policies. (/page/commenting-privacy)
137
5/21/2020 Proposal to identify and protect a corridor of land for future electricity infrastructure in the Greater Toronto Area | Environmental Registry …
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-1503 8/8
Connect withus
ContactKirby Dier
416-617-2179
138
VIA EMAIL June 30, 2020
Legislative & Planning Services Department Office of the Regional Clerk 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1
City of Burlington, Kevin Arjoon Town of Halton Hills, Suzanne Jones Town of Milton, Meghan Reid Town of Oakville, Vicki Tytaneck
Please be advised that at its meeting held Wednesday, June 17, 2020, the Council of the Regional Municipality of Halton adopted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION: PW-16-20 – Uniform Traffic Control By-law No. 1984-1
1. THAT Regional Council approve the amendments to the Uniform Traffic Control By-law No. 1984-1 to reflect the additions and deletions as contained in Attachment #1 to Report No. PW-16-20.
2. THAT Regional Council approve the amendments to the Uniform Traffic Control By-law No. 1984-1 to reflect the revised format of Schedule “23” Rates of Speed –Signs on Display contained in Attachment #2 to Report No. PW-16-20.
3. THAT the Director of Legal Services be authorized to prepare the amending By-law.
4. THAT the Regional Clerk forward a copy of Report No. PW-16-20 to the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills, the Town of Milton and the Town of Oakville for their information.
Included please find a copy of Report No. PW-16-20 for your information. If you have any questions please contact me at extension 7110 or the e-mail address below. Sincerely,
Graham Milne Regional Clerk [email protected]
139
The Regional Municipality of Halton
Report To: Regional Chair and Members of Regional Council
From: Jim Harnum, Deputy CAO and Commissioner of Public Works
Date: June 17, 2020
Report No. - Re: PW-16-20 – Uniform Traffic Control By-law No. 1984-1
RECOMMENDATION
1. THAT Regional Council approve the amendments to the Uniform Traffic Control By-law No. 1984-1 to reflect the additions and deletions as contained in Attachment #1 to Report No. PW-16-20.
2. THAT Regional Council approve the amendments to the Uniform Traffic Control
By-law No. 1984-1 to reflect the revised format of Schedule “23” Rates of Speed – Signs on Display contained in Attachment #2 to Report No. PW-16-20.
3. THAT the Director of Legal Services be authorized to prepare the amending By-
law.
4. THAT the Regional Clerk forward a copy of Report No. PW-16-20 to the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills, the Town of Milton and the Town of Oakville for their information.
REPORT Executive Summary
The Uniform Traffic Control By-law No. 1984-1 (the “By-law”) regulates parking restrictions, posted speed limits and various other traffic restrictions on Regional Roads.
Staff are recommending various amendments to the By-law, including:
o An increase in the posted speed on Steeles Avenue (Regional Road 8) from 60 km/h to 80 km/h from 120 m east of Eight Line North to 120 m east of Eighth Line South in the Town of Halton Hills following a review using the Transportation Association of Canada’s Automated Speed Limit Guidelines.
o An increase in the length of the 50 km/h portion of Trafalgar Road (Regional
Road 3) near 32 Side Road (Regional Road 32) and a decrease in the
140
length of the 70 km/h portion of Trafalgar Road (Regional Road 3) near 32 Side Road (Regional Road 32) in the Town of Halton Hills. This amendment to the By-law will reflect actual posted conditions in the field.
o An increase in the posted speed limit on Dundas Street (Regional Road 5)
from Tremaine Road (Regional Road 5) to Bronte Road (Regional Road 25) in the Town of Oakville to make a uniform speed limit zone following the increase in posted speed limit on Dundas Street from 60 km/h to 70 km/h as part of Council Report No. PW-23-19 amending By-law No. 1984-1 between Bronte Road (Regional Road 25) and Neyagawa Boulevard (Regional Road 4).
o The existing Schedule “23” Rates of Speed – Signs on Display to be
replaced with Attachment #2, Schedule “23’ Rates of Speed – Signs on Display to increase clarity and readability.
o Amendments specific to individual Regional Roads as provided in
(Attachment #1) including: Guelph Line (Regional Road 1), Trafalgar Road (Regional Road 3), Neyagawa Boulevard (Regional Road 4), Dundas Street (Regional Road 5), Derry Road (Regional Road 7), Steeles Avenue (Regional Road 8), Tremaine Road (Regional Road 22), Bronte Road (Regional Road 25), and Upper Middle Road (Regional Road 38).
