Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 05-19-C~/}f- p](KERJNG Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Report Number: PLN 05-19 Date: March 4, 2019 Subject: City of Pickering Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 File: D-1240-018 Recommendation: 1. That the comments in Report PLN 05-19 on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Goldeh Horseshoe, 2017, be endorsed, and that the Province be requested to: A. revise the lands to be identified within a Provincially Significant Employment Zone, by: 1. excluding the following lands from Zone 3: a. lands designated "Mixed Use Areas -City Centre", (a designated Urban Growth Centre), bounded by the hydro corridor on the east: Bayly Street on the south, Sandy Beach Road on the west, and Highway 401 on the north; and the row of properties along the south side of Bayly Street, west of the .hydro corridor, also designated "Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridors", as shown on Appendix II; and 2. including the following employment areas in Pickering within Zone 3: a. the Whites Road Prestige Employment Area in the West Shore Neighbourhood on the south side of Highway 401 and west of Whites Road, as shown on Appendix Ill; and b. the Seaton Employment Lands along Highway 407, also referred to as the Pickering Innovation Corridor, as shown on Appendix IV; B. initiate a strategy to financially assist municipalities to service vacant employment lands in strategic locations, removing one of the key barriers to economic growth; C. investigate financial tools (e.g., parking space levy, fuel tax, sales tax, payroll tax, vehicle kilometers travelled tax, highway tolls, development charges, land value capture, property tax, development charges, fare increases, etc.) and funding· opportunities to enable the timely implementation of transportation and other municipal infrastructure and services, to support the implementation of the Growth Plan; and 2. That a copy of Report PLN 05-19 be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Members of Parliament for Pickering-Scarborough East and Ajax-Pickering, the Region of Durham, and other Durham Area Municipalities .. PLN 05-19 . Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017 March 4, 2019 Page 2 Executive Summary: On January 15, 2019, the Provincial Government released proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017. The deadline for comments is February 28, 2019. The purpose of this report is to provide formal comments to the Province on the proposed changes. Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial implications. 1. Background Between 2015 and 2017, the previous Provincial Government conducted a coordinated review of the four Provincial Land Use Plans. During the coordinated review process, City Council offered formal comments to the Province twice. The first time was in May 2015 (via Report PLN 02-15, dated May 11, 2015), and the second time in September 2016 (via Report PLN 15-16, dated September 12, 2016). Council's resolutions from these reports are provided as Attachment #1 to this report. • In May of 2017, new versions of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and the Niagara Escarpment Plan came into effect. Following the election of the new Provincial Government in 2018, the. Ontario Growth Secretariat initiated a consultation process with representatives from regional and local municipalities, other key public agencies, the development industry, and stakeholders. From September to November 2018, the Province hosted six working group sessions around the following themes: • Planning for Employment • Agricultural System Policies • Natural Heritage System Policies • Settlement Area Boundary Expansions • Intensification and Density Targets, and • Planning for Major Transit Station Areas The purpose of the working group sessions was to identify implementation challenges with the 2017 Growth Plan policies, and to offer and discuss potential solutions. Staff from the City Development Department participated in these sessions. On January 15, 2019, the Province released proposed changes to the Growth Plan, entitled "Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017". The Province indicated that the proposed changes are intended to address potential barriers to increasing the supply of housing, creating jobs and attracting investments. The document has been posted on the Province's Environmental Bill of Rights Registry and the deadline for comments is February 28, 2019. The Ministry has been advised that the City will be submitting Council's comments after the deadline. PLN 05-19 Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017 2. Comments on the proposed changes to the Growth Plan March 4, 2019 Page 3 The proposed changes to the 2017 Growth Plan range from minor grammatical revisions that change the nuance or tone of certain statements and provisions, to major modifications to policies on employment lands planning, agricultural system and natural heritage system mapping, settlement area boundary adjustments, rural settlements, intensification and designated greenfield area density targets, and major transit station delineation. The proposed revisions appear to address certain concerns expressed and solutions offered by participants during the provincially hosted working group sessions. Table 1 to this report outlines key proposed changes to the Growth Plan and staff's corresponding comment (see Appendix I). High level comments are discussed below, with recommendations in bold on those matters that require further review and consideration by the Province. 