“Site alteration” generally refers to the placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil, changing the grade of land, or the removal of vegetation. Section 142 of the Municipal Act allows municipalities to adopt a site alteration by-law. Many municipalities have done so. As early as 2011, Paul Renaud put together a table of 15 of them.
A promise to develop a site alteration by-law was already part of the amalgamated city’s first Official plan, adopted in 2003. (Top soil preservation by-laws of eight former municipalities — Cumberland, Gloucester, Goulbourn, Kanata, Nepean, Osgoode, Rideau and West Carleton — remain in effect post-amalgamation.) The 2003 policy was amended in the 2009 revision of the Plan (OPA 76) by adding the words “grade alteration, and placement of fill“. Section 2.4.5, policy 10 now reads:
The City will work with the Conservation Authorities and other interested stakeholders to develop a by-law under the Municipal Act to regulate the removal of top soil, grade alteration, and placement of fill.
In July 2011 an Ontario Municipal Board hearing was told, in the words of the Decision, that “This is a bylaw that is now under active consideration at the staff level” but still nothing happened.
At the September 2014 environmental debate organized by Ecology Ottawa, candidate mayor Watson, in response to a question from Erwin Dreessen, committed to finally bringing in a site alteration by-law. (A “strong” by-law was one of the propositions the Alliance had put to all candidates. Eleven of the 13 winning candidates who had responded unequivocally supported that proposition; one other did so conditionally; incumbent candidate councillor Moffatt was opposed. Media release.)
Finally, in April 2016, staff initiated development of a by-law. As a first step, comment was invited on a proposed framework. Iola Price and Erwin formed an Ad Hoc GA-FCA working group with a number of community association members which commented at this and all further stages. Iola collected and examined by-laws of 21 municipalities, focusing on the question whether they include conditions on tree or vegetation removal. All included a permit system.
The City issued a Discussion Paper in June 2016. Its “Guiding Principles” included that no permit would be required, that the by-law would be integrated with the existing Drainage By-law, and that enforcement would be on a complaints basis.
The Ad Hoc group commented, making the key point that every other municipality in Ontario operates its by-law under a permit system. It also strongly objected to the notion that the by-law would not prevent sites from being prepared for development prior to planning approvals.
In January 2017, a draft by-law was distributed for review. The draft proposed that the scope of the by-law would be limited to prohibiting:
altering or obstructing drainage that deviates from the existing pattern;
topsoil removal or other site alteration in Agricultural Resources Areas;
site alteration in or within 30 m of an Natural Environment Area, Urban Natural Feature, Rural Natural Feature or other Natural Heritage Feature identified in the City’s Natural Heritage System without prior written approval; the City would have the option of requiring an Environmental Impact Statement; and
site alteration in the Critical Root Zone of any tree that is protected by the City’s tree protection by-laws.
The Ad Hoc group commented that this scope is deeply unsatisfactory, as it misses the key reason why a site alteration by-law is needed, namely to prevent or at least regulate site alteration on land prior to the filing of a development application. These and other comments are here. Some members of the Ad Hoc group met with staff on March 29 to clarify the City’s intent and our comments.
It appears that prior written approval for site alteration in or close to natural areas and optionally requiring an EIS is as far as the City is prepared to go in the direction of a permit system and imposing conditions, despite what is found in every other Ontario municipality.
August 14, 2017
Today the City made available on its web site an annotated draft by-law and much additional explanation:
Comments are invited until September 25.
“Stakeholders” were provided with additional information, including a 14-page What We Heard report which we are asked not to publish at this time. Besides ourselves (“GA/FCA”) and the three Conservation Authorities, six other stakeholder organizations are identified.