Background The Uniform Traffic Control By-law No. 1984-1 regulates parking restrictions, posted speed limits, various other traffic restrictions and operating characteristics of the Regional Road system. Accordingly, the purpose of Report No. PW-16-20 is to obtain authority to amend the By-law to incorporate these recent changes. Staff additionally recommend replacing Schedule “23” Rates of Speed – Signs on Display with Attachment #2 of this report. Discussion The recommended amendments to the By-law are provided below and are reflected in Attachment #1 to this report: (1) Schedule “6”, Section 5(9)(a)(v) No Stopping Anytime – Signs on Display
1. No Stopping Anytime signs on display were installed at the following locations due to operational and safety concerns through the Delegated Authority process:
(A) James Snow Parkway (Regional Road 4) from Regional Road 25 to Escarpment Way/Chudleigh Way on the east and west sides, Town of Milton; and
141
(B) Upper Middle Road (Regional Road 38) from Bronte Road (Regional Road 25) to Grand Oak Trail on the north and south sides, Town of Oakville.
(2) Schedule "13" Section 7(2) Intersection Stop Signs
1. Intersection Stop Signs were removed from Schedule “13” at the following intersections due to their signalization:
(A) Upper Middle Road (Regional Road 38) and Buckingham Drive, Town of Oakville; and,
(B) Upper Middle Road (Regional Road 38) and Winston Park Drive, Town of Oakville.
(3) Schedule "16" Section 9(1)(a) No U-Turn Signs On Display
1. A No U-Turn sign was installed at Tremaine Road (Regional Road 22) 80 m north of Derry Road (Regional Road 7) Northbound, Town of Milton, for the following reasons:
To address a safety concern regarding vehicles conducting U-Turns at the residential development on Tremaine Road north of Derry Road, Town of Milton; and,
As a risk avoidance measure, signs are currently in place to reflect this change through a Delegated Authority.
(4) Schedule “23”, Section 12(1) Rates of Speed – Signs On Display
1. Rates of Speed signs on display were amended at the following locations, for the reasons provided below:
(A) Posted Speed Limit on Trafalgar Road (Regional Road 3) from 200 m north of 27 Side Road to 32 Side Road (Regional Road 32), Town of Halton Hills
To reflect existing signage in the field the 50 km/h posted speed limit zone was lengthened on Trafalgar Road (Regional Road 3) and the 70 km/h posted speed limit zone was shortened.
(B) Posted Speed Limit on Dundas Street (Regional Road 5) from 180 m east of
Tremaine Road to Bronte Road (Regional Road 25), Town of Oakville
To achieve a uniform 70 km/h zone on the widened portion of Dundas Street (Regional Road 5) a reduction in speed limit from 80km/hr to 70km/hr on Dundas
142
Street (Regional Road 5) from 180 m east of Tremaine Road (Regional Road 22) to 150 m west of Colonel William Parkway, Town of Oakville; and
An increase in speed limit from 60 km/hr to 70 km/hr on Dundas Street (Regional Road 5) from 150 m west of Colonel William Parkway to Bronte Road (Regional Road 25), Town of Oakville.
As a risk avoidance measure, signs are currently in place to reflect this change through a Delegated Authority.
(C) Posted Speed Limit on Steeles Avenue (Regional Road 8) from 120 m east of
Eighth Line North to 120 m East of Eighth Line South, Town of Halton Hills
Following a staff review using the Transportation Association of Canada’s Automated Speed Limit Guidelines it is recommended the speed limit be increased from 60 km/h to 80 km/hr zone on Steeles Avenue (Regional Road 8) from 120 m east of Eighth Line North to 120 m East of Eighth Line South, Town of Halton Hills
As a risk avoidance measure, signs are currently in place to reflect this change through a Delegated Authority.