2.1 Employment Planning Under the 2017 Growth Plan, the designation of new employment areas and the conversion of employment areas to non-employment uses can only be considered at the time of a "municipal comprehensive review" (MCR). A MCR is a new official plan or an official plan amendment initiated by an upper-or single-tier municipality under section 26 of the Planning Act that comprehensively applies the policies and schedules of the Growth Plan. Durham Region must undertake the required MCR. Amendment 1 would enable upper-tier municipalities to designate new employment areas through an official plan amendment without the need for a MCR. Municipalities would also have increased autonomy to convert lands within existing employment areas to non-employment uses prior to a MCR, subject to specific criteria. Furthermore, Amendment 1 proposes the creation of "provincially significant employment zones", which could only be considered for conversion to a non-employment use through a MCR. The 2017 Growth Plan requires upper-tier municipalities to develop an employment strategy in collaboration with the Province and lower-tier municipalities. The strategy must establish a minimum density target reflecting an average for all employment areas in the · Region. Amendment 1 removes the requirement for upper-tier municipalities to develop an employment strategy, and maintains the requirement for minimum employment density targets. However, the targets are for individual employment areas within the Region, not an average across the Region. The proposed revisions to the employment policies are discussed in more detail below. a) Proposed Provincially Significant Employment Zones A new policy is being introduced that allows the Minister to identify Provincially Significant Employment Zones (PSEZ), and stipulates that such lands must be protected and cannot be converted outside of a MCR. PLN 05-19 Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017 March 4, 2019 Page 4 As part of the supporting information for Amendment 1, the Province mapped proposed PSEZs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The map identifies a PSEZ south of Highway 401 in Ajax and Pickering. For Pickering, the lands include employment areas in the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood, with the exception of the Pickering Nuclear Station and Durham Water Pollution Treatment Plan (see the Map, Attachment #2). However, the "Mixed Use Areas -City Centre" lands bounded by Sandy Beach Road, Bayly Street, Highway 401, and the hydro corridor, and the "Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridors" strip along the south side of Bayly Street, west of the hydro corridor, were inadvertently included in the proposed PSEZ. These lands allow for a mix of uses, including residential and commercial uses, which would not be permitted within the proposed PSEZ. Therefore, these lands (shown in Appendix II) need to be removed from the proposed PSEZ in South Pickering. Staff has already brought this matter to the attention of Provincial staff. In addition, the Province's Map does not identify the Whites Road Prestige Employment Area (designated in the Pickering Official Plan) in the West Shore Neighbourhood at Highway 401 and Whites Road (see Appendix Ill). This employment area is strategically located to Highway 401 and the CN main rail line, is an integral part of the City's employment lands base, and should also be recognized as a Provincially Significant Zone. Furthermore, although the Seaton Employment Lands fall within the Central Pickering Development Plan, it is strategic in terms of its location to Highway 407, the Seaton Community, and the proposed airport site. These lands should be included as a Provincially Significant Employment Zone (see Appendix IV). To advance the development of lands within PSEZs, the Province should initiate a strategy to financially assist municipalities to service vacant employment lands in strategic locations. This would complement the Province's plan to remove barriers to economic growth by creating shovel-ready employment lands. This will also assist in lands being "open for business" and creating "complete communities". It is therefore recommended that: i) The Province revise the lands to be included as a PSEZ, by: • excluding the following areas from the proposed PSEZ in Pickering: • lands designated "Mixed Use Areas -City Centre", (a designated Urban Growth Centre), bounded by the hydro corridor on the east, Bayly Street on the south, Sandy Beach Road on the west, and Highway 401 on the north; and the row of properties along the south side of Bayly Street, west of the hydro corridor, also designated "Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridors", as shown on Appendix II; and PLN 05-19 Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017 March 4, 2019 Page 5 • including the following employment areas in Pickering in a PSEZ: • the Whites Road Prestige Employment Area in the West Shore Neighbourhood, on the south side of Highway 401 and west of Whites Road, reflected in Appendix Ill; and • the Seaton Employment Lands along Highway 407, also referred to as the Pickering Innovation Corridor, reflected in Appendix IV; and ii) The Province initiate a strategy to financially assist municipalities in servicing . vacant employment lands in strategic locations, removin·g one of the key barriers to economic growth. b) Removing the requirement for Employment Strategies The proposed policy revision that would remove the need for upper-tier municipalities to develop an employment strategy does not preclude the option to do one. The Region has indicated that the preparation of an employment strategy or similar study is part of their MCR scope of work. Staff agree that there is value in undertaking an employment strategy to: develop employment targets; set the right regulatory climate for investment; facilitate timely servicing of employment areas; and monitor performance and do benchmarking. c) Setting Multiple Density Targets for Employment Lands Staff supports the proposed policy revision that would require upper-tier municipalities, in consultation with lower-tier municipalities, to set density targets for each employment areas, rather than set a single target for the entire Region. The nature of employment uses and their corresponding densities vary between employment areas and between municipalities. Setting employment density targets for individual employment areas would more accurately reflect expectations of job growth. 