NPCA Policy Document Housekeeping Amendment No. 2

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

We thank all participants! Consultation process has now concluded.

The NPCA is responsible for regulating development in Regulated Areas consisting of natural hazards (flood plains, valleyland, steep slopes, Great Lakes Shorelines) as well as wetlands and their immediate surrounding area.

To assist the NPCA is reviewing applications for development in regulated areas, the NPCA has a Policy Document that establishes the principles, objectives and policies to guide decision making. This document can be found on the right-hand side.

To ensure the Policy Document reflects appropriate standards, NPCA staff conduct regular reviews and propose updates where required. As part of the most recent review, NPCA staff are proposing a change to the Policy Document as it relates to septic systems near wetlands. Also being considered is a change to the preamble wording for the wetland policies to implement an NPCA Board Resolution (FA-161-19). The proposed changes can also be found on the right-hand side.

HOW TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK:

Please read the read the Draft Wetland Policy Wording document found on the right hand side and send feedback by:

1.Use the space provided below
2. Email questions to David Deluce, Senior Manager of Planning and Regulations at ddeluce@npca.ca


The NPCA is providing a 30 day comment period for these proposed changes running from September 5 to October 7 2019.

The NPCA is responsible for regulating development in Regulated Areas consisting of natural hazards (flood plains, valleyland, steep slopes, Great Lakes Shorelines) as well as wetlands and their immediate surrounding area.

To assist the NPCA is reviewing applications for development in regulated areas, the NPCA has a Policy Document that establishes the principles, objectives and policies to guide decision making. This document can be found on the right-hand side.

To ensure the Policy Document reflects appropriate standards, NPCA staff conduct regular reviews and propose updates where required. As part of the most recent review, NPCA staff are proposing a change to the Policy Document as it relates to septic systems near wetlands. Also being considered is a change to the preamble wording for the wetland policies to implement an NPCA Board Resolution (FA-161-19). The proposed changes can also be found on the right-hand side.

HOW TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK:

Please read the read the Draft Wetland Policy Wording document found on the right hand side and send feedback by:

1.Use the space provided below
2. Email questions to David Deluce, Senior Manager of Planning and Regulations at ddeluce@npca.ca


The NPCA is providing a 30 day comment period for these proposed changes running from September 5 to October 7 2019.

Guest Book

Thank you for your interest in the NPCA Policy Document Housekeeping Amendment No. 2.  We appreciate your feedback as it will help us to address any concerns related to the proposed changes.

Before providing your feedback, please ensure you have read the Draft Wetland Policy Wording document.

There is absolutely no reason to reduce the buffer zone around our already fragile wetlands. The NPCA is already in hot water over its past decisions regarding wetlands and developers... I really don't think your board is supportive of protecting our wetlands if this is even considered a good idea.
Wetlands are the backbone of flood control and improving water quality. Not to mention they are hugely productive and complex ecosystems suporting hundreds of species. Once lost they CANNOT be replaced!! Why jeopardize that???
PLEASE protect our wetlands!

Sam almost 2 years ago

We need the buffer at 30 meters for all existing and new developments to protect both the wetland and property. We need wetlands to help control flooding but we don't want to flood septic systems now or in the future.

Thomas Rowland almost 2 years ago

I think the buffer should remain at 30 meters for existing and new developments.

Lynne Meilleur Bailey almost 2 years ago

All the people arguing for increased buffers most likely live in subdivisions and have never had the misfortune of trying to deal with npca. I own 75 acres that is now treed but was fenced farm land in the past. The npca says it is environmentally protected. Npca should be disbanded it is an unnecessary entitiy. There is already lots of enviromental oversight through the ministry of natural resources. Personal property is just that and npca and any other Gov't organization shouldnt be able to dictate what an owner can do with thier land.

Geol almost 2 years ago

We keep chipping away at protected area for major development. How about headlines "In order to keep our protected space we will be keeping it as it is and looking at extending that for new developments." We need to protect what we have.

Concerned almost 2 years ago

I don't know why there has to be any changes at all. Wetlands are protected and should remain so. No development should be near any Wetlands and should the distance be shortened. We need these protected areas for the future of our world.

KYNess almost 2 years ago

I agree with the 15 metres. 30 metres is a little much and could render someone's residential property insufficient for a septic tank.

However, I think the real reason here is to allow the project behind the Sobeys in Welland/Pelham. That's a bold move hiding it under a "septic tank" issue. However, I see that the 30 metre setback will remain, so perhaps this is genuine concern for other septic tank users in Niagara.

I will give this the benefit of the doubt and say I am in favour of this.

alexander.f.fazzari@hotmail.com almost 2 years ago

This amendment would be a retrograde step and endanger our already fragile ecosystem. It is only proposed to enable developers to reap large profits on land which at present could not be built on. If any amendments were to be made the thirty meter buffer zone should be increased !

David & Carole King almost 2 years ago

Please leave the buffer zone as is. We have done enough damage to our wildlife for development/money. No where much for animals to go. Don’t destroy that too. Also, why take chances contaminating our water? This is crazy!

Cheryl almost 2 years ago

Please leave buffer zone as is or increase it would be even better. Do not reduce buffer zones. Additionally better control over mass bulldoze it flat would be benificial to everyone. What wild areas we have need to be protected.

Sonya Olecka almost 2 years ago

Increase buffer zones. You won’t require these amendments if you respect sensitive areas including slopes, wetlands, flood plains. Avoid development in these areas altogether.

What screen name? almost 2 years ago

Please leave the designated wetlands as they are. Why would you risk contaminating the buffer zone or the wetlands at all, or ever. Our property backs on to wetlands and the buffer zone is undisturbed. The wetlands are full of native species of plants, trees, bug and animals as it should be.

Heather MacDougald almost 2 years ago

"For major development (as determined by the NPCA)" Major development needs to be determined before a policy document is updated - to do other than than leaves a loophole big enough to drive a small development through.

Lor almost 2 years ago

Keep our wetlands safe.

Effie almost 2 years ago

Whatever you choose be sure to stand by what you choose. Too many times NPCA does not follow through with repriations.

Beena almost 2 years ago

Do not decrease the buffer zones. Either leave them be or INCREASE to further protect wetlands. Put the conservation back into your policies please.

Shelley Southcott almost 2 years ago

The buffer zone between Septic beds and wetlands should not be reduced. Wetlands need space to expand to help prevent flooding. Wetlands need to be protected. Niagara needs to protect our unique Carolinian environment. Why would NPCA even consider reducing the buffer zone?

Cindy Cosby almost 2 years ago

The buffer zone between septic beds and wetlands should remain at 30 metres. This will allow for expansion of the wetland when there are heavy rains and potential flooding. The buffer zone also provides for wildlife habitat ( frogs, toads, birds, etc). Wetlands provide protection from flooding.

Cindy Cosby almost 2 years ago

This amendment is more reasonable than the original as long as se[tic systems are constructed in accordance with current codes and standards. I support it.

Geoff almost 2 years ago

There is no scientific or conservation rationale that can justify reducing protection for wetlands by cutting buffers in half (from 30 m to 15 m). Therefore, there must be another reason . . . hmmm . . who would benefit? Developers, that's who. Is the Conservation Authority in the business of protecting the environment or helping developers pave it over? Unfortunately, the answer seems to be clear. And by the way, the irony is not lost on me that you changed the preamble of the policy to reflect the new board's stated support for strong wetland protection only to lessen wetland protection in this proposed "housekeeping" amendment. It's this kind of thing that makes Niagara's citizens angry about how the NPCA functions and ensures they remain distrustful of it.

Liz B almost 2 years ago