here - Town of South Bruce Peninsula

Town of South Bruce Peninsula
Planning Report
Application: SBP OP Review
File No:
1972-15-02
Date:
February 3, 2016
1. Purpose of Report
This report reviews and considers changes to Rural Area policies in respect of the Town of
South Bruce Peninsula Official Plan as part of a 5 year review under Section 26 of the Planning
Act. This report is undertaken as “Part 1” of the review of the TSBP Official Plan. Part 2 will
review policies for Urban / Settlement Areas within the Plan.
The Town of South Bruce Peninsula Official Plan (SBPOP) (click here) was adopted in 2003
and came into force and effect in 2004. The Plan is structured in two parts. Sections 1-10 apply
to various designations within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. Section 11 consists of the
Wiarton Community Plan, originally developed in the early 1990s, re-adopted into the Townwide SBPOP, and applicable to lands within the Wiarton Settlement Area.
Since the Plan was adopted the Province has issued new Policy Statements, most recently the
2014 Provincial Policy Statement (click here) which came into effect April 30, 2014. The
SBPOP is required to conform to the Provincial Policy Statement and to the policies of the upper
tier plans which are in effect.
The Town has initiated a review of the Plan to assess its conformity with the Planning Act,
Provincial Policy Statement 2014, Niagara Escarpment Plan, and County Official Plan and its
ongoing relevance to the Community, and to undertake amendments which may be necessary.
2. Preliminary Recommendation
Following review of the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, Niagara Escarpment Plan,
and the Bruce County Official Plan Staff recommend that Rural Areas Policies of the Bruce
County Official Plan provide an appropriate policy framework for governing development outside
of Primary and Secondary settlement areas such as Wiarton, Sauble Beach, Allenford, and
Hepworth. Additional policy coverage at the local Official Plan level:



Is not required to achieve plan objectives, which are generally comparable between the
County Official Plan and the SBPOP
Reduces the ability of the town to be flexible and adapt to changing circumstances.
Requires additional resources for reviewing, maintaining, and amending policies in
conformity with various higher-level plans and documents.
Staff accordingly recommends that, in considering its Official Plan, Council:
1. Receive this report regarding Rural Area coverage in the Town of South Bruce
Peninsula Official Plan.
2. Support the removal of local plan coverage of areas outside of the Primary Urban areas
of Wiarton and the Secondary Urban Areas of Hepworth, Allenford, and Sauble Beach.
The exact mechanism for removal (deletion of these areas or adoption of a new plan for
urban areas only) will be recommended during Phase 2, when the scope of change to
the Urban Areas policies is becomes known.
3. Determine whether policies which are currently more restrictive in the SBPOP such as
for:
 Surplus farm dwellings;
 Consents of rural non-farm lots;
 Recreational facilities within Travel Trailer Parks / Commercial campgrounds;
 an Aggregate Haul Route in northern Albemarle Township; and
 Applications for new Extractive Industrial Use
Are important to retain, and if so to make this determination through a resolution of
Council following public submissions as per the process outlined Appendix ‘A’
4. Request that Bruce County Council, through its Planning and Development Committee,
proceed with updates to necessary policies of the County of Bruce Official Plan, and
request that in undertaking these amendments the County provide opportunities for open
houses and other methods of public consultation throughout the County including South
Bruce Peninsula.
3. Context
Bruce County has 8 local Municipalities, of which 2 – the Town of South Bruce Peninsula and
the Township of Huron-Kinloss – have Official Plans for all areas within the Municipality. Other
Municipal or “Local” Official Plans apply only to settlement areas.
The County Official Plan is structured to provide general policies for land use in settlement
areas and to provide both general and specific policies for land use in Rural areas (anywhere
outside of settlement areas, including areas with primarily cottage or recreational development
around lakes and small hamlets). The SBPOP must conform to the County Plan, though it can
be more restrictive.
The Niagara Escarpment Plan applies to parts of Wiarton, Colpoys Bay, Hope Bay, and Rural
areas associated with the Escarpment in the former Albemarle Township. The Town’s Official
Plan is required to conform to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, although it may be more restrictive.
What does this mean for development proposals?
Having policies for Rural areas (which are similar to those of the County Plan) means that
development proposals that require an amendment to the County plan also require an
amendment to the SBPOP, and some applications require amendments to the SBPOP but not
the County Official Plan. This requires public meetings at the local level for the plan
amendment and forwarding the amendment to the County for approval.
Is this really an issue?
Since it came into effect in 2003 there have been 42 applications to amend the SBPOP
(average of 3.6 per year). 19 of these amendments have been related to properties in “Urban”
areas – such as Wiarton, Sauble Beach, Hepworth, and Allenford, while the balance (23) have
been for Pits and Quarrys (10) Shoreline and Inland Lake areas (7) and Rural Lands or
Agricultural Lands (6).
Is Council’s ability to make decisions impacted by having or not having Rural Areas in the Plan?
Typically a development that requires an Official Plan Amendment also requires an amendment
or a minor variance to the Zoning by-law (which implements the Plan). This involves a public
meeting and opportunity for the local municipality to consider passing a by-law.
In most cases removal of Plan coverage in Rural areas would not reduce opportunity for public
input or for decision-making by the local municipality. Removing Rural plan coverage could
however reduce the time and cost required to process development applications.
So what do these policies say? Is there any benefit to having them in the first place?
Section 4 of this report provides a comparison of the policies of the South Bruce Peninsula
Offical Plan (SBPOP) and the County Official Plan, highlights differences between them, and
considers potential impacts if the SBPOP has no rural areas policies.
4. Land Use Policy Review
Rural Areas in the SBPOP are classified in the following designations:
4.1.
Environmental Policies
4.1.1.
Environmental – Wetland
4.1.2.
Environmental – Significant Areas
4.1.3.
Environmental – Hazard
4.2.
Open Space
4.3.
Agriculture
4.4.
Rural
4.5.
Estate Residential (Beattie Lake, Spry Lake, some areas near Oliphant)
4.6.