(5) Schedule “23”, Rates of Speeds – Signs on Display
In addition to those changes outlined in Attachment #1, staff recommend to remove and replace the existing Schedule “23” with the attached Schedule “23” (Attachment #2). The existing posted speed limit section is grouped by posted speed limit which lacks clarity and readability, whereas the proposed Schedule “23” is grouped by Regional Road number. The proposed Schedule “23” is more accessible, clear, and reduces the potential for errors. Several housekeeping changes have been included to eliminate any duplicate speed zones, overlapping zones or missed zones. There are no changes to existing posted speed limits other than those outlined in Attachment #1 of this report.
(6) Schedule "31" Section 18(1) No Passing Zone
1. A No Passing Zone was added to Schedule “31” on Derry Road (Regional Road
7) between Twiss Road to McNiven Road, in the Town of Milton for the following reasons:
Staff reviewed this portion of Derry Road due to safety and operational concerns related to vehicles passing and determined a no passing zone is warranted as per the Ontario Traffic Manual.
As a risk avoidance measure, signs are currently in place to reflect this change through a Delegated Authority.
143
Staff periodically update Uniform Traffic Control By-law No. 1984-1 to address operational changes associated with the implementation of capital improvements, changing operating characteristics and changes resulting from the roads rationalization process. These amendments include changes to speed limits, parking and stopping restrictions, truck/load restrictions, turn prohibitions, No Passing Zones and removing stop controlled intersections that have been signalized. FINANCIAL/PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS The cost of signage and installation will be funded through the respective Roads Capital Project, where applicable or through Halton Region’s 2020 Roadway Maintenance operating budget. Respectfully submitted,
Rob Rivers CET Director, Waste Management and Road Operations
Jim Harnum Deputy CAO and Commissioner of Public
Works
Approved by
Jane MacCaskill Chief Administrative Officer
If you have any questions on the content of this report, please contact:
Rob Rivers Tel. # 8289
Attachments: Attachment #1 - Schedule Changes
Attachment #2 - Schedule 23
144
Item
No.
Hig
hway
(s)
Loca
tion
From
Loca
tion
ToSi
de(s
)
Add
4.03
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 4
(Jam
es
Snow
Par
kway
)R
egio
nal R
oad
No.
25
Esca
rpm
ent W
ay/C
hudl
eigh
W
ayEa
st &
Wes
t Si
des
Add
38.0
3R
egio
nal R
oad
No.
38
(Upp
er
Mid
dle
Roa
d)R
egio
nal R
oad
No.
25
(Bro
nte
Roa
d)G
rand
Oak
Tra
il Bo
ulev
ard
Nor
th &
Sou
th
Item
No.
Inte
rsec
tion
Dire
ctio
n of
Tra
vel
Stop
At
Rem
ove
38.0
6
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 3
8 (U
pper
M
iddl
e R
oad)
at W
inst
on P
ark
Driv
eSo
uthb
ound
Win
ston
Par
k D
rive
Rem
ove
38.0
7
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 3
8 (U
pper
M
iddl
e R
oad)
at B
ucki
ngha
m
Roa
dSo
uthb
ound
Buck
ingh
am D
rive
Item
No.
Hig
hway
(s)
Dire
ctio
n of
Tra
vel
Add
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 2
2 (T
rem
aine
Roa
d) 8
0 m
nor
th o
f R
egio
nal R
oad
No.
7 (D
erry
R
oad)
Nor
thbo
und
Sche
dule
"13
" Se
ctio
n 7(
2) In
ters
ectio
n St
op S
igns
Sche
dule
"6"
Sec
tion
5(9)
(a)(v
) No
Stop
ping
Any
time
- Sig
ns O
n di
spla
y
Sche
dule
"16
" Se
ctio
n 9(
1)(a
) No
U-T
urn
Sign
s O
n D
ispl
ay
145
Item
No.