2.2 Urban Settlement Area Boundary Expansions Under the 2017 Growth Plan, settlement area boundaries can only be adjusted or expanded through a MCR. Amendment 1 would enable municipalities to advance residential and commercial development by permitting upper-tier municipalities to "adjust" or "expand" an urban settlement area boundary changes outside of a MCR. A key condition to enable an "adjustment" to an urban settlement area boundary, in advance of a MCR, is that there must be no net increase in the land area of the settlement. A key condition to enable an "expansion" to an urban settlement area boundary, in advance of a MCR, is that the expansion not exceed 40 hectares (100 acres). However, adjustments or expansions to a settlement area boundary excludes rural settlements and settlements in the Greenbelt Area. Staff has no objection to these proposed policy changes, as they provide flexibility to municipalities seeking minor adjustments or expansions to settlement area boundaries in adyance of a MCR, while protecting the integrity of the Greenbelt Area. PLN 05-19 Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017 2.3 Rural Settlements a) Minor adjustments to rural settlement boundaries March 4, 2019 Page 6 Under the 2017 Growth Plan, new multiple lots or units for residential development in rural areas are directed to locations with a residential designation in an official plan or a residential zoning approved as of June 16, 2006. Amendment 1 would enable minor adjustments to the boundary of a rural settlement, outside of a MGR. Key criteria to be considered under this. policy include that the change constitute a "minor rounding out" of the existing development, and that the affected settlement be outsic;le the Greenbelt Area. b) Implications for the Hamlet of Claremont As noted earlier, City Council commented on the coordinated review of the Provincial Land Use Plans in 2015 and 2016. Council requested policy modifications to enable consideration of a minor rounding out of the Hamlet of Claremont through a municipally- initiated study. Council's request acknowledged rezoning and subdivision applications, submitted by Geranium Homes, for lands in the Claremont area that pre-date the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The Province did not change the Provincial Plans as Council requested. In late 2017, Geranium Homes (now the Claremont Development Corporation) appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT). The grounds for the appeal was City Council's failure to make a decision on the rezoning and subdivision applications within the prescribed period under the Planning Act. In their appeal, the Claremont Development Corporation submitted that the LPAT should review their applications against the policy framework in place at the date of the applications. Following a pre-hearing conference in March, 2018, the Claremont Development Corporation requested an adjournment of the Hearing scheduled for October 2018. The matter of rounding out the rural settlement boundary in the Hamlet of Claremont remains before the LPAT. 2.4 Natural Heritage System (NHS) and Agricultural System Mapping Under the 2017 Growth Plan, the Natural Heritage and Agricultural System mapping came into effect upon issuance by the Province. Through Amendment 1, provincial Natural Heritage and Agricultural System mapping would not apply until it is included in the upper-tier official plan. Until then, the policies of the Growth Plan would apply to the NHS systems designated in local and regional official plans. Upper-and lower-tier municipalities may refine the system boundaries·and request changes to the provincial mapping. Once the refined system boundaries are incorporated in the upper-tier official plan, future changes can only be made through a MGR. The new policies are consistent with previous comments provided to the Province. Council requested the Province revise the timeframe for municipalities to bring their official plans into conformity with the NHS and agricultural systems mapping to enable consultation, analysis and refinement of the system maps. PLN 05-19 Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017 2.5 Intensification and Density Targets March 4, 2019 Page 7 Under the 2017 Growth Plan, the Region of Durham is required to achieve an annual minimum intensification target for development within the built boundary of: • 40 percent until the next MCR (the same target as the 2006 Growth Plan) • 50 percent from completion of the MCR until 2031 • 60 percent from 2032 until 2041 whereas under Amendment 1, the Region of Durham would be required to achieve a less aggressive target of: · • 40 percent until the next MCR (the same target as the 2006 Growth Plan) • 50 percentfrom completion of the MCR until 2041 Under the 2017 Growth Plan, greenfield areas in the Region of Durham are required to achieve a minimum density of residents and jobs per hectare of: • 50 for lands currently designated within an official plan (the same density as the 2006 Growth Plan) • 60 for the same lands as the above lands, following the completion of a MCR • 80 for new greenfield areas designated arising from the MCR whereas under Amendment 1, greenfield areas in the Region of Durham would be required to achieve a less aggressive density of: • 50 for lands currently designated within an official plan, or designated following the completion of a MCR (the same density as the 2006 Growth Plan) The reduction in both the intensification targets and minimum greenfield density requirements are discussed further below. a) Different Intensification Targets Amendment 1 distinguishes different minimum intensification targets for municipalities, which would take effect at the next MCR, as follows: • The City of Hamilton and the Regions of Peel, Waterloo and York will hav~ a minimum intensification target of 60 percent; • The Cities of Barrie, Brantford, Guelph, Odilia and Peterborough and the Regions of Durham, Halton and Niagara will have a minimum intensification target of 50 percent; • The City of Kawartha Lakes and the Counties of Brant, Dufferin, Haldimand, Northumberland, Peterborough, Simcoe and Wellington will establish a minimum intensification target based on maintaining or improving upon their current minimum intensification target. PLN 05-19 Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017 March 4, 2019 Page 8 This approach acknowledges the diversity of urban communities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and differentiates larger urban centres from smaller ones. Durham Region staff indicate they agree with the reduction of the region-wide intensification target to 50 percent. Pickering has been a significant contributor to meeting the intensification target in Durham as almost 100 percent of the City's growth has been classified as "intensification" since the approval of the first Growth Plan (Pickering's built boundary generally