Residential (in hamlet areas and clustered along County Rd 8 (by Sauble River)
4.7. Shoreline Development (includes Colpoys Village – Designated Hamlet in County
Plan).
4.8.
Future Residential
4.9.
Institutional (Selah Camp and cemeteries)
4.10.
Commercial
4.11.
Recreational Commercial
4.12.
Industrial
4.13.
Extractive Industrial.
4.14.
Potential Extractive Industrial
4.15.
Waste Disposal Industrial
The following policy review summarizes these designations and analyzes their policies in
comparison to the County Official Plan. The numbering of each section of the following review is
the same as the Sections in the SBPOP.
4.1 Environmental Policies
Environmental Policies are classified into 3 categories: Wetland, Significant Area, and Hazard
area.
4.1.1. Environmental – Wetland
This designation includes Provincial, Regional, and locally-significant wetlands. The purpose of
this designation is to identify wetland areas which require protection from disturbance and/or
incompatible land uses. The Plan prohibits development within the wetlands and requires an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to support development proposals within 120 metres of the
designation.
In comparison, the County Official Plan requires an EIS within 120 metres of a provincially
significant wetland (PSW) and within 60 metres of a locally significant wetland (LSW).
By way of background, in the late 1970s the province issued a provincial policy statement on
wetlands (predated Comprehensive PPS). A map was produced at 1: 50,000 scale around 1980
to support the policy statement by showing which wetlands met criteria for provincial
significance.
When the County Official Plan was prepared for adoption in 1997, this source map was used to
devise Schedule “C” to the County Official Plan – Constraints. Schedule C shows wetlands in
classes 1 to 3 as “Provincially Significant”, and any of the other evaluated wetlands on the 1980
map as being “Locally Significant”. Neither the County Plan nor the SBPOP provide further
definition or criteria for “Regionally” significant wetlands.
Summary: The main difference between the two policies is the threshold for requiring an EIS in
relation to locally significant wetlands: the County Plan requires an EIS within 60m of a LSW,
while the SBPOP requires an Environmental Impact Study within 120 metres of a LSW.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: development may be permitted in lands that are 60-120m
from a locally significant wetland without an EIS. The areas affected are illustrated on Appendix
‘B’. Some development within these areas is permitted within the scope of the zoning by-law.
Based on Planning designations the lands around Chesley Lake (Map 1) generally have limited
potential for additional development that would not also be addressed by the County Plan
requirement for an EIS within 120 metres of fish habitat. The lands south of Wiarton (Map 2)
and in the north part of Albemarle Township (Map 3) are rural lands, some of which have been
evaluated as part of a licensed aggregate extraction facility. For additional development that
would trigger an EIS a 60 metre buffer from the LSW is likely sufficient.
4.1.2. Environmental – Significant Area
The plan describes these areas as “lands deemed to have special environmental significance due
to their ecological function, attributes or linkages, and, for example, encompass significant
valleylands, fish and wildlife habitat, primary woodlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest
and lands under the authority of the Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources or
agencies such as the Federation of Ontario Naturalists.”
A review of Background mapping for this designation indicates that significant valleylands, primary
woodlands, or fish habitat have not been identified in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula and did
not form part of the basis for this designation. Deer yards (significant wildlife habitat) are
identified, but do not accurately reflect currently mapped deer yards. It appears that the prevailing
criteria for this designation is ownership by CAs, MNR, or a landowner requesting the designation
and Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest.
County Plan policies address publicly held / conservation lands through the Open Space
designation. In general, these lands are subject to management plans by the various
organizations which achieve the plan’s conservation objectives. The County Plan identifies Areas
of Natural and Scientific Interest through constraints mapping.
Both the local plan and the County plan permit limited development as-of-right within these areas
which is reflected through the general approach of zoning them OS Open Space or RU1 General
Rural.
Summary: There is comparable mapping coverage and minimal policy difference between the
County Plan and SBPOP for areas described in the SBP OP as “Environmental-Significant Area.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: there would be no significant policy impact on lands
designated ‘Environmental – Significant Area’
4.1.3. Environmental – Hazard
This designation applies to lands that are unsuited to development due to inherent hazards such
as their susceptibility to flooding or erosion, poor drainage, organic soils or steep slopes.
Permitted uses are limited to a range of conservation and public uses, excepting habitable
buildings and structures.
The SBPOP has two separate schedules for Hazard Land Areas; one set is within the various
schedules, and the other is appended as Schedule ‘T.’ Schedule ‘T’ represents what was the
best available information from the Conservation Authority and the County Official Plan at the
time that the plan was prepared.
Both the County Plan and the SBPOP note that mapped boundaries are approximate and can
be more precisely defined in consultation with Conservation Authority / Approval Authority
without requiring a plan amendment. If more information is required in respect of a development
proposal, both plans place responsibility for costs of engineering / mapping / research on the
proponent. Both plans also require an EIS to support substantial changes to hazard area
boundaries / development within hazard land areas and generally speak of Environmental
considerations as well appropriate engineering.
Both plans note that Hazard designations may apply to privately owned lands; that Hazard lands
are not necessarily free and open to the public; and that the Municipality / Public authorities are
under no obligation to acquire Hazard lands (although they may do so if it is considered to be in
the public interest).
The County Plan has specific policies for an area of the Sauble River near Allenford that is
subject to ice jams. The SBPOP has more specific policies around Conservation Authority
regulated areas, which are applicable whether or not they are referenced in the plan. The
SBPOP text also has more descriptive language about the risks associated with various types of
hazards.
Summary: Both plans have comparable approaches to hazard land areas.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: there would be no significant policy impact on lands
designated ‘Environmental – Hazard’
4.2. Open Space
The SBP OP Open Space designation applies to existing public and private parks and the policies
of this section are intended to guide the establishment of new public and private parks. Public
recreation areas are to be expanded as development proceeds. The designation directs that, in
determining the optimum location for public and private parks, particular care shall be taken to
ensure that significant public open space areas are provided in the vicinity of areas of
concentrated residential development, and, wherever possible, school sites.
