Analysis: Updates to the D…

Analysis:
Updates to the D-series guidelines, including greater clarity on the application of
information requirements, are necessary given the general transfer of responsibility for
determining requirements and supporting information from the Province to local land use
authorities. Comments below relate to application of the guideline to the typically smaller
and rural scale of land use activities that are most common in Bruce County.

Determining Application of the Guideline:
One of the challenges related to the guidelines relates to how planning authorities should
determine a “major facility” from other, presumably “minor” facilities where application of
the guideline may be impractical and unnecessary. “Major Facilities” are defined in the PPS
(2020) as “Facilities which may require separation from sensitive land uses, including but not
limited to: airports, manufacturing uses, transportation infrastructure and corridors, rail
facilities, marine facilities, sewage treatment facilities, waste management systems, oil and
gas pipelines, industries, energy generation facilities and transmission systems, and resource
extraction activities” (PPS).
The existing and proposed guidelines use types of use to describe land use activities and
classes of use to evaluate characteristics of activities to determine the anticipated area of
influence in which studies are required and to assign minimum separation distances.
Greater separation distances make sense for larger facilities; however, application of
minimum separation distances to any facilities matching the descriptions would likely
prevent their location on most industrial lands in settlement areas within Bruce County, as
many of these areas do not have the land base to support extensive separation distances.
Appendix ‘A’ outlines the land base for existing employment areas in all of Bruce County’s
settlement areas. Where minimum separation distances cannot be met, extensive studies
may be required, or manufacturing and production facilities may not be able to locate in
settlement areas, impairing development of complete communities and economic
opportunities; or settlement areas may need to be expanded significantly in order to
accommodate buffer areas which could lead to increased servicing costs and impacts to
surrounding farmland.

Minimum separation distances may also impair ability to locate uses within farm clusters as
part of on-farm diversified uses, if these farm clusters are located near to farm building
clusters on adjacent lots.
We would recommend that the province consider whether minimum separation distances,
and/or associated study requirements to support reductions in minimum separation
distances, are appropriate for land uses that meet the land use descriptions but have
minimal to no impact and so would be “Class 1” uses per the Table in Appendix ‘B.’

Opportunity to define and promote development of ‘Minor’ facilities:
An alternative recommendation is to consider defining ‘minor’ facilities where potential
offsite impacts are known and can be readily mitigated using site design and building design
and equipment that is designed to meet certain noise or air quality specifications. This
would be consistent with approaches currently applied through the provincial Environmental
Activity Sector Registry (EASR).

Consideration for infilling within a Minimum Separation Distance / Area of Influence:
Smaller settlement areas with existing ‘major facilities’ may have several existing sensitive
receptors within the MSD or AOI. Updating policies to remove potential for new sensitive
receptors in these areas may leave lands underutilized or indicate a transition of these
existing neighbourhoods to other types of commercial uses which may not have their own
provincial setbacks but may not be a good fit for that area of those communities. For
consideration, The Province’s Minimum Distance Separation Guidelines which are focused on
odour from livestock facilities permit new sensitive land uses like houses that do not meet
MDS setbacks to livestock facilities where there are 4 or more existing sensitive uses
between the new house and the facility. Although not entirely analogous, there may be
merit to considering these opportunities to manage new land uses in neighbourhoods where
conflicts (such as they are) are already established.

Regulation of Aggregate Activities:
Aggregate Extraction uses are regulated under the Aggregate Resources Act, with study
requirements that apply where extraction is within a minimum distance of sensitive
receptors; for example, noise studies are required for extraction or processing within 150m
of a ‘sensitive receptor’ and noise and blasting studies required for quarries within 500m of
a ‘sensitive receptor.’
Currently the County Official Plan requires gravel pit setbacks of 125m and 215 metres for a
quarry to a dwelling (unless less is justified).
The proposed guideline focuses on preventing new sensitive uses near pits and quarries,
establishes an Area of Influence of 1000m for aggregate extraction that has ‘Class 3’
impacts, and a minimum separation distance of 500m for new sensitive uses (like houses)
near any Aggregate Extraction facilities. These criteria would apply to sensitive uses (like
dwellings) that require a planning Act approval.
Currently the Official Plan prohibits consent applications for residential or similar uses
(except for surplus farm dwellings or existing uses) within 500 metres of a Mineral Resource
Area, regardless of whether it is licensed for extraction. The Plan and zoning by-laws do not
generally prohibit someone from constructing a dwelling on an existing lot of record in
proximity to an existing pit or quarry, as the use exists and its impacts should be considered
by the person establishing the use. Zoning amendments to establish pits and quarries
typically apply only to the subject lands, and do not introduce new regulations to other
properties surrounding the use.
Full implementation of the guideline through updated plans and by-laws could see a 500m
setback for new sensitive uses from any new pit or quarry regardless of scale, whereas
notice is only issued to properties within 120m and a pit can as near as 150m from an
existing dwelling without requirement for noise studies. Bruce County recommends that the
province consider opportunities to consider scale of operations and the public concerns that
may arise from approaches that appear to be unbalanced.

Closed Landfill Sites:
Current guidelines establish a 500 metre distance for many land uses from closed landfill
sites, with studies required if development would be located closer. While the intent of
separation distances is good, non-operating sites may need additional criteria, as it appears
that the new MSD is 500 metres, and the AOI is determined on a case-by-case basis beyond
that. Updating plans and by-laws to include a 500m MSD may impact permitted uses in
larger portions of settlement areas that have already been evaluated with respect to
leachate or methane gas migration.

Cannabis Production:
The proposed guidelines include details for consideration of indoor cannabis cultivation
facilities in settlement areas and all cannabis processing facilities, which are an emerging
issue discussed in the Plan the Bruce: Agriculture Interim report. Approaches to classifying
the use to determine area of influence, and minimum separation distances for these
cannabis-related activities are consistent with the approach for chemical plants, cement
plants, and refineries. This represents a significant change in availability for these facilities
to locate in, or existing facilities to expand, in some of our settlement areas, and could
impact future possibilities for a facility recently approved in Walkerton.

Summary:
The Guidelines appear to be well-intentioned from the perspective of setting out to avoid
creating land use conflicts. They may be effective in newly planned high-growth areas
where significant areas can be designated for land uses of different sensitivities. However if
implemented as intended, rural Municipalities may find less flexibility to locate industrial
uses in industrial areas, and many existing major facilities in settlement areas may have
greater difficulty expanding or changing their operations, including additional applications,
compatibility studies, peer reviews, and risks of appeal.
Bruce County encourages the province to consider greater definition and streamlining of
low-impact manufacturing facilities, opportunities for management of change for existing
uses, and the broader impacts of these regulations on rural communities.

Financial/Staffing/Legal/IT Considerations:
Implementation of the guidelines, if approved by the province, would be considered through
the development of the new County Official Plan.

Interdepartmental Consultation:
Staff discussed the guidelines with Grey County Planning Staff to gain insight into potential
impacts across the region.