Lawrence Ingram Keele…

Lawrence Ingram Keele Business Improvement Area (LIKE BIA)
Submission re Land Use Compatibility, Odour & Environmental Compliance Guidelines

1. The Lawrence Ingram Keele (LIKE) Business Improvement Area (BIA)
The LIKE BIA is an association of commercial and industrial business owners designated as a business improvement area by Toronto City Council in July 2020. It is generally bounded by Lawrence Avenue to the north, Keele Street to the west, Strathnaim Ave. and Woodborough Ave. to the south and a rail track to the east. The borders of the LIKE BIA are shown in Schedule 1, attached.

The BIA is governed by the Business Improvement Area By-law, set out in Chapter 19 of the Toronto Municipal Code, attached as Schedule 2. The purpose of the BIA includes promotion as a business, employment and shopping area and undertaking strategic planning to address business improvement area issues. It was formed to maintain and encourage upgrading of existing commercial and industrial facilities, and also to encourage investment in new commercial and industrial facilities.
The LIKE BIA is managed by a Board of Management (the “Board”), which retained the law firm of Macdonald Sager Manis LLP to comment on three proposals posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario: the Land Use Compatibility Guideline; Modernizing Environmental Practices and Guideline to address Odour mixtures in Ontario.

2. Land Uses within the Like BIA
The LIKE BIA contains a wide range of residential, commercial and industrial uses within its boundary. Its boundary extends approximately 700 metres from west to the east, and 1,400 - 1,700 metres from north to south.

The Harold & Grace Baker Centre, a seniors’ residence, is located on Northwestern Ave., in the south-central area, and there are some other residents in the area, mainly along Kincort Street.
Commercial uses, including Walmart, Metro, strip plazas and offices are found primarily along Keele & Lawrence Ave. West.

Printing, food manufacturing, construction material, contracting, metal manufacturing and other light industrial uses are found throughout the area.

A municipal waste transfer facility is located on Ingram Drive, and a private recycling facility is found on the east side of Sheffield in the central area. An asphalt plant is located west of Kincourt St., south of Ingram, also in the central area of the BIA.

There has been new investment in light manufacturing throughout the BIA in recent years. There is currently also interest in redeveloping commercial uses at grade with residential uses above, primarily along Lawrence Avenue West.

The wide mix of uses in close proximity within the LIKE BIA boundary have generally functioned well together. However, residents and businesses in the area have previously faced challenges regarding land use compatibility. These challenges have arisen in part due to the close proximity of some existing industrial uses to existing residential, commercial and light industrial uses.

They will be exacerbated if new residential, commercial and light industrial investment in the BIA increases.

Existing land uses raising issues of compatibility include but are not limited to the following:
1. Municipal and private waste management sites which emit odour & noise and are serviced by a large number of heavy trucks;
2. The asphalt plant, which emits odour, noise and dust, and which is also served by a large number of heavy trucks traffic and dust. The plant has been charged and convicted of a number of violations of the Environmental Protection Act. A Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks report describing convictions and fines is attached as Schedule 3.

3. Land Use Compatibility Guideline: ERO 019-2785
The draft Land Use Compatibility Guideline (the “LUC Guideline”) defines “Major Facilities” and divides them into 5 classes, with Class 1 producing smaller adverse effects, and Class 5 producing significant adverse effects that may be difficult to mitigate. Table 1 in the Compatibility Guideline, attached as Schedule 4, classifies Asphalt Manufacturing & Recycling Facilities-General as Class 3 Major Facilities. It establishes an Area of Influence for Asphalt Plants of 1,000 m, and a minimum separation distance of 300 m from sensitive uses, such as homes or seniors’ residences; and an Area of Influence for Recycling Facilities of 900 m and a Minimum Separation Distance of 200 m.

The LUC Guideline replaces former Land Use Compatibility Guideline D-6 which did not apply to portable asphalt plants, transfer stations and private waste management facilities. D-6 typically required much smaller separation distances between industrial and residential land uses, 70 m. in the case of some industrial uses.

The LUC Guideline does not apply when there are existing land uses, such as an asphalt plant in close proximity to a seniors’ residence. However, it applies where the nature and or the intensity of the land use is changing, and an application under the Planning Act is required. It also states that where separation distances are not possible, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts may provide a basis for a proposal.