The County Plan Open Space designation applies to large scale outdoor recreation and natural
areas (including Golf Courses), crown lands, Conservation Authority Lands, County Forests and
National Parks, and Provincially owned-lands. In general, Municipal parks are not included as
they are permitted in most land use designations. The County Plan also permits golf courses and
other space-extensive recreational commercial uses (ski facilities, riding stables. equestrian
centres, etc.) as Rural Commercial uses, within the Rural designation, without amending the
Official Plan provided a number of development criteria are met.
Summary: Lands designated ‘Open Space’ in the County Plan are generally designated either
‘Open Space’ or ‘Environmental-Significant Area’ in the SBPOP (reviewed in section 4.2 above).
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: Large-scale Rural Open Space areas would generally
remain within the County’s Open Space network. Private Parks / golf courses and other spaceextensive recreational commercial uses would be subject to the Rural Commercial policies of
the County’s Official Plan, which would be considered on a case-by-case basis through zoning
by-law amendments.
Note: Open Space or Park policies within settlement areas will be reviewed in the context of
urban areas policies of the SBPOP, and discuss concepts of Natural Heritage Systems that are
identified in the PPS (2014) as they relate to urban areas.
4.3. Agriculture
The SBPOP Agricultural Designation includes lands that are within Canada Land Inventory soil
classes 1, 2, and 3, class 4 lands where agricultural uses are predominate, lands which have
high capability for specialty crops, and lands which exhibit characteristics of ongoing viable
agricultural use.
The County Official Plan’s Agricultural Areas designation pursues the same objective in a different
way, and includes Class 1, 2 and 3 soils as defined by the Canada Land Inventory Soil Capability
Classification for Agricultural Capability that are greater than 80 hectares in size, and pockets of
Class 4, 5, 6, or 7 soils that are smaller than 80 hectares in size. As a result, this designation will
include a combination of higher capability and lower capability soils. The designation has been
determined based upon the 80 hectare majority of the predominant soil type.
The County Plan notes that a local municipality may develop a local strategy to identify agricultural
areas through an Amendment to this Plan, or by preparation of a Local Official Plan, such as the
SBPOP.
The approach used in the County Plan identifies more lands as “Agricultural” than the SBPOP,
though generally in similar locations. The County Plan designates larger Agricultural areas in
the Half Mile Strip, areas around Maryville Lake Road and just north of Gould Lake (which are
also mapped as an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest), and open areas within the diagonal
concessions west of Clavering, and north and east of Spry Lake. However, the County Plan
identifies a largely forested pocket of land between Allenford Road and Bruce Road 14 (south of
Bruce Road 8) as ‘Rural’ while these lands are designated ‘Agricultural’ (together with
surrounding lands) in the SBPOP.
The County Plan describes a process for a comprehensive Land Evaluation Area Review
(LEAR) if it is apparent that the Canada Land Inventory Approach has limitations in a particular
area. This is intended as a large-scale process involving the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and
Rural Affairs. The SBPOP outlines a process for site-specific amendments based on a number
of considerations. In 2003, the Municipality of Kincardine undertook a LEAR in the area near
Tiverton that redesignated some areas from Agricultural to Rural based in large part on the
extent of existing fragmentation. From a desktop review of these lands it does not appear that
there is extensive fragmentation within Agricultural lands identified in the County or Local
Official Plans for South Bruce Peninsula.
In terms of policy, the County Plan defines Agricultural uses more thoroughly than the SBPOP.
Permitted uses, including secondary uses or secondary compatible uses are comparable in their
concepts. The SBPOP does specifically note that council should consider adequacy of access
from existing and proposed roads for secondary uses; in the County Plan this is addressed
more specifically in terms of changing legal conforming uses to similar uses that are permitted in
the Agricultural or Rural designation. The County Plan permits a primary farm residence as well
as a secondary farm residence on the same lot, whereas the SBPOP permits a farm dwelling
and permits garden suites and apartments through a site-specific zoning by-law amendment.
Both the County Plan and the SBPOP allow consents in the Agricultural designation under
limited circumstances, including for Agricultural lots (generally one 40 ha / 100 ac lots),
dwellings surplus to a farm operation (provided the farm lands are zoned to prohibit residential
uses), and agriculturally-related commercial and industrial uses. Policies are generally similar
and limit the number of severances from an original township lot in the Agricultural designation
to one additional lot. The SBPOP places a further restriction on severances of surplus farm
dwellings, restricting them to circumstances where the farm operation that is acquiring the
parcel is abutting or across a road.
There has been little formal interest in surplus farm dwelling severances in South Bruce
Peninsula; review of written inquiries as far back as 2004 yielded only seven letters in regard to
this type of application, and the comprehensive zoning by-law indicates three Rural properties
subject to site-specific zoning which prohibits residential uses. In general, we note that farm
consolidations are often associated with cash crop operations, while agricultural operations in
the Town of South Bruce Peninsula have tended to be more oriented around livestock. Some
inquiries and severances of existing dwellings on lots designated “Rural” have occurred, and
achieve the same objective for the farmer without the prohibition of new residential uses that
applies on lands within the Agricultural designation.
Summary: Agricultural policies are similar in the County Plan and SBPOP. The TSBP official
plan has additional restrictions on surplus farm dwelling severances, limiting them to
acquisitions of abutting or adjacent (across a road) farm parcels.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: Surplus farm severance policies could be addressed by:
.1 Using County Policy (surplus dwelling severances not limited to situations where an
adjacent/ abutting farm is acquiring another farm).
.2 Requesting a Countywide amendment to restrict surplus farm severances to adjacent /
abutting properties.
.3 Requesting a special policy for agricultural areas in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to
restrict surplus farm dwelling severances to adjacent / abutting holdings.
