Greenbelt developments

[steveintoronto]

Further to prior post:
From the Greenbelt Plan:

[...]
3.1.4 Rural Area Policies

For lands falling within the rural area of the Protected Countryside the following policies shall apply:

1. Rural areas support, and provide the primary locations for a range of recreational, tourism, institutional and resource-based commercial/ industrial uses. They also contain many historic highway commercial, non-farm residential and other uses which, in more recent times, would be generally directed to settlement areas but which are recognized as existing uses by this Plan and allowed to continue and expand subject to the existing use policies of section 4.5. Notwithstanding this policy or the policies of section 5.3, municipal official plans may be more restrictive than this Plan with respect to the types of uses permitted within rural areas .
2. Rural areas also contain many existing agricultural operations. Existing and new agricultural uses are allowed and normal farm practices and a full range of agricultural, agriculture-related and secondary uses are supported and permitted.
3. Settlement area expansions are permitted into rural areas , subject to the settlement area policies of section 3.4.
4. Other uses may be permitted subject to the general policies of sections 4.1 to 4.6.
5. New multiple units or multiple lots for residential dwellings , (e.g. estate residential subdivisions and adult lifestyle or retirement communities), whether by plan of subdivision, condominium or severance, shall not be permitted in rural areas . Notwithstanding this policy, municipal official plans may be more restrictive than this Plan with respect to residential severances and shall provide guidance for the creation of lots within the rural area not addressed in this Plan. Regardless, new lots for any use shall not be created if the creation would extend or promote strip development.
6. New land uses, the creation of lots (as permitted by the policies of this Plan), and new and expanding livestock facilities shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae .

[...]

4.5 Existing Uses
For lands falling within the Protected Countryside, the following policies shall apply:

1. All existing uses lawfully used for such purpose on the day before the Greenbelt Plan comes into force are permitted.
2. Single dwellings are permitted on existing lots of record, provided they were zoned for such as of the date the Greenbelt Plan came into force, or where an application for an amendment to a zoning by-law is required as a condition of a severance granted prior to December 14, 2003 but which application did not proceed.
3. Outside of settlement areas , expansions to existing buildings and structures, accessory structures and uses, and/or conversions of legally existing uses which bring the use more into conformity with this Plan, are permitted subject to a demonstration of the following:
   1. Notwithstanding section 4.2.2.6, new municipal services are not required; and
   2. The use does not expand into key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features , unless there is no other alternative in which case any expansion shall be limited in scope and kept within close geographical proximity to the existing structure.
4. Expansions to existing agricultural buildings and structures, residential dwellings, and accessory uses to both, may be considered within key natural heritage features and key hydrologic features if it is demonstrated that:
   1. There is no alternative and the expansion, alteration or establishment is directed away from the feature to the maximum extent possible; and
   2. The impact of the expansion or alteration on the feature and its functions is minimized to the maximum extent possible.
5. Expansion, maintenance and/or replacement of existing infrastructure is permitted, subject to the infrastructure policies of section 4.2.

[...]

4.6 Lot Creation
For lands falling within the Protected Countryside, the following policies shall apply:

1. Lot creation is permitted in the Protected Countryside for the range of uses permitted by the policies of this Plan.
2. Lot creation is also permitted in the following circumstances:
   1. Acquiring land for infrastructure purposes, subject to the infrastructure policies of section 4.2;
   2. Facilitating conveyances to public bodies or non-profit entities for natural heritage conservation, provided it does not create a separate lot for a residential dwelling in specialty crop or prime agricultural areas ; and
   3. Minor lot adjustments or boundary additions, provided they do not create a separate lot for a residential dwelling in specialty crop or prime agricultural areas and there is no increased fragmentation of a key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature .
3. More specifically, within the specialty crop area and prime agricultural area , lot creation is permitted for:
   1. Agricultural uses where the severed and retained lots are intended for agricultural uses and provided the minimum lot size is 40 acres within specialty crop area and 100 acres within prime agricultural areas ;
   2. Existing and new agriculture-related uses, provided that any new lot will be limited to the minimum size needed to accommodate the use, including a sewage and water system appropriate for such a use;
   3. The severance of a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation , which residence was an existing use as of the date this Plan came into force, provided that the planning authority ensures that a residential dwelling is not permitted in perpetuity on the retained lot of farmland created by this severance. Approaches to ensuring no new residential dwellings on the retained lot of farmland may be recommended by the Province, or municipal approaches that achieve the same objective should be considered; or
   4. The surplus dwelling policy in 4.6.3 (c) also applies to rural areas as defined by municipal official plans. The severance should be limited to the minimum size needed to accommodate the dwelling, including existing and reserve areas for individual sewage and water services.

[...]

5.3 Municipal Implementation of Protected Countryside Policies
[...]
Municipalities may amend the designation for prime agricultural areas and/or rural areas at the time they bring their official plans into conformity with this Plan, only in the following circumstances:

1. If the upper-tier or single-tier municipality has not amended the designation for its prime agriculture/rural lands to reflect the PPS;
2. If an upper-tier or single-tier has completed a comprehensive official plan review; or
3. In order for a lower tier official plan to conform to an upper tier plan which has been amended in either of the above circumstances.