corresponds with the CP Rail line). With Pickering's growth shifting to include greenfield development in Seaton, the City's intensification rate has decreased by 28 percent. As such, the Region will need to rely more on the other area municipalities in Durham to meet the region-wide target. b) Different Greenfield Area Density targets Amendment 1 also proposes different greenfield density targets for different municipalities, rather than the "one size fits all" approach. The following targets would . take effect at the next MCR and would apply to the entire designated greenfield area (with the exception of net-outs): • The City of Hamilton and the Regions of Peel, Waterloo and York will have a minimum designated greenfield area density target of 60 residents and jobs per hectare; • The Cities of Barrie, Brantford, Guelph, Orillia and Peterborough and the Regions of Durham, Halton and Niagara will have a minimum designated greenfield area density target of 50 residents and jobs per hectare; • The City of Kawartha Lakes and the Counties of Brant, Dufferin, Haldimand, Northumberland, Peterborough, Simcoe and Wellington will have a minimum designated Greenfield area density target of 40 residents and jobs per hectare. The new policy is consistent with previous comments provided to the Province. Council recommended that the initial Greenfield area density target of 50 residents and jobs • combined per hectare be maintained, or that the Province consider developing a more context sensitive approach for 905 communities. 2.6 Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA) Under the 2017 Growth Plan, the limits of major transit station areas are to be defined in the Durham Official Plan through a MCR. For a station area, such as Pickering that is served by the GO Transit rail network, the minimum density of 150 residents and jobs per hectare is to be achieved. Amendment 1 would enable municipalities to delineate station boundaries, and identify minimum density targets for these areas prior to a MCR, in accordance with the Planning Act's provisions for major transit station areas. The Amendment would also permit the radius of a major transit station area to range from an approximate 500 to 800 metres, instead of only 500 metres. PLN 05-19 Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, 2017 March 4, 2019 Page 9 Pickering's major transit station area generally corresponds with our Urban Growth Centre. These lands are designated Mixed Use Areas -City Centre.in the Official Plan, and were recently rezoned to facilitate development. The boundary of the City Centre is less than 500 metres from the GO station facility in some locations, and more than 800 metres from the facility in other locations. 2. 7 Other comments Consistent with previous comments provided on the proposed 2017 Growth Plan, Staff again highlights that the Growth Plan seeks to focus growth in areas that have infrastructure in place. However, with intensification also comes the need for improvements and upgrades to both hard and soft services. Accordingly, it is recommended that: i) The Province, as part of supporting the implementation of the Growth Plan, investigate financial tools (e.g., parking space levy, fuel tax, sales tax, payroll tax, vehicle kilometers travelled tax, highway tolls, development charges, land value capture, property tax, development charges, fare increases, etc.) and funding opportunities to enable the timely implementation of transportation and other municipal infrastructure and services. Lastly, there is still uncertainty regarding the relation between the Growth Plan and the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP), which includes the Seaton Urban Area. The CPDP was established under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994, but the instrument to implement the CPDP was the Ontario Planning Act. The Province has yet to clarify whether the Growth Plan applies to the lands within the CPDP, or not. 3. Conclusions and Recommendations Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan addresses many of the comments and concerns that were previously expressed by municipalities and stakeholders during the 2015-2017 coordinated land use plan review process, or which were expressed at recent working group sessions hosted by the Province in late 2018. More specifically, the proposed amendments to the Growth Plan give greater recognition to the diverse character and context of local communities in.the Growth Plan area, and provide more flexibility to upper-tier municipalities to implement the Growth Plan without departing from the general spirit and intent of the current plan. However, there are still a number of minor but important aspects that require further consideration by the Province. Staff will continue to keep Council informed as the Province moves toward concluding the consideration of Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan. PLN 05-19 Subject: Comments on Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan , 2017 Appendices March 4, 2019 Page 10 Appendix I Table 1 -Proposed Key Changes to the Growth Plan & Staff Response Appendix II Map of lands to be removed from the Proposed Provincially Significant Employment Zone in Pickering Appendix Ill Map of Prestige Employment Area at Whites Road and Highway 401 Appendix IV Map of Seaton Employment Corridor Attachments 1. Council Resolutions in relation to Report PLN 02-15 , dated May 11 , 2015 and Report PLN 15-16, dated September 12 , 2016 2. Province's proposed Provincially Significant Employment Zone in Pickering Prepared By: ~~-----. Dean Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP, AMCT Manager, Policy & Geomatics DJ :ld Ap~~~ Catherine Rose , MCIP, RPP Chief Planner J;I,~ Kyle Bentley, P . Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel , P .Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 6J . t '1 ' Z.o I '1 Appendix No. I to Report No. PLN 05-19 Table 1 -Proposed Key Changes to the Growth Plan & Staff Response Proposed Key Changes to the 2017 Growth Plan and Staff Response Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 Em lovment Plannina: 1. The 2017 Growth Plan A new policy (2.2.5.12) is added The identification of does not use the term enabling the Minister to identify Provincially Significant "Provincially Significant "Provincially Significant Employment Zones (PSEZ) is Employment Zones" Employment Zones" (PSEZ). consistent with previous (PSEZs), or have any Lands identified with a PSEZ must comments provided to the policy provisions for be protected and cannot be Province. such lands. converted outside of a municipal The proposed PSEZ, identified comprehensive review (MCR). on the Province's map, In addition to the Growth Plan includes lands within the City Amendment, the Province has Centre (a designated Urban identified proposed Provincially Growth Centre in the Growth Significant Zones on a map Plan) situated between the entitled "Proposed Framework for hydro corridor on the east side, Provincially Significant Sandy Beach Road on the Employment Zones". Proposed west side, and Bayly Street on Zone 3 includes part of Pickering the south side, and lands along (see Attachment #2 to this Bayly Street that is designated Report). "Mixed Use Area -Mixed The Province is also seeking Corridors, that need to be comments on the proposed removed from the proposed PSEZs. PSEZ (see Appendix II to this report). Furthermore, the proposed PSEZ omitted the Whites Road Prestige Employment Area in the West Shore Neighbourhood at Highway 401 and Whites Road. This area is i strategically located to Highway 401 and CN main rail line, and should therefore be included (see Appendix Ill to this report). Although the Seaton Employment Lands fall within the Central Pickering Development Plan, it is strategic in terms of its location to Highway 407, the Seaton Community, and the proposed airoort site, should be included Page 1 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 as a PSEZ (see Appendix IV to this report). Furthermore, the Province should initiate a strategy to assist financially municipalities to service vacant employment lands in strategic locations, as this would complement the Province's plan to remove barriers for economic growth by creating shovel-ready employment lands. 2. Current policy permits A new policy (2.2.5.10) that , Staff supports this policy the conversion of lands creates a one-time window to because MCRs in a two tier within employment areas allow municipalities to undertake, system could take 4 or more to non-employment conversions of lands within years to complete, and amidst uses, but only through a existing employment areas to a fast changing global MGR where it is non-employment uses between economy, a one-window demonstrated that the effective date of the proposed opportunity to consider a certain criteria can be amendments and their next MGR, conversion may prove helpful. met. provided that certain criteria be This policy may also assist with satisfied, including the converting brownfield sites in a requirement that a significant timely fashion. number of jobs on those lands be maintained. This policy would not apply to lands within identified Provincially Significant Employment Zones. 3. Current policy states The policies requiring the Staff supports the removal of that upper-tier designation and identification of this designation. With the municipalities, in "Prime Employment Areas" are proposed introduction of consultation with removed (various subsections in Provincially Strategic lower-tier municipalities, policies 2.2.5.6 to 2.2.5.9). Employment Zones, the Prime will designate all A modified policy (2.2.5.5) states Employment designation employment areas, that municipalities should becomes moot. The term including "Prime designate and preserve lands Prime Employment was Employment Areas" in located adjacent to or near major ambiguous because it referred their official plans. goods movement facilities and to warehousing and logistical Prime Employment corridors, including major highway uses that typically result in low Areas refers to land interchanges, as areas for employment densities. extensive uses or uses manufacturing, warehousing and Staff supports the intent of the with low employment modified policy 2.2.5.5 as it Page 2 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 densities that require logistics, and appropriate provides a stronger policy locations adjacent to or associated uses. regime to designate and near major goods protect employmentlands in movement facilities and strategic locations other than corridors. Provincially Significant Employment Zone. 4. Current policy requires Modified policy (now 2.2.5.13) Although the revised policy upper-tier municipalities, removes the requirement for removes the requirement for in consultation with upper-tier municipalities to the development of an lower-tier municipalities, develop an employment strategy, employment strategy, it does the Province, and other and requires upper-tier not preclude the option to do appropriate municipalities, in consultation with one. The Region has indicated stakeholders, to each lower-tier municipalities, to set that the development of an develop an employment minimum density targets for each employment strategy or similar strategy that: employment area rather than a study is part of their MCR a) establishes a single target for the upper-tier. scope of work. Staff agree that minimum density there is value in undertaking target for all an employment strategy to: employment areas, ... develop employment targets; set the right regulatory climate for investment; facilitate timely servicing of employment areas; and monitor performance and do benchmarking. 5. Current policy states A revised policy (2.2.5.6) that The principle of allowing that upper-tier states that upper-tier greater flexibility to upper-tier municipalities, in municipalities, in consultation with municipalities to incorporate consultation with lower-tier municipalities, will employment area designations lower-tier municipalities, designate all employment areas in in advance of the next will designate all official plans and protect them for municipal comprehensive employment areas, appropriate employment uses over review is supported, if such a including any prime the long-term, and that for greater process does not compromise employment areas, in certainty, employment area the outcome of any land use official plans and designations may be incorporated study that may be underway in protect them for into upper-tier official plans by the area. appropriate amendment at any time, in employment uses over advance of the next municipal_ the long-term. comprehensive review. Note: This policy revision must be read in conjunction with item #3 in this table. Page 3 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 6. The 2017 Growth Plan A new policy (2.2.5.14) states that Discussions between City and does not contain a the redevelopment of employment Ministerial staff confirmed that policy that speaks to the lands outside employment areas the employment lands this redevelopment of should retain space for a similar policy is referring to are lands employment lands that number of jobs to remain outside of designated are outside of accommodated on site. employment (industrial) areas, designated employment such as the City Centre lands areas. or along a mixed use corridor - also referred to as population- related employment. Staff supports the spirit or intent of the policy. 