4.4. Rural
Lands designated Rural are areas with lower agricultural capability and generally encompass
Class 5, 6, and 7 soils, as established by the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) of Soil Capability for
Agriculture, as well as Class 4 soils where non-agricultural uses are predominant. While these
lands are considered marginal in terms of agriculture, some do accommodate existing agricultural
operations, and it is the intent of this Plan to maintain the viability of these existing farm uses.
The amount and type of non-farm development permitted within the Rural designation shall be
consistent with maintaining the Town’s historical agricultural community and rural character while
protecting its natural heritage features.
The rural designation permits all of the uses permitted in the agricultural designation as well as
recreational facilities, (such as golf courses, lodges, ski facilities and special event facilities), and
a kennel/riding club, subject to a zoning by-law amendment. Further policies require an Official
Plan amendment for proposals involving parcels greater than 160 hectares (395 ac) and/or
significant site alteration / major buildings and structures.
The County Official Plan method of mapping Agricultural and Rural designations is discussed
above.
The rural designation consists of original Township lots and smaller lots. The plan generally
discourages rural fragmentation. Consents policies limit lot creation to one 1 additional lot per
Township lot, but do not include infill lots (between existing non-farm lots or between non-farm
lots and a natural feature such as river/stream/steep slope) in the count. Notwithstanding these
policies, the County Official Plan limits lot creation in the Rural designation to either 2 x 20 ha (50
ac) or 2 non-farm lots (approx. 2 ac) plus a retained parcel, with a note that the first non-farm lot
severed from a township lot must be built upon before second lot will be considered.
Overall, GIS data indicates a supply of 378 vacant rural-zoned properties with road access in
the Town of South Bruce Peninsula as of early 2015, of which 166 are smaller than 4 hectares.
Over the period from 2000-2015 (16 years) a total of 505 dwelling units have been constructed
in the former Amabel Township; 349 of these were in the Sauble Beach and Oliphant areas,
leaving 155 in rural areas, Allenford, and around inland lakes such as Gould Lake and Chesley
Lake. A total of 161 dwelling units were constructed in all areas of the former Albemarle
Township over this time period, suggesting that at these rates of development there is not a
pressing need for additional rural lot creation over the period of the planning horizon.
Summary: Objectives of the SBPOP Rural policies and the County Official Plan Rural Policies
are comparable. The SBPOP approach to rural consents is more generally more restrictive
than the County Plan and the combination of policies effectively limits consents to 1 non-farm lot
per Township lot or 2 in the case of “infilling.”
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: the “infilling” requirement would not apply to severance of a
second lot from a rural Township lot.
4.5. Estate Residential (Beattie Lake, Spry Lake, some areas near Oliphant)
The Estate Residential designation is intended to provide residents of the Town with an
alternate (rural) lifestyle opportunity in settings offering significant rural attributes such as scenic
views, proximity to valleylands or natural water-bodies, tree cover and/or undulating topography.
The designation reflects existing lots near Beattie Lake, Spry Lake, and some areas near
Oliphant. These areas are designated Inland Lake Development or Shoreline Development in
the County Official Plan.
The County Official Plan also has an estate residential designation with criteria to evaluate
estate residential proposals. Within the County there are limited existing areas identified as
“Estate Residential.” Since the Plan was adopted there have been no applications for new
estate residential areas.
As noted above there is a healthy supply of vacant rural lots on opened roads in the Town of
South Bruce Peninsula. Estate Residential policies require that development proposals use
internal subdivision road systems to access new lots.
Summary: There are limited areas of existing lots within the “Estate Residential” designation.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: Direction for existing ‘Estate Residential’ areas in the Town
of South Bruce Peninsula would be appropriately provided by ‘Rural Recreational’ and ‘Inland
Lake Development’ policies within the County Official Plan. Any new proposals could be
evaluated against the Provincial Policy Statement and policies of the County Official Plan in
effect at the time of the proposal.
4.6. Residential (in hamlet areas and clustered along County Rd 8 (by Sauble River)
The Town identifies some lands in Rural areas as “Residential,” including hamlet areas such as
Mar and Park Head and a residential cluster along Bruce County Road 8 near the Sauble River.
The Town’s Residential policies are also applied to settlement areas such as Hepworth and
Allenford, and include provisions for future growth in the Sauble Beach area.
Policy review and options for Primary and Secondary Urban Communities will be addressed
through the Urban Areas policy review.
Residential policies in the SBPOP and the County Plan generally permit development within
Hamlets on existing lots of record or on infill lots (where the size is appropriate for the form of
servicing available).
The Residential designated area (Clifford Street, Crescent Street, Front Street) near the Sauble
River is designated ‘Agriculture’ in the County Official Plan. Based on existing development,
and lot configuration, this area which is fully developed except for one marginal lot is effectively
limited to the existing uses and lot layout.
Summary: This designation generally applies to settlement areas, hamlets and a cluster of
dwellings near the Sauble River.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: Hamlets and the cluster noted above can be addressed
through Hamlet policies of the County Plan and Agricultural policies which allow residential uses
on existing lots of record.
4.7. Shoreline Development (includes Colpoys Village – Designated Hamlet in County Plan).
The Shoreline Development Area within the Town recognizes developed seasonal tourist
commercial and permanent residential areas along the shoreline and inland lakes and the
communities of Sauble Beach, Oliphant, Howdenvale-Red Bay, Colpoys Bay, Hope Bay and
Mallory Beach. The existing development within these areas is recognized, however, the
protection of the resource (i.e. the waterfront) which is the “raison d’etre” (reason for being) for
the development is paramount.
As noted above, developed areas of Spry Lake and Beattie Lake are designated ‘Estate
Residential.’
Corresponding designations in the County Official Plan are generally “Rural Recreational Area”
and “Inland Lake Development Area.” Colpoys Bay is designated a “Hamlet” in the County Official
Plan and a ‘Minor Urban Centre’ in the Niagara Escarpment Plan. The Rural Recreational
designation applies to areas along the Lake Huron / Georgian Bay shoreline which do not have
access to Municipal water and Municipal sewer services. The plan identifies existing developed
areas and permits limited additional development through infilling and rounding out of
development. The County Plan designation notes that intensive site evaluations have not been
undertaken for these lands and “the designation of land as Rural Recreational Area is no
assurance that any given land is suitable for development.”
