Overwhelming opposition to offsetting
Relocating wetlands and forests to accommodate land development has been overwhelmingly rejected by hundreds of residents who responded to a draft offsetting policy proposed by the Hamilton Conservation Authority board. It’s a sharp rebuke to HCA chair Lloyd Ferguson and the majority of his board that pushed for such a policy in response to developer proposals to relocate a wetland in the headwaters of Ancaster Creek.
A report going to the HCA board on November 4 consequently recommends that offsetting “be limited to address issues associated with Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZO)” and other provincial or municipal decisions. In those situations the staff say where there is a requirement for “the removal or partial removal of a designated or regulated natural heritage feature, offsetting/compensation can be utilized to provide for ‘net gain’ or at a minimum, ‘no net loss’.”
Controversial Ford government legislation last year forced Conservation Authorities to provide permits for MZO projects even where significant environmental areas are harmed. MZOs eliminate all other normal processes including public consultation, municipal planning practices and environmental protection laws and regulations.
A year ago, a majority of the local HCA board directed their staff to come up with an offsetting policy in response to a developer plan to relocate an Ancaster wetland. A draft went out in June for public input and three hundred residents responded virtually unanimously in opposition to offsetting.
Without waiting for that consultation, the developers pushed ahead without an HCA policy, but saw their plans rejected in early June in a secret vote by the HCA board. That came after two webinars by the Hamilton 350 Committee, eight delegations to the board and over 200 letters urging protection of the Garner Road wetland.
Both the level of public outcry and the HCA board rejection of a development permit were unprecedented. Now the public response to a Conservation Authority policy consultation is also unheard of and mirrors the currently high levels of public engagement in Hamilton’s growth plan.
Environment Hamilton made a joint submission with Ontario Nature, Environmental Defence and the Wilderness Society opposing the policy. They noted the need for Indigenous consultation and respect for Indigenous rights in the policy. They called offsetting a “highly risky business” and contended “there is little evidence that even ‘no net loss’ is achieved in most instances, much less ‘net gain’.”
Hamilton’s local developers’ association – the West End Home Builders Association – appears to have been the only group in favour. “[A] proactive Offsetting Policy will allow for improved development of sustainable complete communities that promote conservation, while allowing for practical, replicable, and implementable environmental outcomes,” argued the WEHBA, who also warned that “the reality within the HCA watershed and beyond is that competing land uses in Southern Ontario will be one of the most challenging issues to address in the future.”
The Hamilton staff submission said the offsetting proposal could “hinder or conflict with” the city’s climate, urban forestry and biodiversity strategies. They noted that official plans don’t allow for offsetting and that “compensation conflicts with current city policies”. They also suggested the draft policy was “vague and does not provide adequate direction”.
The HCA Board will make the final decision on the offsetting policy, but even before that happens the outcome appears pre-determined.