7. The 2017 Growth Plan A modified policy (2.2.5.16.d)) Staff supports this policy as it policies regarding stipulates that within existing puts more emphasis on the existing office parks do office parks, the introduction of importance of protecting the not contain language non-employment uses should be function and integrity of office regarding the protection limited, and should not negatively parks. of office parks against impact the primary function of the non-employment uses. area. 8. The 2017 Growth Plan A modified policy (2.2.5.7.c)) is Staff supports the proposed states that added that requires municipalities, modification because the municipalities will plan when planning employment areas, integration of employment employment areas by to provide for an appropriate areas with non-employment integrating employment interface to maintain land use areas requires caution areas with adjacent compatibility between depending on the development non-employment areas employment areas and adjacent characteristics and potential and developing vibrant, non-employment areas. land use compatibility conflicts. mixed use areas and innovation hubs, where appropriate. Urban Settlement Area Boundarv Expansions: 9. The 2017 Growth Plan A modified policy (2.2.8.3) focuses Staff agrees with this policy contains an exhaustive on key outcomes rather than approach, because the list of criteria and specifying the types of studies to Provincial Plans provide detailed study justify the feasibility and location of sufficient guidance/direction to requirements to justify settlement area boundary enable regional and local the feasibility and expansions. municipalities to further detail location of settlement the criteria and type of studies area boundary required in their official plans. expansions. Page 4 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 10. The 2017 Growth Plan A new policy (2.2.8.4) allows Staff has no objection to the permits the municipalities to adjust settlement new exception policy as it consideration of a area boundaries in advance of a provides more flexibility for settlement area municipal comprehensive review, municipalities seeking minor boundary expansion (or subject to certain criteria, including boundary adjustments to adjustment) only through the following: round-out or refine urban a municipal there would be no net increase settlement area boundaries. comprehensive review • in land within the settlement In addition, the required criteria process, subject to area; provide the necessary checks meeting certain criteria. • the lands that are added will be and balances to ensure the planned to achieve at least the urban footprint remains the minimum Greenfield Area same, and that a transparent density target or the and accountable planning Employment Lands density process is followed. target, as appropriate; • the location of any lands added to the settlement area will satisfy the applicable requirements of policy 2.2.8.3; • the affected settlement areas are not rural settlements or in the Greenbelt Area; • the settlement area to which lands would be added is serviced by municipal water and wastewater systems and there is sufficient reserve infrastructure capacity to service the lands; and • the additional lands and associated forecast growth will be fully accounted for in the land needs assessment associated with the next municipal comprehensive review. 11. The 2017 Growth Plan A new policy (2.2.8.5) states that a This exception policy provides permits the settlement area boundary more flexibility to municipalities consideration of a expansion may occur in advance to seek minor settlement area settlement area of a municipal comprehensive boundary expansions (with an boundary expansion review, subject to certain criteria, associated gross increase in only through a municipal including the following: the settlement area footprint) in com •rehensive review advance of the municipal Page 5 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 process, subject to • the lands that are added will be comprehensive review, and the meeting certain criteria. . planned to achieve at least the required criteria provide the minimum Greenfield Area necessary checks and density target or the balances to ensure a Employment Lands density transparent and accountable target, as appropriate; planning process is followed. • the location of any lands added to a settlement area will satisfy the applicable requirements of policy 2.2.8.3; • the affected settlement area is not a rural settlement or in the Greenbelt Area; • the settlement area is serv'iced by municipal water and wastewater systems and there is sufficient reserve infrastructure capacity to service the lands; and • the additional lands and . associated forecasted growth will be fully accounted for in the land needs assessment associated with the next municipal comprehensive review. A new policy (2.2.8.6) is proposed that settlement area boundary expansions undertaken in accordance with newly proposed policy 2.2.8.5 above, will not be larger than 40 hectares. Rural Settlements: 12. The 2017 Growth Plan The Province propo~es to revise The Province included this defines "designated the definition of "Designated revision because various greenfield area" as Greenfield Areas" (section 7, municipalities made the follows: "Lands within Definitions) by clarifying that rural interpretation, based on the settlement areas but settlements are not-part of the current definition of outside of delineated designated greenfield area. "designated greenfield areas" built-up areas that have to include rural settlements in been designated in an their greenfield density official plan for calculations. Rural settlements development and are accommodate conimwnities red u ired to that cannot be classified and Page 6 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 accommodate planned for in the same forecasted growth to the context as designated horizon of this Plan. greenfield areas within urban Designated greenfield areas, particularly in terms of areas do not include lot size, transit service · excess lands." availability, and residential mix. Staff supports the proposed revision. 