Hig
hway
(s)
Loca
tion
From
Loca
tion
ToSp
eed
Edit
3.01
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 3
(T
rafa
lgar
Roa
d)80
0 m
sou
th o
f 32
Side
Roa
d32
Sid
e R
oad
50 k
m/h
Edit
3.14
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 3
(T
rafa
lgar
Roa
d)20
0 m
nor
th o
f 27
Side
Roa
d80
0 m
sou
th o
f 32
Side
Roa
d70
km
/h
Rem
ove
5.03
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 5
(Dun
das
Stre
et)
150
m w
est o
f Col
onel
W
illiam
Par
kway
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o 25
. (B
ront
e R
oad)
60 k
m/h
Edit
5.08
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 5
(Dun
das
Stre
et)
200
m e
ast o
f Sut
ton
Driv
e18
0 m
Eas
t of R
egio
nal R
oad
No
22 (T
rem
aine
Roa
d)80
km
/h
Edit
5.09
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 5
(Dun
das
Stre
et)
180
m E
ast o
f Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o 22
(Tre
mai
ne R
oad)
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 4
(N
eyag
awa
Boul
evar
d)70
km
/h
Edit
8.06
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 8
(Ste
eles
Av
enue
)12
0 m
eas
t of E
ight
h Li
ne
Nor
thW
inst
on C
hurc
hill
Boul
evar
d80
km
/h
Item
No.
Hig
hway
(s)
Loca
tion
From
Loca
tion
To
Add
7.01
Reg
iona
l Roa
d N
o. 7
(Der
ry
Roa
d)Tw
iss
Roa
dM
cNiv
en R
oad
Sche
dule
"31
" Se
ctio
n 18
(1) N
o Pa
ssin
g Zo
nes
Sche
dule
"23
" R
ates
Of S
peed
- Si
gns
On
Dis
play
146
Attachment #2 to Report No. PW-16-20
SCHEDULE "23" SECTION 12(1)
RATES OF SPEED - SIGNS ON DISPLAY
Item No.
Column 1 Highway(s) Column 2
Location From Column 3 Location To
Column 4 Speed Limit
Column 5 Amending By-Law
1.03
Regional Road No.1
(Guelph Line) Fairview Street (City of
Burlington) 464 m north of Regional
Road No. 5 (Dundas Street) 60km/h
1.08
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line)
464 m north of Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street)
150 m south of Colling Road
80 km/h
1.04
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line) 150 m south of Colling
Road 270 m south of Regional
Road No. 6 (Britannia Road) 60 km/h
1.01
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line)
270 m south of Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) 400 m south of 8 Side Road 50 km/h
1.13
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line) 400 m South of 8 Side
Road 200 m south of Regional Road No. 7 (Derry Road) 70 km/h ADDED By-Law No. 23-19
1.05
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line) 200 m south of Regional Road No. 7 (Derry Road)
74 m north of McLaren Road South 60 km/h Edited By-law No. 00-00
1.02
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line)
74 m north of McLaren Road South 37 m north of Campbellville
Road 50 km/h
1.12
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line)
37 m north of Campbellville Road 900 m north of Campbellville
Road
60 km/h
EDITED By-Law No. 48-19
147
1.09
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line)
900 m north of Campbellville Road 1625 m south of 15 Side
Road 80 km/h EDITED By-Law No. 23-19
1.06
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line) 1625 m south of 15 Side
Road 570 m north of Cameron
Road 60 km/h
1.11
Regional Road No.1 (Guelph
Line) 570 m north of Cameron
Road Regional Road No. 32 (Edin
Mills Road) 80 km/h
3.02
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road) Speers Road/Cornwall Road QEW south ramp QEW south ramp 50 km/h
3.03
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road) QEW south ramp 250 m north of Regional
Road No. 5 (Dundas Street) 60 km/h
3.09
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road)
250 m north of Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) 206 m south of Regional
Road No. 6 (Britannia Road) 80 km/h
3.04
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road)
