STORM Toolbox: Red Flags to Watch for at Council Meetings

Many of the threats facing the Oak Ridges Moraine begin at council meetings and can be found in the pages of planning reports.

A council motion, a “temporary” use, a missing study, an unsupported conformity claim, or a staff report that lacks key technical details can all be early warning signs that a proposal may conflict with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

Through Moraine Watch, STORM has been reviewing municipal planning decisions, tribunal files, and policy changes across the Oak Ridges Moraine. That work has shown a clear pattern: many proposals that test the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan begin quietly at the local level, often through files that appear technical, minor, or site-specific.

Many proposals that test the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan begin quietly at the local level.

Here are five red flags to watch for when scanning council agendas and planning reports:

1. The Details Are TBD

Under recent provincial policy changes, developers have been given more opportunity to play kick-the-can with technical details. When key parts of a project, such as engineering plans, stormwater systems, grading, servicing, natural heritage work, or ORMCP conformity, are incomplete or left to be decided later, councils need to proceed with caution.

Applications should be flagged when reports say that studies, stormwater plans, grading details, servicing, natural heritage work, or ORMCP conformity will be addressed after approval.

These details need to be available at the time of approval. Otherwise, the public loses the ability to assess the proposal, councillors lose the ability to test conformity, and important protections can be weakened after the fact.

Ask: Has ORMCP conformity been demonstrated with clear public evidence before the vote?

2. Settlement Boundary Creep

A large agricultural property for sale at the edge of the Uxbridge Settlement Area Boundary, June 2026.

There is increasing pressure, particularly in municipalities with lands of high ecological and hydrological value, to find new developable land by pushing against the ORMCP’s natural heritage and agricultural systems.

Watch for proposals near the edge of settlement areas or rural settlement areas, especially where protected lands are described as “underutilized,” “degraded,” “needed for growth,” or necessary to “balance the tax base.”

Framing issues this way can delegitimize the Plan and normalize increased development pressure in protected areas. Much of the ORM’s value is hydrological and geological, which means it cannot be judged by visual appearance alone. What appears above ground does not tell us what is happening beneath the ground

What appears above ground does not tell us what is happening beneath the ground.

Ask: Is this proposal trying to move, soften, or reinterpret the settlement edge?

3. Commercial Uses Disguised as Rural, Recreational, or On-Farm Diversified Uses

Some files frame higher-intensity commercial activity as agriculture, recreation, home industry, or on-farm diversified use.

STORM supports strong and diverse rural economies. The concern is that some applications alter the approval pathway in ways that sidestep mandatory review and introduce long-term cumulative impacts into protected areas. These impacts can include increased traffic, servicing demands, new buildings, rentals, storage, events, and urban contaminants.

Ask: What is the actual use, and is it clearly permitted in this ORMCP designation?

4. Weak Existing-Use Claims

The ORMCP allows some lawful uses that existed before the Plan to continue. But that does not mean an old use can automatically expand, intensify, relocate, or become something new.

When a development application claims an existing use, that claim must be supported by a legally substantive body of evidence that is available at the time of decision.

An old use does not automatically become permission to expand, intensify, relocate, or become something new.

Ask: What exactly existed before the ORMCP, where was it, at what scale, and is the new proposal truly the same use? What evidence is being used to support that claim?

5. Water Impacts Treated as a Technical Detail

The ORM contains some of the Greater Golden Horseshoe’s most important natural infrastructure. Its soils, aquifers, wetlands, streams, and recharge areas absorb, filter, store, and slowly release water across the region.

Development that changes runoff, infiltration, groundwater recharge, stormwater, dewatering, or discharge can affect wetlands, streams, wells, and water quality far beyond one property.

Ask: Where is the public evidence showing that water quantity and water quality will be protected?

What You Can Do

You do not need to be a registered planner to help protect the ORM.

Before a council meeting, check the agenda for ORM-related files. Look for missing studies, deferred conformity, settlement edge changes, “temporary” uses, weak existing-use claims, reduced buffers, or water impacts pushed to a later stage.

If you see a red flag, please send the file to STORM through Moraine Watch.

Moraine Watch runs on local eyes. If you can scan an agenda, attend a meeting, or share a report, you can help protect the headwaters of the ORM.

Report a concern

Volunteer with Moraine Watch