Submissions re LUC Guideline
The LIKE BIA Board of Management:
3.1 Supports the application of the Compatibility Guidelines to new portable asphalt plants, transfer stations and waste management facilities;
3.2 Supports the application of the Compatibility Guidelines to all existing Major Facilities where the nature and or the intensity of their land use is changing; and
3.3 Requests the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation & Parks (MOECP) to review periodically Environmental Compliance Approvals issued to existing Major Facilities, to consider:
• the duration, timing and types of any adverse environmental effects
• hours of operation
• wind patterns
• complaint and conviction history
• any actions undertaken in response to complaints or convictions

4. Addressing Odour Mixtures: ERO 019-2768
The ERO Website states that the Guideline to address odour mixtures in Ontario (the “Odour Guideline”) will help ensure that there is less regulatory uncertainty for facilities; better co-ordination with land planning decisions and more effective remediation of issues caused by odour mixtures. The Policy and Forms Impact Analysis (PFIA) states that the new scenario will, for existing facilities, provide guidance [which] will inform decisions for expansion and abatement. However, the text of the Draft Odour Guidance deals primarily with additional technical requirements for new facilities seeking an initial Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). It provides little guidance to assist existing facilities or communities with respect to proactive mitigation, other than complaints.

The Odour Guideline states that it should be read in conjunction with the LUC Guideline. However, there are inconsistencies with respect to the minimum separation distances set out in the 2 Guidelines. For example, according to the LUC Guideline, the minimum separation distance between Asphalt Manufacturing and residential uses is 300 m. But as stated in the Odour Guideline, the minimum setback distance is 500 m. According to the LUC, the minimum separation distance from a Waste Transfer Station is 100 m. The minimum setback distance from a waste transfer station ranges from 150 to 500 m in the Odour Guideline. See LUC Guideline P. 23 & 24 Table 1, attached as Schedule 5 and Odour Guideline, P. 34-37, attached as Schedule 6).

The Odour Guideline acknowledges that existing regulations, such as the Local Air Quality Regulation (O. Reg. 419/05) and technical standards created pursuant to existing regulations, such as the Asphalt mix – industry standard, generally regulate odours resulting from specific individual contaminants. It is often difficult for residents or local business owners and tenants to identify the specific contaminant causing an odour. The Odour Guideline will address odour mixtures resulting in total odours.

Submissions re Odour Guideline
The LIKE BIA Board of Management:
4.1 Requests MOECP to provide further guidance to existing facilities emitting odours, and businesses and residents located in close proximity to such facilities;
4.2 Urges the Ministry to eliminate inconsistencies in separation/setback distances between similar businesses under the LUC Guideline and the Odour Guideline.
4.3 Supports MOECP’s efforts to address odour mixtures in local air quality regulations.

5. Modernizing Environmental Compliance Practices: ERO 019-2972
The proposed Environmental Compliance Policy (the “Compliance Policy”) would distinguish between low-risk incidents which would generally be referred to municipalities, and higher risk incidents and facilities involving known and potential violations of a more serious nature involving repeat offenders. The MOECP is proposing to update its informed judgement matrix (see Figure 1, attached as Schedule 7), and risk-based approach, attached as Schedule 8.
In serious circumstances, the Ministry director could refuse to grant permission, or revoke a previous permission, if:
• it is concerned that the environment and /or human health will be seriously harmed;
• the responsible person has a poor compliance record with the Ministry; and
• evidence that the person applying for or holding permission is not or will not likely comply with Ministry laws, regulations or policies
The Compliance Policy would also increases transparency with respect to complaints, compliance and enforcement.

Submissions re Compliance Policy
The LIKE BIA Board of Management:
5.1 Supports the distinction between low risk and high risk offences;
5.2 Agrees that low-risk activities can be enforced by City of Toronto by-law officers;
5.3 Supports greater transparency with respect to complaints, compliance and enforcement.
5.4 Agrees that MOECP should have and exercise the power to review and revoke environmental permission if existing facilities cause serious and repeated breaches of environmental laws, regulations and Guidelines.

6. Summary and Conclusions
The LIKE BIA Board of Management commends the MOECP for taking initiatives to help avoid or minimize and mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts from odour, noise, dust and other contaminants. As owners of commercial and industrial businesses, we agree that the Ministry should reduce the regulatory burden on low-risk activities, particularly for small businesses.

As citizens and taxpayers, we believe that that MOECP should focus more resources on incidents that pose a higher threat to the environment and human health.
We also urge MOECP to periodically review, and if necessary revoke, environmental permission if existing uses cause emissions which are repeatedly in breach of legislative standards and the proposed Guidelines, or result in serious adverse health and environmental impacts.