206 m south of Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) 331 m north of Regional
Road No. 6 (Britannia Road) 60 km/h
3.10
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road)
331 m north of Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) 224 m south of Regional Road No. 7 (Derry Road) 80 km/h
3.08
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road) 224 m south of Regional Road No. 7 (Derry Road)
380 m north of Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) 70 km/h By-law No. 35-12
3.12
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road)
380 m north of Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) 144 m south of 15 Side
Road 80 km/h Edit By-Law No. xx-20
3.11
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road)
227 m north of Regional Road No. 10 (10 Side
Road) 144 m south of 15 Side
Road 80 km/h Removed By-law No. xx-20
148
3.05
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road) 144 m south of 15 Side
Road 800 m north of Maple
Avenue 60 km/h
3.07
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road) 800 m North of Maple
Avenue Highway No. 7 70 km/h
3.06
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road) Highway 7 200 m north of 27 Side
Road 60 km/h
3.14
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road) 200 m north of 27 Side
Road 800 m south of Regional
Road No. 32 (32 Side Road) 70 km/h ADDED By-law No. 23-19
Edit By-law No. xx-20
3.01
Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road)
800 m south of Regional Road No. 32 (32 Side
Road) Halton/Wellington Boundary 50 km/h Edit By-law No. xx-20
4.03
Regional Road No. 4
(Neyagawa Boulevard)
Regional Road No. 38 (Upper Middle Road)
186 m north of Regional Road No. 27
(Burnhamthorpe Road) 60 km/h
4.09
Regional Road No. 4
(Neyagawa Boulevard)
186 m north of Regional Road No. 27
(Burnhamthorpe Road) Northerly Limits 80 km/h
4.07
Regional Road No. 4 (James
Snow Parkway) Regional Road No. 6
(Britannia Road) Main Street (Town of Milton) 70 km/h By-law No. 123-15
4.06
Regional Road No. 4 (James
Snow Parkway) Main Street (Town of
Milton) Regional Road No. 8
(Steeles Avenue) 60 km/h
4.08
Regional Road No. 4 (James
Snow Parkway) Regional Road No. 8
(Steeles Avenue) East leg of Holgate Crescent
(Town of Milton) 70 km/h By-law No. 123-15 (replaced
By-law No. 86-13)
149
4.04
Regional Road No. 4 (James
Snow Parkway) East leg of Holgate
Crescent (Town of Milton) Westerly Terminus 60 km/h Edit By-law No. xx-20
4.05
Regional Road No. 4 (James
Snow Parkway) Regional Road No. 25 Mount Pleasant Way (Town
of Milton) 60 km/h Deleted By-law No. xx-00
5.06
Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) Kerns Road 300 m west of Regional
Road No. 1 (Guelph Line) 80m/h By-law No. 29-18
5.01
Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) 300 m west of Regional Road 1 (Guelph Line)
250 m east of Regional Road 1 (Guelph Line) 60 km/h By-law No. 29-18
5.07
Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) 250 m east of Regional
Road No. 1 (Guelph Line) 100 m west of Northampton
Road 80 km/h By-law No. 29-18
5.02
Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street)
100 m west of Northampton Road (City
of Burlington) 200 m east of Sutton Drive
(City of Burlington) 60 km/h By-law No. 29-18
5.08
Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) 200 m east of Sutton
Drive (City of Burlington)
150m west of Colonel William Parkway (Town of
Oakville)
180 m East of Regional Road No 22 (Tremaine Road)
80 km/h By-law No. 29-18
Edit xx-00
5.03
Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) 150 m west of Colonel
William Parkway Regional Road No. 25 (Bronte Road) 60 km/h
By-law No. 29-18 By-law No. 48-19
Remove By-law No. xx-20
5.09
Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street)
