Comments on Draft Official Plan

Before we discuss the OP draft released recently, ask ourselves the following questions:

1. Have we read what we are commenting on?
2. Have we participated in the process?
3. Is our opinion being formed by the facts or by group think?

With respect to urban boundary expansion which is the focus of much of the attention presently, here are my thoughts which I presented as a deputation this past Monday:

I have read through the Hemson Report which provides the study which leads to the proposed expanded urban boundary and do have questions regarding the 9,600 unit deficit number. Regularization of secondary suites and allowing for additional modest infilling of say 2,000 units, may reduce significantly this number, would it not?

I also have concerns what the impact of the expansion will have on the preservation of wetlands in and around the proposed expansion area.

These are complex issues and over 18 months ago myself and a colleague approached the city with the blessings of the provincial Places to Grow Secretariat asking that a series of stakeholder roundtable discussions with developers, government officials, ratepayer groups etc. be held to go over the rules of the places to grow legislation and their implications.

That proposal went nowhere. Given the passions around this issue which will be ongoing whatever plan comes forth from this process I request that the new offical plan provide for such a roundtable to be held annually so we can begin to work together on this rather than pick sides and throw stones at one another.

I speak tonight, however, in main to urge you to include in the legislation the commitment and methodology to preserve the agricultural land outside the urban boundary you decide upon.

John Sewell once said, “Every piece of undeveloped land in the GTA is only one political party fundraiser away from becoming developed. Certainly simply zoning farmland for agriculture and then hoping that the free market will take care of the rest has proven to be an ineffective municipal strategy.

Unless the agricultural lands are profitable, why wouldn’t you try and convert their use if you owned them?

If we are serious about making Vaughan a sustainable community key is to make the remaining farmland profitable and productive in today’s economy. To do so will require the full support of all levels of government.

What I am proposing is that the revised official plan declares the extant agricultural land in Vaughan an Agricultural Economic Zone.

This would mean that incentives and legislation be put on stream to create agricultural easements to protect this land which specify that the land will not be used for urban or industrial development.

Second, current standard land-use policy which does not allow existing farms to be subdivided into parcels smaller than 40 hectares must change. This amount of land may be suitable for commodity-oriented farms, but it hinders small-scale farming. Market-gardening operations should be able to rent “agricultural condominiums” or small parcels of land. They should also be offered long-term leases, which encourage these market gardeners to steward the land.

Third, the City and Region can provide direct support to farm markets and adopt zoning policies that allow on-farm processing and sales. They can introduce measures that control traffic on rural roads, support farmers using seasonal workers and enforce public health rules for farm visitors. Cluster development zoning which allow for small on-farm enterprises (another contribution to farm viability) can be put in place. Support can be given to wholesale and retail farmers’ markets, actively promoting local food marketing and design a number of supportive programs (such as signage and wider road shoulders that enable safer travel by farm equipment).

I am not naïve. Much of the remaining agricultural land is already owned by speculators. If you implement the agricultural economic zone I propose you are in for a real donnybrook. That is why all levels of government have to pony up on this one if they are really serious about sustainability. All our citizens have to move beyond nimbyism and take the issue of creating a vital and viable wealth and health producing agricultural industry in Vaughan. There are municipal elections this year and a provincial election next year. Now is the time for us to extract our pound of flesh for having to bear impact of the places to grow legislation.

Otherwise, in my opinion, whatever urban boundary you choose it will all be swallowed up by market pressures and become just more housing units. And that would be an awful pity.