________________________________
* See text for arrivals
¨See text for departures

In accordance with section III 4 (d) of Region of Peel Procedural By-law 57-2006, as amended, no quorum was present 30 minutes after the time approved for the meeting (9:00 a.m.) at which time the Committee Clerk recorded the names of the members present as:

E. Kolb
E. Moore

In accordance with section III 4 (g) of the Procedural By-law 57-2006, as amended, the members present received information and no minutes were kept. The following are summary notes of the information received.

Arvin Prasad, Director, Planning Policy and Research Division, provided a brief overview of the Natural Heritage Policy Review. He noted that the policy review is considered as one of the 15 focus areas in the Peel Region Official Plan Review (PROPR) process. Arvin Prasad stated that the Study Team composed of the Core Management Team (CMT), Municipal Staff Working Group (MSWG) and the Technical Advisory Team (TAT) were significantly involved in the project study. He noted that Town of Caledon staff provided significant contributions associated with the Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands (SW) and Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Study Project.

Arvin Prasad highlighted that the main purpose of the Natural Heritage Policy Review is to ensure that the policy conforms with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and Greenbelt Plan. He further added that the p olicy review will assist in providing comprehensive background information on the Region’s approach relating to Natural Heritage System Planning.

Leilani Lee-Yates, Principal Planner, Planning Policy and Research Division and Project Manager of Significant Woodlands (SW) and Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) Study, provided a high level overview of the SW and SWH Study Project. She noted that the main objectives of the study were to formulate criteria and thresholds for the identification of SW and SWH and to provide direction for the development of an appropriate policy that will conform with the PPS. Leilani Lee-Yates advised that Regional staff conducted a joint study with the Town of Caledon since a large portion of the Region’s natural heritage features are located in that area. She informed that the joint project study with the Town of Caledon was conceptualized in order to share resources, increase efficiencies and develop consistent project methodology. Leilani Lee-Yates noted that SW policies require review given recent provincial directions and new technical guidance. There were no specific SWH policies included in the current Region and Town of Caledon Official Plans.

Mark Head, Principal Planner, Planning Policy and Research Division and Project Manager, Natural Heritage Review, provided a detailed background on the Natural Heritage Policy Review Discussion Paper. He advised that the objective of the discussion paper was to address the Region of Peel Official Plan Review Work Plan relating to provincial conformity and natural heritage. Mark Head indicated that the discussion paper is divided into three parts: Part A reviews legislation and existing policy; Part B addresses the provincial conformity policy and mapping options; and Part C identifies a second phase and potential future direction for developing a Greenlands Strategy. The second phase work is not identified as a provincial conformity requirement.

Mark Head reviewed the various mapping and policy updates that are being outlined in the discussion paper. He stated that the significant woodlands discussion identifies a preliminary recommended policy option in order to identify Core woodlands in the Regional Official Plan. Mark Head noted that there is no current data for mapping significant wildlife habitat on a Region-wide basis because a detailed field study is required to identify these types of features. He indicated that the discussion paper would consider the technical recommendations in the Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study and provide policy options for both significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat.

Councillor Thompson arrived at 9:04 a.m.

Mark Head stated that Phase 2 of the Greenlands Strategy outlined a preliminary scope of work, suggested actions and timing for development of a Greenlands Strategy and more comprehensive review of the Region’s natural heritage systems planning approach. He noted that Regional staff will bring forward a report requesting Regional Council endorsement before moving ahead with the Greenlands Strategy and Phase 2 work. Mark Head advised that the PROPR Natural Heritage Policy Review Discussion Paper will be released by the end of October 2008 and the adoption of the Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) is anticipated by June 2009.

Councillor Moore asked Regional staff to provide an example of an incentive-based policy strategy. Mark Head responded that there is an incentive for private land stewardship through the Conservation Land Tax Improvement Program. He noted that there are new incentives being discussed that use economic approaches to capture the total monetary value of protecting natural heritage. Mark Head indicated that the discussion paper will include information on ecological goods and services programs that provide direct payments to rural farming landowners who want to protect the natural heritage and that this is an example of an incentive program that Regional Council may wish to consider.

Councillor Moore inquired about where funding for these types of incentive programs come from. Mark Head stated that there is a need for funding partners including at the provincial level in order for the incentive program to be successful. He advised that Regional staff will be seeking Regional Council direction and will report back to a future meeting.

Councillor Moore suggested that staff consider meeting with the area MPPs to discuss the feasibility of collaborating with a provincial funding partner. She thanked staff for their involvement and commitment throughout the consultation process. Councillor Moore suggested that staff find efficient ways of conducting consultations. Arvin Prasad indicated that Regional staff recently met with the area municipalities and discussed ways to increase time efficiencies during consultations. He advised that hosting joint open house and public meetings among area municipalities and the Region was suggested.

Councillor Moore noted that Part C of the discussion paper regarding potential future directions for Greenlands Strategy and natural heritage systems planning was a request from the Conservation Authority and not a requirement of PPS. She inquired if there will be new criteria for a future policy requirement. Mark Head responded that the Regional plan includes natural heritage systems policy and is in conformity with the PPS, therefore, there is no need for a comprehensive review of policies at this time. Mark Head stated that the new provincial policy guidance is being developed and any future review will wait for provincial direction before proceeding. The future review of policies is based on the need to improve the Region’s current approach in considering the new modelling information being provided by the conservation authorities as well as best practices in other municipaltiies. Councillor Moore noted that the provincial guidance plans should be the foundation for future studies.

Councillor Moore asked if staff looked at the possibility of protecting stopover areas for migratory birds across the Region. Mark Head advised that staff have identified the criteria that would apply in other areas of the Region. Criteria is available, however, the criteria in other areas cannot be mapped at this time.

Councillor Thompson stated that it is important to establish a provincial partnership and provide an incentive to landowners for preserving the Greenbelt and the overall environment. He emphasized that woodlands should be enhanced to create an environment beneficial for wildlife, however, the enhancement should not be at the expense of the property owners.

Regional Chair Kolb expressed concern with the feedback received on mapping of conservation areas. He suggested that further review and discussion regarding mapping criteria for private property should be considered before the issue is addressed in a public forum.

Having regard a quorum of voting members was not achieved, in accordance with section III 4 (f) of the Procedural By-law 57-2006, as amended, items not dealt with during this meeting will be placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the Inter-Municipal Planning Subcommittee meeting scheduled for January 8, 2009.