Regional Road No. 25 (Bronte Road) 180 m East of Regional Road No 22 (Tremaine Road)
Regional Road No. 4 (Neyagawa Boulevard) 70 km/h
ADDED By-law No. 23-19 Edit By-law No. 00-20
150
5.06
Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) Regional Road No. 3
(Trafalgar Road) Regional Road No. 13
(Ninth Line) 70 km/h
5.04
Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) Regional Road 13 (Ninth
Line)
Regional Road No. 13 (Winston Churchill
Boulevard) 60 km/h By-law No. 29-18 5.05 Deleted By-law No. 29-18
6.04
Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) Regional Road No. 22
(Tremaine Road) 500 m west of Fourth Line 80 km/h
6.01
Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) 500 m west of Fourth Line 642 m west of 5th Line 60 km/h
6.05
Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) 642 m west of 5th Line
666 m west of Regional Road No. 3) (Trafalgar
Road) 80 km/h
6.02
Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road)
666 m west of Regional Road No. 3 (Trafalgar
Road) 425 m east of Regional
Road No. 3 (Trafalgar Road) 60 km/h
6.03
Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) 425 m east of Trafalgar
Road Halton/Peel Boundary 80 km/h Edited By-law No. xx-20
6.06
Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) 1051 m west of Eighth
Line Halton/Peel Boundary 80 km/h Deleted By-law No. xx-20
7.01
Regional Road No. 7 (Derry
Road) Milburough Line 160 m east of Twiss Road 60 km/h
7.04
Regional Road No. 7 (Derry
Road) 160 m east of Twiss Road
150 m West of Regional Road No. 22 (Tremaine
Road) 80 km/h
7.02
Regional Road No. 7 (Derry
Road)
150 m West of Regional Road No. 22 (Tremaine
Road)
200 m east of Regional Road No. 4 (James Snow
Parkway) 60 km/h
151
7.03
Regional Road No. 7 (Derry
Road)
200 m east of Regional Road No. 4 (James Snow
Parkway) Halton/Peel Boundary 80 km/h
8.02
Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) Regional Road No. 22
(Tremaine Road) 37 m west of Regional Road
No. 25 (Martin Street) 60 km/h
8.01
Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue)
37 m west of Regional Road No. 25 (Martin
Street) 207 m east of Ontario Street 50 km/h
8.03
Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) 207 m east of Ontario
Street Regional Road No. 4
(James Snow Parkway) 60 km/h 8.04 Deleted By-law No. 48-19
8.08
Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) Regional Road No. 4
(James Snow Parkway) Regional Road No. 3
(Trafalgar Road) 70 km/h By-law No. 48-19
8.05
Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) 100 m east of Fifth Line
South 28 m east of 6th Line 80 km/h By-law No. 123-15
Removed By-law No. 48-19
8.07
Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) Regional Road No. 3
(Trafalgar Road) 120 m east of 8th Line North 60 km/h By-law No. 48-19
Edit By-law No. xx-20
8.06
Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) 120 m east of 8th Line
North
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston Churchill
Boulevard) 80 km/h By-law No. 123-15
9.01
Regional Road No. 9 (Campbell
Ave West) Regional Road No. 1
(Guelph Line) 200 m west of CPR Railway 50 km/h By-law No. 63-11
9.02
Regional Road No. 9
(Campbellville Road)
200 m west of CPR Railway 150 m West of First Line 60 km/h EDITED By-law No. 23-19
152
9.03
Regional Road No. 9
(Campbellville Road) 150 m West of First Line Milburough Line 70 km/h ADDED By-law No. 23-19
10.02
Regional Road No. 10 (10 Side
Road) Regional Road No. 3
(Trafalgar Road) Ninth Line (Mountainview
Road) 80 km/h EDITED By-law No. 23-19
10.04
Regional Road No. 10 (10 Side
Road) Ninth Line (Mountainview
Road) 300 m west of Tenth Line 70 km/h ADDED By-law No. 23-19
10.01
Regional Road No. 10 (10 Side
Road) 300 m west of Tenth Line 300 m east of Tenth Line 60 km/h
10.03
Regional Road No. 10 (10 Side
