Demonstration of Need …

Demonstration of Need
‘Demonstration of need’ requirement when adding sensitive receptors is considered a significant and unnecessary hurtle for development cases in which qualified professionals have demonstrated that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding lands. This condition can be subjectively assessed and may not improve compatibility in a meaningful way.

This requirement may also result in a preference to developing Greenfield sites as opposed to infilling (where shown to be compatible), which may go against the intent of the PPS and Places To Grow.

Lack of Assessment Benchmarks
The proposed guideline does not contain assessment criteria or benchmarks for the evaluation of nuisance impacts, specifically what is acceptable with respect to odours and fugitive dust. In the absence of relevant criteria or benchmarks, assessments will be at the discretion of the qualified professionals and peer reviewers with municipalities being tasked with accepting assessment results. It is recommended that the MECP provide greater clarity with respect to thresholds for nuisance impacts.

Inconsistent Wording
The proposed guideline contains inconsistent wording regarding adverse effects and the permissibility of nuisance impacts. It is stated that "minor nuisance effects may not meet the definition of adverse effect", proponents must "minimize adverse effects", and " adverse effects from major facilities [must be] minimized and mitigated such that no adverse effects are expected...".

Also, there is wording within the proposed guideline that states both that development should not be allowed within the MSD and that development can be allowed provided a compatibility study and demonstration of need has been completed.

The inconsistent language will lead to contentious and drawn-out land use planning applications with possibility of leading to hearings/tribunals and legal actions, with significant cost to both industry and developers. Leaving the guidelines open for interpretation may result in inconsistent application of the guidelines. It is recommended that a guidelines’ language be updated to eliminate inconsistencies and unintended interpretations.

On Site Vehicle Emissions
The document as written requires that on site vehicle emissions be assessed when considering compatibility from an air quality perspective. This would apply to on-property and off-property vehicles travelling related to the operations. This raises the following concerns:
• the complexity of such an assessment for air quality is significant, and represents a notable level of effort; and,
• given the proximity of traffic routes to residential uses, minor nuisance impacts are to be expected.
Comparatively, nuisance impacts from truck traffic for industrial facilities may not be as significant as the facilities themselves. Potential mitigation measures would be to have greater separation setbacks which would limit future potential expansions for industry and reduce prospective lands for sensitive land use development.

Site Specific Standards
Within the guideline there is a discussion of site-specific standards which states "It is recommended that any proposed uses be built outside the AOI of these facilities to avoid adverse effects related to significant air quality emissions." This wording could be interpreted by the public to say "it is not safe to live within the AOI of the facility", irrespective of SSS being approved by the MECP through their risk assessment process.

New AOI’s and MSD’s
The proposed increase in AOI’s is likely to unnecessarily increase the cost of compatibility studies by adding more industries within the study area that need to be assessed for AQ, noise and other nuisance impacts. It is unclear why the current setbacks proposed in Guideline D-6 are considered to be not sufficient and why the substantial increase in AOI.

Minor commercial or light industrial uses such as auto body shops and car washes are not included within the proposed guideline. In our experience these uses can result in compatibility issues and should be addressed. Uses which are exempt from Section 9 of the Act appear to be exempt from the requirements of the proposed guidelines. This exemption may not be provide adequate protection of sensitive land uses in a land use / new development setting.

Major Facilities
Transportation infrastructures and corridors are listed as major facilities requiring assessment. This will add significant cost to all compatibility assessments, and is expected to provide marginal value in most cases, given the provenance of such sources throughout urban areas and the limited mitigation measures than can be implemented. It is recommended that a significance criteria be added (e.g., AADTs above a threshold value) for determining when an assessment of such source should be included. Furthermore, this condition should correlates well with the existing noise publication guidelines: NPC-300 as it pertains to noise assessment.