Rural Recreational policies in the County Plan are designed to provide detailed policy coverage
for areas that are not included within a local Official Plan, and to provide parent policies for
areas that are also included in a local Official Plan.
The County Plan requires that Local Plans which provide policy coverage in the Rural
Recreational designation include detailed policies addressing development issues unique to
lakeshore areas, including:
i)
Policies directing both seasonal and year round residential uses, and the circumstances
in which year round uses are permitted, including references to scale and intensity of
development and public waterfront access availability;
ii)
Servicing policies addressing private, communal and municipal sewage and water
servicing;
iii)
Detailed commercial use policies dealing with redevelopment of existing uses, and may
include policies permitting a broader range of commercial services;
iv)
Detailed and refined land use designations, such as open space, resort commercial,
natural environment or hazard areas, and neighbourhood commercial providing for specific
uses within the designations.
The County Plan further describes that local Municipalities need either a local plan with specific
policies to permit permanent residential uses or need to conduct a neighbourhood by
neighbourhood review that evaluates the suitability of each neighbourhood for year-round
residential uses, and then recognize appropriate areas in a year-round zone.
The Municipal zoning by-law has identified most areas within the Rural Recreational designation
as R2 Resort Residential or R1A Un-serviced Detached Residential. The most substantive
criteria in these areas is whether the road is maintained on a year-round basis. General
provisions of the zoning by-law require frontage on a year-round road in order for a building
permit to be issued. Section 5.3 of the SBPOP outlines the process by which a property without
frontage on a year-round road may become eligible for a building permit. This section requires
compliance with the zoning by-law, which is generally achieved, where appropriate, through a
minor variance application to provide relief from the requirement for frontage on an opened and
maintained road. The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula employs a similar process but
has not defined it in a local Official Plan.
General policies for development on islands are the same in both plans, with the County Official
Plan providing additional details regarding requirements for evaluating for large-scale
developments should they be proposed.
In respect of Inland Lakes, both Plans are essentially identical and identify that “All inland lakes
in the County are environmentally sensitive due to their size, depth, rate of in-flow and rate of
out-flow. In some cases, the existing density of development has created problems to the
extent that many lakes may be at or above their natural carrying capacity.” Development is to
be reviewed with a cautionary approach, and generally limited to infilling and minor rounding out
of development. Major developments would require a plan amendment. Commercial uses are
limited to existing uses with minor expansions / upgrading and limited-scale convenience
commercial uses.
The County’s “Hamlet” designation provides additional flexibility for uses in Colpoys Bay than
either the County’s ‘Rural Recreational’ or SBPOP ‘Shoreline Development’ designations; these
uses include some dry industrial uses and a broader range of commercial and institutional uses
(such as a Community Centre) than the essentially tourism-oriented uses that are permitted in
the Rural Recreational designation.
Summary: Shoreline Development and Inland Lake Development Policies in the SBPOP are
essentially identical. The County Plan’s designation of Colpoys Bay as a “Hamlet” provides the
possibility of additional flexibility in the range of permitted uses.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: The ‘Colpoys Bay’ settlement area would be subject to
‘Hamlet’ policies which contemplates a broader range of uses than the Town’s ‘shoreline
development’ designation, subject to the zoning by-law.
4.8. Future Residential
The Future Residential designation is a holding category encompassing lands within the Town’s
settlement areas where residential development is expected to occur. This development is
restricted pending the completion of the necessary studies to justify such development.
Development in the Future Residential designation may proceed without an Official Plan
amendment and is to be evaluated based on outcomes of various studies and the subdivision
approval process and zoning by-law.
The Future Residential designation is applied to lands at the south end of Hepworth (adjacent to
Pine Tree Drive), some areas around Silver Lake (south Sauble Beach area) as well as larger
non-waterfront lots in Oliphant and Red Bay.
Summary: Both plans provide for detailed evaluation of development proposals in the lands
designated ‘future residential in the SBPOP.’ Urban policies and County plan “Rural Recreation”
policies can address development proposals in these areas.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be no appreciable impact on these lands. The
Hepworth and Sauble areas can be addressed through urban areas policies in the SBPOP. Other
areas within this designation are designated “Rural Recreation” in the County Official Plan and
would require detailed evaluation under these policies of the issues (Environmental Impact, Traffic
Impact, Stormwater Management, and Hydrogeology) that are currently identified in the SBPOP.
4.9. Institutional (Selah Camp and cemeteries)
The Institutional designation recognizes existing Institutional uses throughout the Town and
directs that uses be for buildings and properties which are public, semi-public or private and
non-profit in nature and sets out uses such as schools, churches, cemeteries, service clubs,
municipal buildings, and other similar uses.
In Rural Areas, the “Institutional” designation is found mostly within identified hamlets (such as
Purple Valley, Park Head, Mar, Colpoy’s Bay) or in Shoreline Development/Rural Recreational
areas (where they are permitted in the County Official Plan), or in urban areas where they are
encouraged to locate by the County Plan and can be dealt with through urban areas policies.
The Plan does not generally encourage new institutional uses outside of Settlement areas.
Outside of settlement areas, the Hepworth Legion is designated ‘Institutional’ as is the Selah
camp on Berford Lake. In the County Plan These uses are subject to policies which provide for
existing uses to be permitted in the comprehensive Zoning By-law.
Summary: Most Institutional uses are located in settlement areas. New Institutional uses are
encouraged to locate in settlement areas.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be no appreciable impact on existing
Institutional-designated uses in Rural areas. Conversion of surplus institutional buildings in
“Rural Areas” to new uses could be accomplished through a zoning by-law amendment without
requiring an Official Plan Amendment.
