Good afternoon, I have…

Good afternoon,
I have reviewed the proposed guideline and I have many detailed comments below, but I would like to start by saying that the overall approach & update proposed guideline is heavily flawed, will create unnecessary and expensive work for developers and municipalities, limit development throughout the province and not provide any additional protection for either existing industries or sensitive land uses.

I am an environmental consultant who has provided a number of environmental studies for both residential developments as well as preparing CofAs/ECAs/EASRs. These are my detailed comments:

* The Areas of Influence are far too large to have any relevance. Throughout the document, but particularly in Table 2, the AOIs start at 500m. Given that a study is suggest for any sensitive use within an AOI, this will mean that almost EVERY sensitive use will need a study. This imposes an incredibly onerous requirement on introducing sensitive land uses. The Ministry, in their public sessions, indicated that the AOIs were based on their own research and data mining complaints, however this flies in the face of the fact that there literally thousands of sites with ECAs & EASRs that have sensitive uses within 500m, and have no history of complaints. It appears the Ministry has severely overweighted facilities with complaints. E.g. Figure 1, box 1, states that land uses should be outside the AOI. This is impractical and costly in almost any region, including much of Northern Ontario.

* Similar to the above, the MSDs are far, far too large. While the Ministry may think that they are protecting incompatibility, what will happen is totally stifling any future development. There are numerous areas in the document where it's stated (e.g. Section 1.2) "sensitive land use should not be allowed within the MSD." Again, the Ministry should be aware there are thousands of sites with ECAs & EASRs that are within these setbacks, with no issues.

* Section 1.4 states Major Facilities (a reoccurring theme in the document) but then goes to state "manufacturing uses". This is so generic that almost any facility may fall into this interpretation.

* There's the repeated theme that developments within an AOI may cause an adverse effect. Further, it states that developments within the MSD are very likely to cause an adverse effect. In my professional opinion, these are incorrect statements. I'm sure the Ministry took a look at existing complaints with existing incompatibilities, however it's not clear if they compared the amount of complaints from unique facilities against all similar types of facilities. I'd like to see the Ministry provide this backup data, showing complaint facilities vs. total facilities. A repeated complaint at a single facility should not constitute multiple issues or justify such inflammatory wording the Ministry has used.

* Section 1.8.3 states that facilities are encouraged to share their reports. The Ministry should be aware that facilities actively do not share their reports. In fact, if the Ministry is advocating this, they should outright mandate that facilities provide copies of their ECA/EASR technical reports. Anything less than mandating this, and the Ministry is simply passing responsibilities.

* A theme in the proposed guideline is that if there are future incoming sensitive land uses, that an incompatibility study be conducted. But the Ministry knows that few if any industries will willingly share their technical reports. At best, data from NPRI is all that is available. As such, any study done by a professional is, at best, a reasonable guess that prone to significant assumptions and outright guesses on air & noise emissions. As such, what possible benefit does this provide to a municipality? Something as simple as operating hours or length of shifts is often not publicly available.

* Section 2.3(3) (Table 2) provides a table of AOIs and MSDs for major facilities, based on Class. The smallest AOI is 500m. For a Class 2 operation, the AOI is 750m. Contrast this to the fact that almost any Class 2 facility has a setback between 300-500m for an EASR or ECA. This can be seen in the recommended setbacks in the Primary Noise Screening form. In fact, every AOI from Class 2 to Class 5 exceed the setbacks required for most ECAs/EASRs. This puts undue work on sensitive land uses proposed.

* Table 3 in the same Section 2.3(3) provides a description of characteristics of classifying major facilities. A class 1 facilities is described as Sound is not audible off property; no vibration; infrequent and not intense dust; low probability of dust & infrequent and non-offensive odours. Despite this clear description showing little to no potential of any adverse impact, the previous tables suggest that a AOI of 500m may cause an adverse effect, and a MSD of 200m means an adverse impact is highly likely. The description provided by the Ministry is in contradiction to their very own characteristics. This really exemplifies how disparate the document is, and the fact that AOIs and MSDs are very, very inaccurate.