13. The 2017 Growth Plan A new policy (2.2.9.7) that allows Through the coordinated does not allow the minor minor adjustments to rural review of the Provincial Land adjustments to rural settlement boundaries outside of a Use Plans process, the City settlement boundaries, MCR, subject to the certain criteria pointed out that the Hamlet of with the exception of including the following: Claremont is the subject of settlements within the the affected settlement area is outstanding rezoning and Greenbelt Area that are • subdivision applications (by not in the Greenbelt Area; identified as Towns or the change would constitute Geranium Homes) that Villages, but only • pre-date the implementation of through a municipal minor rounding out of existing the Greenbelt Plan and the comprehensive review development, in keeping with Oak Ridges Moraine (MCR). the rural character of the area; Conservation Plan. • confirmation that water and Accordingly, Council requested wastewater servicing can be the Province modify the provided in an appropriate policies in the previous Growth manner that is suitable for the Plan, Greenbelt Plan and Oak long term. Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan to enable the considerati.on of the minor rounding out of the Hamlet of Claremont through a municipally initiated study, in accordance with certain criteria. The Province declined Council's request. Geranium Homes (now the Claremont Development Corporation) has since appealed their applications to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Whether their development application can proceed rests with the Tribunal. Page 7 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response. Policy By Amendment 1 Natural Heritaae System and Aaricultural System Maooina: 14. The 2017 Growth Plan A new policy (4.2.2.4) specifies The new policy is consistent states that the Province that the provincial mapping of the with previous comments would be mapping a NHS for the Growth Plan does not provided to the Province. Natural Heritage System apply until it has been Council requested that the (NHS) for the rural area implemented in the upper-tier Province revise the timeframe of the Greater Golden official plan. for municipal conformity to Horseshoe. The Plan Until that time, the policies in the commence upon completion of requires municipalities to Growth Plan that refer to the NHS the documents listed in the incorporate the mapping for the Growth Plan will apply Supplementary Directions to into their official plans. outside settlement areas to the the Growth Plan (which The Plan also states NHS identified in official plans that includes the Province's NHS that the NHS in official were approved and in effect as of mapping). plans in effect as of July 1, 2017. The City recently brought the July 1, 2017, will The transitional provisions are Pickering Official Plan into continue to be protected also changed. The provisions now conformity with the 2014 PPS, in accordance with the stipulate that municipalities will the 2005 Greenbelt Plan, and relevant official plan until continue to protect the NHS the Regional Official Plan, and the Provincial NHS has designated in local official plan in updated the natural heritage been issued. accordance with the NHS policies mapping (through The Provincial mapping in the Growth Plan (not in Amendment 27). comes into effect upon accordance with local official plan Amendment 27 basically meets issuance. policies), until the Province's NHS the Natural Heritage System The Province has issued has been implemented in Policies in the Growth Plan. the NHS System map for upper-tier official plans. However, minor amendments the Greater Golden to the City's Official Plan will Horseshoe. need to be incorporated at a future date. 15. The 2017 Growth Plan A new policy (4.2.6.8) specifies The new policy is consistent states that the Province that the provincial mapping of the with previous comments will identify an Agricultural land base for the provided to the Province. Agricultural System for Growth Plan does not apply until Council requested that the the Greater Golden it has been implemented in Province revise the timeframe Horseshoe. upper-tier official plans. for municipal conformity to The Province's In the interim, prime agricultural commence upon completion of Implementation areas identified in upper-tier the documents listed in the Procedures for the official plans that were in effect as Supplementary Directions to Agricultural System in of July 1, 2017 will be considered the Growth Plan (which Ontario's Greater the agricultural land base for the includes the implementation of Golden Horseshoe, purposes of this Plan. the Province's Agricultural (2018), stipulates that System Land Base mapping). the Province's It would allow more time for the Agricultural Land Base Region to consult, analyze and Page 8 .. Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 mapping, issued on make refinements to the February 9, 2018, provincially issued mapping applies to all land use before the lower-tier planning decisions in the munieipalities bring their plans GGH. into conformity with upper-tier plans. 16. The 2017 Growth Plan New policies (4.2.2.6 and 4.2.6.9) This provides flexibility to the states that upper-tier state that upper-tier municipalities Region to implement the municipalities may only can refine and implement provincial mapping. However, refine the provincial provincial mapping in advance of Durham Region has already mapping of the · the municipal comprehensive started its MCR. Therefore, it agricultural land base review. Also, for upper-tier is unlikely the Region will use and the natural heritage municipalities, the initial . this policy. system through a implementation of provincial municipal mapping may be done separately comprehensive review for each lower-tier municipality. (MCR). 