4.10. Commercial
Similar to Institutional uses, the SBPOP directs Commercial uses to settlement areas. The
policies that are in place in respect of commercial uses are based on settlement areas. Rural
Area planning maps, however, place some existing commercial uses in the Commercial
designation, such as the “Handicraft House” on Highway 6 north of Wiarton, and a restaurant at
the corner of South Oliphant Road and the Sauble Falls Parkway (Bruce County Road 13).
Summary: As with Institutional uses, existing use policies of the County Official Plan and
zoning by-law are adequate tools to address these uses.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be no appreciable impact on existing
Commercial-designated uses in Rural areas.
4.11. Recreational Commercial
The Recreational Commercial designation applies to existing tourist facilities which provide
accommodation to the traveling public in the form of campgrounds, along with accessory
recreational and commercial facilities. New campgrounds require an Official Plan Amendment.
Policies associated with this designation provide criteria for Recreational Commercial uses and
for allowing Park Model trailers, and require clustering, recreational facilities for the park residents
to avoid overwhelming municipal recreation facilities, appropriate sanitary and water services,
traffic issue to be addressed, and a report regarding environmental impacts and mitigation.
The County Official Plan provides a more thorough description of the information requirements
for a Travel Trailer Park or commercial campground, but does not have a specific requirement for
recreational facilities for park residents. The plan also provides that separate and distinct areas
within a campground could be identified for permanent residential uses, subject to specific criteria.
Summary: These policies are comparable in their intent.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be no appreciable impact on existing
Recreational Commercial uses. Amending County Official Plan policies to include requirements
for recreational facilities within campgrounds and trailer parks for their users may be a worthy
consideration.
4.12. Industrial
Industrial Policies in the SBPOP direct new industrial development to the Wiarton Settlement
area. Our review of Rural areas identified one Industrial-designated property outside of any
settlement area, along Red Bay Road. This property is subject to a site-specific zone which
permits an automobile and farm machinery repair establishment with site-specific criteria.
The County Official Plan permits Farm-related Commercial and Industrial uses (in the
Agricultural designation) and permits farm related and other Rural Commercial and Industrial
uses in the Rural designation.
Summary: The single ‘Industrial’ designated property outside of a settlement area in the TSBP
Plan is also addressed in the County Official Plan through general Rural Industrial policies.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be no appreciable impact on the existing
Industrial-designated property. Future Industrial uses in Rural areas could be addressed
through policies of the County Official Plan.
4.13. Extractive Industrial.
The Extractive Industrial Designation is for areas for extraction, processing, and storage of
mineral aggregates and includes both pits and quarries. Mineral Aggregate resources are given
particular attention in the Provincial Policy Statement which requires that they be identified where
possible, protected for long-term use (from development and activities that would preclude/hinder
expansion), and as much of the resource as realistically possible be made available as close to
markets as possible. The PPS excludes mineral aggregate proposals from market or
supply/demand analysis, requires that extraction minimize social, economic, and environmental
impacts, and requires progressive and final rehabilitation to accommodate subsequent land uses.
The PPS also encourages comprehensive rehabilitation planning where there is a concentration
of mineral aggregate operations.
Mineral Aggregate Resources are also governed by the Provincial Aggregate Resources Act
(ARA) which is administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources through operational standards
and a licensing process. Licenses can be issued under the Aggregate Resources Act when
permitted by the Official Plan and implementing zoning by-law.
The SBPOP has detailed extractive industrial policies which address permitted uses, criteria to
be considered in amendments (to establish a new pit or quarry), abandoned pits and quarries,
and wayside pits and quarries which are temporary operations for specific projects. New or
expanding quarries require a plan amendment; wayside pits and quarries are generally permitted
(subject to an A.R.A. license) without amendment, except in the various “Environmental”
designations or in areas of existing development. The SBPOP also has policies to address
requests for amendments to existing licenses which do not require applications under the
Planning Act.
The County Plan also has policies to address permitted uses, permitting expansion to existing
approved quarries through a zoning by-law amendment (in conformity with the policies of the
County plan) and setting out supporting information criteria, location criteria, and policies for
wayside pits and quarries and portable asphalt plants.
Although Mineral aggregate operations are recognized and described as an interim use, in some
cases large quarry areas and relatively limited rates of extraction (such as 20,000 tonnes per year
for some dimension stone quarries) can lead to an anticipated effective operational timeframe in
excess of 100 years. Quarry areas in the Town will likely be quarry areas for a long time to come.
It may therefore be appropriate to consider complementary uses such as other forms of rural
industrial uses on exhausted quarry lands that can benefit from proximity to other aggregate
extraction operations and the noise buffers that have been established for quarry activities,
provided that potential environmental impacts can be addressed.
The Planning Department is in the process of reviewing County Official Plan policies regarding
Aggregate Resources in order to ensure consistency with the PPS (2014) and ongoing changes
in the aggregate industry including best practices and increasingly complex operations. This
review also considers the policies in the SBPOP which provide for increased public notification
distance and other requirements for public engagement.
4.14.
Potential Extractive Industrial
The SBPOP also has a “Potential Extractive Industrial” designation which is intended to recognize
and protect aggregate resources (consolidated, such as bedrock) and unconsolidated (such as
gravel) for possible future extraction. This designation allows conservation, forestry, and
agricultural uses, single-detached dwellings and accessory buildings, and allows existing uses to
be recognized in the zoning by-law.
The Plan identifies a future haulage route through the northern part of the Municipality to provide
access from “potential extractive industrial” lands near Hope Bay directly to Highway 6 (as an
alternative to Bruce County Road 9). Although a route in this area has recently been considered
as a possible haul route it is not at present being pursued as part of any applications.
The County Plan identifies Mineral Resource Areas on Schedule ‘C’ – Constraints. Policies
associated with this area prohibit residential lot creation (except for severance of existing
dwellings surplus to a farm operation) within or near these constraints. The purpose of this
restriction is to minimize fragmentation of lands and sensitive uses.Summary: The SBPOP and
County OP have similar Aggregate Extraction objectives.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be no appreciable impact on existing quarries.