Such amendments are intended to be minor in nature, solely with a view to rationalizing prime agricultural area and rural area boundaries.

It is intended that the numerical figures identified in this Plan be considered to be approximate, and that for the purposes of preparing area municipal official plans, zoning by-laws, subdivisions approvals, site plan approvals, severances or building permits, minor deviations may be permitted, without amendment to this Plan, provided that such deviations do not alter the intent of this Plan.
[...]

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page189.aspx

 

[W. K. Lis]

An example of potential land that could be developed for new residents are in the Port Lands of Toronto. The Port Lands are located on Toronto's Waterfront, no where near the Greenbelt. Expect to see 16,000 to 21,000 people in approximately 4,800 residential units anticipated in Villiers Island and 4,700 units in the McCleary District. See link.

Keep the Greenbelt to help feed the residents, without having to import all the food from outside of Canada.

 

[Northern Light]

For the Liberals - everyone has completely tuned them out. The question always comes on why they didn't do this before, and then the conclusion is that it's just an election promise. And the Liberals have a terrible record of keeping promises.
To many people in the greenbelt, the Act means that a farmer with a 100 acres can't sever off a couple of acres for themselves and see the rest to another farmer to fund their retirement.

Steve covered this well, so I won't rehash at length.

In respect of your last sentence, complete, total and utter nonsense. I'm not defending the Liberals, I agree they should have made this decision ages ago, both on pubic policy grounds and because it was good politics.

Be that as it may, farmers remain free to sell, lease, sever, donate, bequeath their land, any statement to the contrary is entirely made up.

If you have a defense for you statement, with PROOF please, i will stand to be corrected and apologize.

Though I'm unconcerned that that need shall arise.

Please stop posting all together if you're unwilling to do research before posting.

Its borderline trolling at this point.

 

[44 North]

I think it's entirely possible that Ford isn't the slimy, duplicitous, hypocrite and shyster he appears to be. He's just freakin' stupid. In the real sense of the word. He's just not a very bright guy.

As I understand you lived well outside TO until a couple years ago. You really did miss out on the stupidity. Guy couldn't be a shyster even if he tried to be. I actually feel bad for MPPs that are happily being his yes-men. They're really lowering themselves. Ditto for PC party as a whole, even if victorious. Just watch a few mins of any Doug interview and you'll see why. The cringing is hard to endure.

An example of potential land that could be developed for new residents are in the Port Lands of Toronto. The Port Lands are located on Toronto's Waterfront, no where near the Greenbelt. Expect to see 16,000 to 21,000 people in approximately 4,800 residential units anticipated in Villiers Island and 4,700 units in the McCleary District. See link.

I think the Lake has major untapped benefit. Condos and stacked townhouses off the coast of Mimico or Bluffs. Could be the 70s Harbour City 2.0. Lots of "land" available.

 

[steveintoronto]

As I understand you lived well outside TO until a couple years ago.

Other than time spent abroad, only five years outside TO in Guelph, and the Rob Ford antics were clearly visible on the horizon.

You really did miss out on the stupidity.

I count my blessings...lol.

Ditto for PC party as a whole, even if victorious. Just watch a few mins of any Doug interview and you'll see why. The cringing is hard to endure.

Ya know, I was just watching some, reading the latest Macleans piece and running the vids, and thought best I check back to see if there was any serious challenge to my "severance" research.

There's none. Like a lot of the hype, it lives up to the term. Phrases mimed from the Knee-Jerk Press. The real shame, as Northern points out, is that there are some serious flaws in our legislation, and *those* should be addressed. But that would take an Elliot or a Mulroney to do it. To present a case eloquently and decisively, with facts and case law, and presenting how they would affect an alternative.

But alas, being considerate and intelligent women, the Thug and his Minions (with biker chicks in tow) just pushed them aside and installed his brand of Nihilism® that appeals to only those with corrupted jeans....err...genes. How ironic his back-seat Hogette is Ms Anti-Sex-Ed lady. "Split Jeans" = "Split Genes".

Mr 'Green Jeans'? Methinks not...

 

[syn]

Doug Ford, fighting for the little guy.

 

[steveintoronto]

NatPost has an excruciating diatribe on the Greenbelt today. What's surprising is the reader comments. Even the majority at the Pest 'get it' on the necessity of controlling sprawl and retaining the belt:
http://business.financialpost.com/o...unless-we-develop-the-greenbelt#comments-area

We're into the 'Doug Days' of Summer!

 

[W. K. Lis]

Doug Ford, fighting for the little guy.

Mini-doug? Mwahahaha, mwhahaha, muahahaha, hehehehe, bwuhuhuhaha!!

 

[old boy]

Doug Ford, fighting for the little guy.

The wrestling metaphor fits Doug - as a promoter he's a natural.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Globe (behind paywall):

New Ontario development proposal would lock in years of sprawl, critics say

Queen’s Park to tell municipalities to set aside enough land for development until 2051

www.theglobeandmail.com

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

Mike Harris’s former environment minister appointed by province to head Greenbelt Council​

From link.