* In comparison to the original D-6 guidelines, the MSDs for Class 1 is 20m. The proposed guideline, in Table 2 is now 200m. If the Ministry is going to increase an MSD 10x in distance, far, far, far more justification should be provided, with a detailed breakdown of their analysis of complaints, adverse impacts and any and all information that allowed them to come to their conclusions. Right now, they are simply responding with "we did the analysis and these are the values" but do not provide any backup, nor any understanding of the degree of impact, costs & work to new developments.

* Section 3.3 (at-receptor mitigation) appears to be entirely unnecessary. The whole section discusses and describes potential at-receptor mitigation, but at the end, correctly states "At-receptor mitigation is not recognized by the Ministry to mitigate odour and dust impacts [and doesn't apply to Class 1, 2 or 3 noise receptors]". Why, then, would the Ministry even bother providing all that guidance, when it's not going to be recognized as compliance for the industry's ECA/EASR?

* Section 3.8 - Compliance, seems to only exist for the Ministry to absolve themselves of any & all responsibility of planning issues. While it's clear that the Ministry does have to deal with the end-results of incompatibilities, this guideline is not the correct approach. An overreaching guideline that allows the Ministry to say "I told you so" when it's not followed, is not an appropriate stance.

* Section 4.1 has many inaccuracies and should be reviewed by a planner. As an example, during the development of an OP, it's rarely known if a zoned area allows for a Major Facility (particularly given the generic description in the PPS). Employment lands may mean small offices vs. large manufacturing. At this stage, there is no feasible way to complete compatibility studies (unless the Ministry envisions a consultant considering every possible Major Facility against every possible sensitive land use). The same incorrect assumptions are restated for the OPA. Typically, more known uses are only at the RZA or SPA phase. It's really only at this point anything more that coarse, feasibility studies can be conducted.

* Section 4.2.1 states " Within the MSD, studies are even more important, and mitigation would be expected in many cases." Again, the Ministry is making this assertion without any backup. From my professional experience, this is incorrect. There are literally hundreds of Class 3, 4 & 5 facilities that are situated <500m from sensitive land uses that do not have mitigation.

* Appendix B (the compatibility study) is poorly described. Throughout the proposed guideline, it suggest the study is a single study. This is the first time it's suggested that a separate study should be done for noise, dust and odour. I applaud this distinction, as the City of Toronto has introduced the need for a single Compatibility study. The Ministry should make clear that the studies are separate and this distinction should be provided much, much earlier in any future revision.

* Appendix B provides input into assessing odours. The Ministry's information is all in draft, and very variable, and this is for industries who know their emissions. How does the Ministry expect a developer of a sensitive land use to hire a consultant to develop any type of accurate assessment/study? There is zero information provided on the Ministry's Access Environment website (aka ECA info) that will allow a different consultant to formulate accurate numbers/estimations.
"It should be noted that the proponent (proposed sensitive land use or proposed major facility) is responsible for any required work associated with this approach. Major facilities should provide information and participate in completing compatibility studies. However, if the major facility does not cooperate, the proponent should consult with the planning authority and still complete required compatibility study and determine if any mitigation is required to the best of their ability. If the planning authority cannot convince the major facility to participate, approaches to resolution outlined in the draft Odour Guideline should be considered." Can the Ministry mandate that the facility must comply? Otherwise, from experience, ZERO facilities will cooperate.

* Section B.4 is simply naïve. Industries do not cooperate with developers (as it may impinge on their future plans). Further, expecting a developer's consultant to contact every industry within 500m-2000m is simply not practical!

I hope that the Ministry significantly revises the proposed guideline, and provides evidence for their conclusions that were stated in the document. As it stands, the proposal is not implementable or economical.