New proposals would be subject to local consideration through a zoning amendment, and to the
evaluation criteria of the County Official Plan. Incorporating policies from the SBPOP into the
County Plan may be beneficial to review of aggregate proposals across the County. Developing
a Quarry Cluster secondary plan may be appropriate to provide additional guidance for specific
areas near Wiarton and Hope Bay. Preliminary consultation with MNRF and operators in respect
of the Wiarton quarry cluster indicates that there may be some benefit to a secondary planning
process to consider land use, infrastructure, and economic development opportunities, however
it is beyond the scope of the current review.
4.15. Waste Disposal Industrial
The PPS requires that Waste Management systems be provided that are of an appropriate size
and type to accommodate present and future requirements, and facilitate, encourage and
promote reduction, reuse and recycling objectives. Planning authorities should consider the
implications of development and land use patterns on waste generation, management and
diversion. Waste management systems shall be located and designed in accordance with
provincial legislation and standards.
The SBPOP identifies two Solid Waste Disposal sites in Rural areas of the Town, one of which
(Amabel) is in active use.
In 2011 the Town commissioned a Waste Management Plan (available on the Town Website
(click here) at www.southbrucepeninsula.com  Public Works  Waste Management) which
reported that at current rates the landfill would reach its capacity between 2019 and 2024 (page
17). More recent annual reports indicate that disposal rates at Bruce County landfills including
the Amabel landfill have been decreasing, which is increasing their lifespan. In 2014 the
forecast was 12.7 years (2026) using the most recent 5 year average. According to the report,
the Municipality does need to consider either expansion of the landfill (which would require
amendment to the Municipality’s comprehensive zoning by-law in addition to any other MOE
requirements) or sharing facilities with another municipality. A new landfill location is not
generally considered feasible.
The SBPOP identifies criteria for locating solid waste storage or disposal sites, and requires a
plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment in order to establish a new or expanded waste
disposal site, together with a number of criteria for consideration. Planning Application
submission requirements are: anything required by the MOE, an Environmental Impact Study,
and anything else deemed relevant by the Town, County, or MOE.
The SBPOP also sets out criteria for development within a 500-metre radius of solid waste
disposal sites. The Amabel landfill site is surrounded by lands under ownership of the Town,
GSCA, and MNR. The Albemarle disposal site is relatively centrally located within a large parcel
of land, within an area of large (original Township survey) lots.
The County Official Plan emphasizes diversion and a regional approach with a shared use
system for landfill capacity, and notes that the County has the legislative basis to assume or
delegate waste diversion responsibilities as the need arises. The Highways Department
monitors landfill capacity within the County and runs a hazardous waste disposal program in
cooperation with local Municipalities. The County Plan identifies active and closed landfill
facilities as constraints and requires local plans and zoning by-laws to identify existing facilities
and protect them from incompatible land uses. The plan also prohibits new lots within 500
metres of a landfill site without approval of the appropriate authority.
Summary: The Town’s landfill has less than 20 years operating capacity remaining. Increasing
diversion from landfill may provide additional capacity, however long-term options appear to be
limited to expansion of the existing landfill or sharing capacity at another Municipality’s facility.
There is limited development potential in the area of existing waste disposal sites based on
large existing lots and public ownership around the active landfill site. MOE requirements and
the zoning amendment process provide review criteria and a public process for evaluating
landfill expansion.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be no appreciable impact. Local Plan policies
are focused on new facilities which are not considered feasible, and on addressing expansions
into potentially conflicting adjacent areas.
5. Transportation Policies
Section 5 of the SBPOP is concerned with pedestrian and vehicular traffic within the Town, and
provides policies intended to enable vehicles and pedestrians to move safely and efficiently
within a rational system of routes which are separated wherever possible. The SBPOP
classifies roads as Provincial Highways, Arterial Roads, and Local Roads.
Provincial Highway policies outline requirements of the MTO. Arterial Road policies include
existing and proposed roads, have a minimum Right-of-Way (ROW) width of 30 metres, and
note that variations in alignment or new arterial roads will be permitted without a plan
amendment so long as the intent of the plan is maintained. Local roads are identified as twolane roads which provide access to abutting properties with a 20 metre ROW and discourage
movement of through traffic. The plan does not intend that highways or arterial roads existing in
built-up areas necessarily be widened or that direct access to these roads in urban areas be
eliminated or restricted. The SBPOP also requires compliance with MTO and County
standards and requirements.
The SBPOP also addresses private, substandard, and unopened road allowances and generally
prohibits development on lots fronting on such roads, although it does provide criteria for
exceptions. General provisions of the by-law also require frontage on an opened road; some
areas have been granted exceptions in the zoning by-law based on considerable pre-existing
development. Where there is no exception in effect, proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case
basis through a minor variance or zoning by-law amendment process to provide relief from
frontage requirements where appropriate. As noted in Section 4.7 above, the Municipality of
Northern Bruce Peninsula applies a similar approach to development on substandard roads in
Rural / Rural Recreation areas, but has not included these areas within a policy context of a
local Official Plan.
The SBPOP also speaks to a trail system for non-motorized and motorized (snowmobile) trails
to facilitate interconnection of settlement areas and the linkage of municipal and regional
destinations such as area resorts, beaches, golf courses, Provincial parks and other tourist
attractions and speaks to the intention to develop a Trails Master Plan. The plan also provides
a set of principles as a guide for trail development in the Town. The County Plan (Section 4.6)
outlines a system which includes Provincial Highways, County Roads, and local roads, as well
as scenic roads, railways, recreational trails, airports, and harbours designed to facilitate the
movement of people and goods within and through the County.
County Plan Policies for Arterial and Collector Roads speak to maintaining and upgrading the
road system, and by-passes around urban areas where traffic volumes and congestion warrant.
Local Municipalities are encouraged to provide local roads; policies for local roads also allow
Municipalities to consider permitting new development on existing lots on existing private roads
and permit development of condominiums on private roadways that are suitable to
municipalities. More specific policies for provincial Highways are generally comparable to the
SBPOP policies.