Road) 300 m east of Tenth Line Regional Road No. 19
(Winston Churchill Blvd.) 80 km/h EDITED By-law No. 23-19
13.01
Regional Road No. 13 (Ford
Drive) Cornwall Road 70 m south of the Canadian
Road 60 km/h
13.06
Regional Road No. 13 (Ford
Drive) 70 m south of the Canadian Road
Regional Road No. 38 (Upper Middle Road) 70 km/h
13.02
Regional Road No. 13 (Ninth
Line) Regional Road No. 38 (Upper Middle Road) Oakville/Milton Boundary 60 km/h
13.05
Regional Road No. 13 (Ninth
Line) Oakville/Milton Boundary Halton/Peel Boundary 70 km/h Edited By-law No. xx-20
13.08
Regional Road No. 13 (Ninth
Line) Milton/Halton Hills
Boundary Regional Road No. 8
(Steeles Avenue) 80 km/h Edited By-law No. xx-20
13.04
Regional Road No. 13 (Ninth
Line) Regional Road No. 8
(Steeles Avenue)
200 m north of Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) 60 km/h
153
13.07
Regional Road No. 13 (Ninth
Line)
200 m north of Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles
Avenue) 350 m south of Regional
Road No. 10 80 km/h By-law No. 123-15
13.03
Regional Road No. 13 (Ninth
Line) Regional Road No. 10 350 m south of Regional
Road No. 10 60 km/h
17.01
Regional Road No. 17 (Dorval
Drive) Speers Road Regional Road No. 38 (Upper Middle Road) 60 km/h
18.01
Regional Road No. 18 (Brant
Street) Fairview Street Regional Road No. 5
(Dundas Street) 60 km/h
19.03
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston
Churchill Boulevard) Highway 401
1480 m south of 5 Side Road 60 km/h By-law No. 29-18
19.07
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston
Churchill Boulevard)
1480 m south of 5 Side Road 5 Side Road 80 km/h By-law No. 29-18
19.10
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston
Churchill Boulevard) 5 Side Road 1240 m south of Highway 7 60 km/h By-law No. 29-18
19.01
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston
Churchill Boulevard)
1240 m south of Highway 7 980 m north of Highway 7 50 km/h By-law No. 29-18
19.05
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston
Churchill Boulevard) 980 m north of Highway 7 Wanless Drive 60 km/h By-law No. 29-18
19.08
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston Wanless Drive
1080 m south of Peel Regional Road 9 80 km/h By-law No. 29-18
154
Churchill Boulevard)
19.06
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston
Churchill Boulevard)
1080 m south of Peel Regional Road 9
480 m south of Peel Regional Road 9 60 km/h By-law No. 29-18
19.02
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston
Churchill Boulevard)
480 m south of Peel Regional Road 9
930 m south of 32 Side Road 50 km/h By-law No. 29-18
19.09
Regional Road No. 19 (Winston
Churchill Boulevard)
930 m south of 32 Side Road 32 Side Road 60 km/h
19.03 Deleted by By-law No. 29-18
19.07 Deleted by By-law No. 29-18
19.08 Deleted by By-law No. 29-18
19.10 Deleted by By-law No. 29-18
20.01
Regional Road No. 20 (Appleby
Line) Fairview Street 210 m north of Palladium
Way 60 km/h By-law No. 35-12
20.02
Regional Road No. 20 (Appleby
Line) 210 m north of Palladium
Way Regional Road No. 7 (Derry
Road) 70 km/h
155
21.01
Regional Road No. 21 (Burloak
Drive) Harvester Road Regional Road No. 38 (Upper Middle Road) 60 km/h
22.07
Regional Road No. 22
(Tremaine Road) Regional Road No. 5
(Dundas Street) 250 m south of Lower Base
Line 80 km/h
22.05
Regional Road No. 22
(Tremaine Road) 350 m south of Lower
Base Line 350 m south of Regional
Road No. 6 (Britannia Road) 60 km/h By-law No. 123-15
22.06
Regional Road No. 22
(Tremaine Road)
350 m south of Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) Regional Road No. 8
(Steeles Avenue) 70 km/h
22.03
Regional Road No. 22
(Tremaine Road) Regional Road No. 8
(Steeles Avenue) 33 m south of the C.P.R.
Line 60 km/h By-law No. 123-15
22.01
Regional Road No. 22
(Tremaine Road) 33 m south of the C.P.R.
