BACKGROUNDER - Reasons For Changes To The Official Community Plan

I am curious why is the City all of sudden needing to make changes to the Official Community Plan?

To first answer this question you need to answer exactly what is an OCP and why it is so important?

An OCP is, according to the Province of Saskatchewan, to provide a comprehensive policy framework to guide the physical, environmental, economic, social and cultural development of the municipality or any part of the municipality.

An OCP is a growth management strategy for a municipality. An OCP enables a municipality to set development goals, objectives and policies which council can use to manage land use, subdivision, municipal services, and public utilities in the municipality.

An OCP must also incorporate provincial regulations into them and this is where the basis of change is required in the present OCP.

An OCP is a requirement of the Province for municipalities such as the City of Moose Jaw.

Minimum setbacks between development around Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO) were established to ensure the ILOs’ noise, smell and other not so well liked properties did not result in complaints about the inability to enjoy properties - both commercial and residential.

Another requirement the OCP must be developed in consultation with e professional community planner.

In Saskatchewan in order to be considered a professional community planner the individual must be a member in good standing with the Saskatchewan Professional Planners Institute (SPPI).

The SPPI is a self governing professional body which establishes and licenses professional planners in Saskatchewan and the body maintains educational standards as well as ethical standards similar to what the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Law Society of Saskatchewan or other professional bodies do for their membership.

So how does this tie into what the City is doing right now making changes to the OCP?

Well it all comes down to errors or omissions made in the City of Moose Jaw’s initial Official Community Plan OCP). And how those errors and omissions came to light to Administration.

Quite frankly Moose Jaw’s original OCP somehow missed a major Intensive Livestock Operation (ILO) sitting right in the heart of the city.

The ILO missed in the original OCP was the stockyards owned by JGL Livestock at 780 Home Street West and 678 Home Street West previously used by Heartland Livestock and leased from the CPR.

The fact that the ILO was not part of the original OCP only came to light after JGL Livestock applied to have the land subdivided to join the two properties into one property.

The planner used by the City at the time was an outside contractor, John Wolfenberg, who passed away suddenly in 2020.

So how can you state the original OCP missed the Home Street West Stockyards?

Well that is simple.

In documents obtained through a series of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests by MJ Independent a member of City’s Planning Department outlines exactly what happened.

The realization that the Home Street West properties were somehow not identified as ILO’s is in the FOI documents.

In the e-mail to the Province asking for help to rectify the situation it is explained that somehow the OCP had not identified as an ILO the stockyards.

Approved in 1980 to operate in the centre of the City, had started out on the initial property and through a lease with CP Rail had expanded the size of the operation over time. It was only when the subdivision application was made decades later did City Administration realize an ILO had somehow been missed in the original OCP by Wolfenberg.

In the June 3, 2021 e-mail authored by Veronica Blair of the City’s Planning Department to Alan Williams a planning and legislative consultant with the Ministry of Government Relations lays out the Administration’s initial recommendation not to approve the subdivision application made by JGL Livestock.

The recommendation is based upon discovering the stockyard facility, as an ILO, did not conform to Moose Jaw’s OCP. Additionally by its’ very location and the setback rules of the OCP it would effectively “sterilize” development in a major commercial area - the Downtown.

“Our professional recommendation is that the subdivision application be denied…It is possible that political pressure may cause Council to approve the application anyway…Do you have any recommendations on how we can approach this with Council?” Blair wrote.

In future e-mails Blair changes the tone of the conversation with the Province looking for a way to allow the stockyards to remain in the centre of the city without sterilizing growth in the Downtown core a breach of the OCP and provincial legislation.

The existence of ILOs is unique to Moose Jaw as it is the last city in the province with an ILO operating within their corporate boundaries.

Although they could make the changes Administration was hesitant to change the definition as they would have an effect on two ILOs on the far western side of the city - two stockyards as they wanted to maintain development controls over top of them.

So how did the Province help out?

Further documents in the FOI show the City Administration asked the Province if there was a way to change the definition of the Home Street West stockyards to allow them to exist while at the same time maintaining controls on feedlot operations on the western outskirts of the city.

In a June 7th email Alan Williams with the Province wrote the stockyards on Home Street West were not allowed under the Planning and Development Act, 2007 but there were caveats that allowed it to continue to operate.

Major caveats is the non-conforming ILO cannot increase the intensity of use and the non-conforming use can be moved elsewhere on the property.

So were the stockyards “grandfathered”?

In the written report to Council dated June 10th the term “grandfathered” appears in the report.

“However, the land in question is already used by the livestock operation and would be considered as “grandfathered”, so expansion of the parcel is not considered to contravene the City’s bylaws or provincial legislation,” the reported June 10th stated.

When asked if the the Home Street properties were actually “grandfathered” as the term does not appear in any of the FOI documents, and nowhere did the Province state the use was “grandfathered”, the City in a written response said it is all about how you define the term.

“The ILO is considered “grandfathered in” or technically “legally non-conforming” as it was started before the use was listed as prohibited in the OCP and Zoning Bylaw and was legally approved by the City when it was opened,” the City responded.

The City further added even if the subdivision amendment had not been approved the facility could continue to operate.

“If the subdivision had not taken place, CP would have had authority over the continuance of the operation as the landowner. The subdivision allowed CP to sell and transfer the land to the adjacent landowner,” the City responded.

Was there any outside pressure made regarding this decision?

None of the documents released by the City through the FOI request show any outside pressure was applied in favour of or against the proposed re-zoning.

All of the interaction took place internally and with the Province.

It also needs to be noted that unless notes, emails or reports are written an FOI does not return conversations and phone calls.

“The City received an application for subdivision on June 1, 2021 for 780 Home Street. Through the due diligence and review process, City Administration found concerns within the Official Community Plan and sought the advice of the Ministry of Community Planning on June 3, 2021 to ensure we were meeting the requirements of The Planning and Development Act and received a response on June 7, 2021. The response noted that the City could approve the subdivision and also recommended that we contact the Ministry of Agriculture. The City contacted the Ministry of Agriculture on June 8, 2021 to assist in defining the uses. The subdivision proceeded and was approved along with terminology to correct errors in the Official Community Plan,” the City responded to MJ Independent when asked about the comments in the June 3, 2020 email.

So what does this mean?

According to the City it needs to be noted that the decision does comply with the zoning and Provincial acts but as noted above there are some very strict caveats for the facility which allow it to operate but that if they are broken the facility could be shutdown as a prohibited use under the OCP.

Although the report to Council listed the JGL stockyard facility holding 1,500 animals they are licensed by the provincial Department of Agriculture to hold the equivalent of 2,000 animal units on site.

Council approved the necessary changes and subdivision are Councillor Crystal Froese asked if the proposal would result in more animals moving through the facility.

The OCP right now is being changed as the City is in the process of having the zoning map changed to reflect the status of ILOs within the boundaries of the Moose Jaw.

No new ILOs will be allowed to move into and operate in Moose Jaw - a provincial law - and the ones already in existence will not be allowed to expand past their present use.

Council did not receive an option in Administration’s report about the ability to deny the subdivision and what impact that would have.

— RT

Added note - and yes I made the FOI application as at the time of the June meeting it was obvious to this scribe the OCP application made then would likely have to be expanded at a later meeting.