County Road policies note the application of County by-laws regarding access and development
standards and set out minimum right of way widths for urban and rural roads. The West Road is
specifically exempted from the standard right-of-way policy, and the policy requires that the
right-of-way width be determined through a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (which
is currently underway).
Scenic roads can be either on County roads or in combination with local municipalities.
The County plan also encourages trails, including on railway rights-of-way and encourages local
municipalities to determine if trail linkages as part of a new development would facilitate
development of a comprehensive trail system throughout the County. The plan also
encourages local municipalities to permit trails in rural areas without amendment to the zoning
by-law, noting that consideration of compatibility of the proposed trails and adjacent uses should
be included as part of any conversion.
Summary: SBP OP Transportation policies are generally comparable to the County OP
Policies. The SBP OP has additional trails policies, and notes a potential aggregate Haul Route
across the northern portion of Albemarle Township.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be minimal impact on transportation policies in
Rural areas. The Town could make a request for the potential Albemarle haul route to be
included in Schedule ‘S’ of the County Official Plan.
6. Niagara Escarpment Plan
As noted in Section 3 of this report the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) applies to parts of
Wiarton, Colpoy’s Bay, and Rural areas of Albemarle Township that are associated with the
escarpment.
The SBPOP identifies areas subject to the Niagara Escarpment Plan in Schedule ‘A’ and
outlines the NEP designations on Schedule ‘R.’ In various places The Plan notes that the NEP
has primacy and the Town Plan is required to be consistent with the policies of the NEP, and
that subject to a public resolution from Council and consultation with and approval by the
Niagara Escarpment Commission, the SBPOP may be changed to incorporate relevant
amendments to the NEP without an SBPOP amendment.
Summary: The NEP area is identified in the Plan. The SBPOP shows where it is but does not
duplicate its policies.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be no impact on the NEP or on lands subject to
the Niagara Escarpment Plan.
7. Other policies
The SBPOP has various general policies that apply to matters including Site Plan Control,
development standards, archaeological considerations, and heritage conservation. In some
cases, Official Plan policies are required by the Planning Act in order for a Municipality to pass
by-laws and implement programs. These can be described as “enabling” policies.
The County Official Plan also provides a general policy context for these matters. Some
policies, such as heritage conservation policies, are far more comprehensive in the SBPOP than
the County OP. From review of these Heritage policies against the legislation, it appears that
the County Plan policies are sufficient to enable South Bruce Peninsula’s Heritage Committee to
operate and to take full advantage of the heritage conservation tools outlined in the Heritage Act
and other related legislation regardless of whether these tools are spelled out in detail within the
Official Plan.
Summary: Both the County OP and the SBPOP contain enabling policies for Rural Areas. The
SBPOP also includes detailed policies regarding tools for Heritage Conservation which mirror
Provincial legislation and are applicable regardless of whether or not they are defined in the
Plan.
If SBPOP has no rural coverage: There would be no appreciable impact on the Town’s ability
to address these matters in Rural areas.
8. Provincial Policy Statement
There are several components of the Provincial Policy Statement that relate to Rural Areas; in
general, these include:






Rural Areas policies, designed to provide an appropriate range of uses that considers
the characteristics of the use, the area, appropriate servicing, and opportunities for
diversification. Rural areas can include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime
agricultural areas, natural heritage features and areas, and other resource areas.
Rural Lands policies which are a subset of the Rural lands policies
Agriculture Policies, primarily designed to protect prime agricultural areas for long-term
use for agriculture, avoid conflicting uses, and permit limited
Mineral Aggregate Resources Policies which are focused on protecting the resources
where they occur and minimizing impacts associated with extraction
Natural Heritage policies which are designed to protect natural features and areas for
the long term, including significant wetlands, woodlands, valleylands, wildlife habitat,
areas of natural and scientific interest, and coastal wetlands, fish habitat, endangered
species habitat, or adjacent lands, either through outright prohibitions on development, a
requirement that it be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the
features or their ecological functions, or meeting provincial and federal requirements,
depending on the feature. A new addition to the 2014 PPS is a need to identify natural
heritage systems.
Natural Hazards policies which direct development away from areas where naturally
occurring processes such as flooding and erosion present a hazard to buildings and
structures.
Policies of the PPS in respect of Rural areas are generally met within the County Official Plan.
Updates to the County Plan which may be required to maintain conformity with the PPS can
ensure that the Council of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula has the policy structure to enable
Council to make decisions which are consistent with both an Official Plan and the PPS.
9. Summary
In large part the South Bruce Peninsula Official Plan provides duplicate coverage of the County
Official Plan. In some areas policies are more restrictive, or different, which can have an overall
restrictive effect. Removal of rural areas coverage from the Plan, combined with consideration
of amendments to the County Official Plan, can effectively provide goals, objectives, and
policies for development in Rural Areas of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jakob Van Dorp, R.P.P.
Senior Planner
County of Bruce Planning and Economic Development
C Line
Western Rd
Elsinore Rd
Blind Line
Bruce Road 14
High Hill Rd
Lake Dr
e
antvi
s
a
e
l
P
w Rd
McRae Rd
21
!
"
Legend
Evaluated Wetland
Locally Significant Wetland
LSW 60m Buffer
SR 1 0
LSW 120m Buffer
North
Arran
Conc
n 13
essio
We
ran
st Ar
1:25,000
N

Legend
Evaluated Wetland
Locally Significant Wetland
LSW 60m Buffer
LSW 120m Buffer
Boat Lake Rd
Meadowland Rd
No
rth
Di
ag
on
al
6
!
"
N

Ce
ntr
1:20,000
B
Pike
ay

N
1:20,000
La
nce
wre
Rd
Legend
Evaluated Wetland
Locally Significant Wetland
LSW 60m Buffer
LSW 120m Buffer
6
"
!
b
Lim
st R
o
l
r
e
d