Line 425 m north of Kelso Road 50 km/h
22.04
Regional Road No. 22
(Tremaine Road) 425 m north of Kelso
Road Campbellville Road 60 km/h
22.02
Regional Road No. 22 (Old
Tremaine Road) Southerly Terminus Northerly Terminus 50 km/h By-law No. 123-15
25.04
Regional Road No. 25 (Bronte
Road) Speers Road North Limit of Regional
Road No. 5 (Dundas Street) 60 km/h By-law No. 35-12
25.10
Regional Road No. 25
North Limit of Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) 600 m North Regional Road
No. 5 (Dundas Street) 70 km/h By-law No. 86-13
25.11
Regional Road No. 25
600 m North Regional Road No. 5 (Dundas
Street) 400 m south of Regional
Road No. 6 (Britannia Road) 80 km/h By-law No. 86-13
156
25.07
Regional Road No. 25
400 m south of Regional Road No. 6 (Britannia
Road) 300 m south of Regional Road No. 7 (Derry Road) 70 km/h
25.08
Regional Road No. 25
North Limit of Dundas Street
500m south of Louis St. Laurent Boulevard 70 km/h Deleted By-law No. xx-20
25.01
Regional Road No. 25
300 m south of Regional Road No. 7 (Derry Road)
Regional Road No. 7 (Derry Road) 50 km/h
25.13
Regional Road No. 25
Regional Road No. 8 (Steeles Avenue)
Highway 401 westbound on-ramp 50 km/h Added By-law No. xx-20
25.09
Regional Road No. 25
Highway 401 westbound on-ramp 200 m north 5 Side Road 70 km/h By-law No. 86-13
25.12
Regional Road No. 25
200 m north of 5 Side Road
930 m south of Kingham Road 80 km/h By-law No. 86-13
25.06
Regional Road No. 25
930 m south of Kingham Road
330 m south of Kingham Road 60 km/h
25.03
Regional Road No. 25
330 m south of Kingham Road
230 m south of Kingham Road 50 km/h
25.02
Regional Road No. 25
370 m north of Wallace Street 670 m north of Wallace St 50 km/h
25.05
Regional Road No. 25
670 m north of Wallace Street
1270 m north of Wallace Street 60 km/h
25.13
Regional Road No. 25
1270 m north of Wallace Street 32 Side Road 80 km/h
27.02
Regional Road No. 27
(Burnhamthorpe Road) Regional Road No. 25
1075m east of Regional Road No. 25 50 km/h Edited By-law No. xx-00
27.01
Regional Road No. 27
(Burnhamthorpe Road)
2050 m west of Regional Road No. 4 (Neyagawa
Boulevard) Regional Road No. 13
(Ninth Line) 60 km/h
32.01
Regional Road No. 32 (32 Side
Road) Halton/Eramosa Milton
Boundary Regional Road No. 1
(Guelph Line) 60 km/h
157
32.01
Regional Road No. 32
Regional Road No. 1 (Guelph Line) Halton/Wellington Boundary 80 km/h
34.01
Regional Road No. 34 (20 Side
Road) Halton/Wellington
Boundary Regional Road No. 1
(Guelph Line) 60 km/h
38.03
Regional Road No. 38 (Upper Middle Road)
Regional Road No. 1 (Guelph Line)
Regional Road No. 21 (Burloak Drive) 60 km/h
38.01
Regional Road No. 38 (Upper Middle Road)
From 40 m of Quinte Street
East to 175 m east of Imperial Way
40 km/h when
flashing (7am to 8:30am; 11am to
1pm;2pm to 4pm)
38.02
Regional Road No. 38
Regional Road No. 25 (Bronte Road)
Regional Road No. 38 (Winston Churchill
Boulevard) 60 km/h
40.01
Regional Road No. 40
(William Halton Parkway)
Regional Road No. 25
Third Line
60 km/h
By-law No. 123-15
45.01
Regional Road No. 45
(Wyecroft Road) Regional Road No. 21
(Burloak Drive) Easterly Terminus 50 km/h By-law No. 48-19
158