Retired MPP Norm Sterling, an Ontario environment minister in the Mike Harris government of the 1990s, is the Ford government’s choice to lead the Greenbelt Council.

Sterling replaces David Crombie, who resigned in November over the province’s controversial limiting of local conservation authorities’ ability to deny development permits for sensitive lands. Crombie called the moves by Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government “high-level bombing” that “needs to be resisted.”

Sterling’s appointment set off a new wave of criticism for the Ford government, which has frequently used ministerial zoning orders to force particular development approvals and is pushing to build Highway 413 through parts of the Greenbelt, a band of protected farmland, forests, rivers and lakes.

The Opposition NDP noted Sterling voted in 2005 against the creation of the Greenbelt.

“Putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is classic Doug Ford,” said NDP environment critic Sandy Shaw in a statement.

“Time and time again Ford has been busted trying to pave the Greenbelt as a favour to his donors. Ontarians have a right to be worried about this appointment.”

In 1995, Sterling faced criticism for slashing the Environment Ministry’s budget by 40 per cent while arguing that “implementing stronger environmental policies” would counter the funding loss.

Later, the Walkerton tainted water inquiry concluded that Harris-era cuts led to the end of lab testing for municipalities in 1996 and helped set the stage for the 2000 disaster that killed seven people and sickened thousands of others.

Toronto city Coun. Gord Perks, who as a Greenpeace campaigner in the 1990s argued against such cuts, loudly groaned when asked the appointment.

“I have no hesitation saying that I’ve been watching environment ministers going way back and will say without hesitation that Norm was the most anti-environmental of them all,” said Perks (Ward 4, Parkdale—High Park).

“The step down from (former Toronto mayor) David Crombie to Norm Sterling is to step down from somebody who cares to somebody who will actively wreck things.”

But in an interview Sterling, a lawyer and engineer who represented Ottawa-area constituents from 1977 to 2011, rejected such criticism and said his focus in the new post will be protecting the environment.

“My motives are to give future generations the freedom to make decisions about where our province is going with regard to resources,” Sterling said.

In terms of his plans for protecting the Greenbelt, given the pressure from housing developers, Sterling said it’s a difficult problem, but he believes he’ll find solutions.

“We can do it … we can retain the best parts of our natural resources, but we also have to be concerned about how we’re going to provide people with places to live. We’re going to have to listen to a lot of people to advise us on how we might do this,” Sterling said.

The founding member of the Niagara Escarpment Commission said his involvement in the escarpment plan helped him understand “the significance of land and water resources.”

He added that he’ll use this same mindset in his new role.

“As someone who cares about the environment and our kids, it’s such a thrill for me to be able to say to my eight grandkids that your granddad is going to be involved in making your future better,” Sterling said.

In a news release announcing his appointment, Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark said Sterling “brings important experience to the Greenbelt Council, and I am confident that under his leadership there will be incredible work done to support growing the Greenbelt.

Clark added: “As a fellow grandparent, we understand the importance of leaving all of our grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, with an enhanced version of the gem that is the Greater Golden Horseshoe.”

 

[wopchop]

“We can do it … we can retain the best parts of our natural resources, but we also have to be concerned about how we’re going to provide people with places to live. We’re going to have to listen to a lot of people to advise us on how we might do this,” Sterling said.

I never caught this before amidst the COVID explosion and lockdown.
That really says it all doesn't it?
Admission that Green Belt development is on the table.

 

[Northern Light]

Reviving this thread as Premier Doug has decided to honour his original promise to developers and handover a chunk of the Greenbelt!

Ontario backtracks on Greenbelt pledge with plan to allow housing on 7,400 acres

The government wants to open up 15 areas of protected land for housing development in exchange for adding 2,000 acres to the Greenbelt, in what some fear is an unequal swap.

www.thestar.com

We all need to bombard the comment process and Doug's email with objections!

Press Release here:

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

From the above:

To accommodate that growth and support the building of more homes, our government is proposing to remove 15 areas of land totalling approximately 7,400 acres from the edge of the Greenbelt area.

***

At the same time, we are proposing to add an additional 9,400 acres to the Greenbelt, including a portion of the Paris Galt Moraine and 13 urban river valleys in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, for an overall Greenbelt expansion of approximately 2,000 acres.

Already Protected

 

[Northern Light]

I will show the Maps of areas to be Removed from the Greenbelt in this post. Perhaps some here could chip in and offer up the names of the companies who own the land in question.

Sigh, multiple sites here are clearly part of the natural heritage system (dark green) and would chopping down established forests; multiple sites are far from any meaningful urbanity, only perhaps 2 have the remotest justification to be even be discussed, and I will still oppose including these given that we still have ample whitebelt land (future sprawl) already zoned.

This is a savage attack on the Greenbelt, on the Oak Ridges Moraine and is utterly contemptible.

 

[Northern Light]

Excepting already protected parklands in urban river valleys, the only addition to the Greenbelt that is proposed is here:

Fine, so far as it goes, but far less of an expansion than what many have already long advocated for; and in no way offsets the proposed damage.