17. The 2017 Growth Plan New policy language (4.2.2.6 and Staff agrees. Sufficient time only stipulates that 4.2.6.9) specifies that once should be allowed for upper-tier municipalities provincial mapping of the implementation and monitoring must implement the agricultural land base and the of the provincial mapping, and provincial mapping of Natural Heritage System to create a level of certainty the agricultural land respectively has been and predictability for the public, · base and the Natural implemented in official plans, land owners and developers. Heritage System in their further refinements may only occur official plans through a through a MCR. MCR. However, it does not speak to the option of further refinements afterwards, or the means by which this could occur. Intensification and Density Targets: 18. The 2017 Growth Plan A revised policy (2.2.2.1) This approach acknowledges requires that by the year establishes different minimum the diversity of urban 2031, and for each year intensification targets for groups of communities within the Greater thereafter: municipalities. The following Golden Horseshoe, and • a minimum of targets would take effect at the differentiates larger urban 60 percent of all next MCR with no further required centres from smaller ones. residential increase of the targets in 2031: Regional staff agree with the • development • the City of Hamilton and the reduction of the region-wide occurring annually Regions of Peel, Waterloo and· intensification target to within each uooer-tier Page 9 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 municipality will be York will have a minimum 50 percent. Targets for each within the delineated intensification target of municipality will be set through built-up area; and 60 percent; the MCR. It may be difficult for • by the time the next • the Cities of Barrie, Brantford, Pickering to achieve this target municipal Guelph, Orillia and on a city-wide basis as growth comprehensive Peterborough and the Regions is now shifting from the review (MCR) is of Durham, Halton and Niagara intensification of lands within approved and in will have a minimum the built up area of South effect, and each intensification target of Pickering to development on year until 2031, a 50 percent; the greenfield lands in Seaton. minimum of • the City of Kawartha Lakes and 50 percent of all the Counties of Brant, Dufferin, residential Haldimand, Northumberland, development Peterborough, Simcoe and occurring annually Wellington will establish a within each upper-tier minimum intensification target will be within the based on maintaining or delineated built-up improving upon their current area. minimum intensification target. 19. The 2017 Growth Plan A new policy (2.2.7.2) establishes The new policy is consistent requires the designated different minimum designated with previous comments greenfield area of each greenfield area density targets for provided to the Province. upper-tier municipality to groups of municipalities. The The revised policy be planned to achieve, following targets would take effect acknowledges the diversity of within the horizon of the at the next MCR and apply to the urban communities within the Plan (2041), a minimum entire designated greenfield area Greater Golden Horseshoe, density·target of not less (with the·exception of net-outs): and the approach is more than 80 residents and jobs per hectare. • for the City of Hamilton and the context sensitive. Regions of Peel, Waterloo and In the interim, York: a minimum density designated greenfield target of 60 residents and jobs areas approved as of per hectare; July 1, 2017, such as • for the Cities of Barrie, Seaton, can maintain the Brantford, Guelph, Orillia and original target Peterborough and the Regions (50 residents and jobs of Durham, Halton and per hectare) until the Niagara: a minimum density MCR, after which, these target of 50 residents and jobs lands must be planned per hectare; to meet a minimum • for the City of Kawartha Lakes density of 60 residents and the Counties of Brant, and jobs per hectare. Dufferin, Haldimand, Northumberland, Peterborouah, Simcoe and Page 10 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 Wellington: a minimum density target of 40 residents and jobs per hectare. 20. The 2017 Growth Plan Revised policies (2.2.2.4 and The revised policy addresses, states that the councils 2.2.7.4) permit upper-tier in part, previous comments of upper-tier municipalities to apply for requesting the Province municipalities may alternative intensification and consider developing a context request an alternative designated greenfield area density sensitive approach for 905 intensification target or targets respectively, where it can communities, if the greenfield an alternative density be demonstrated that the target density target of 50 residents target for designated cannot be achieved, and subject and jobs per hectare was to be greenfield areas through to meeting certain criteria. increased. the next comprehensive The new policies do not limit Staff supports the proposed review, subject to consideration of alternative targets policy revision, because it meeting certain criteria. to the MCR. acknowledges the diversity of urban communities within the Growth Plan, and provides more flexibility for situations where local conditions warrant alternative targets. Major Transit Station Areas: 21. The 2017 Official Plan A new policy (2.2.4.4) is Staff supports the option for a states that for upper-tier introduced that does not require a lower density target and for municipalities, council's MCR to request a density target simplified criteria, as certain may request an for a Major Transit Station Area criteria are too prescriptive and alternative to the density that is lower than the applicable may not have been attainable target established in the target in the Growth Plan, subject in some locations. Growth Plan for a major to simplified criteria. Although not explicitly stated in transit station area, the Amendment, the Minister through a municipal must approve a request for a comprehensive review lower target. (MCR). 22. The 2017 Growth Plan A new policy (2.2.4.5) allows This policy may assist those does not contain a upper-tier municipalities to upper-tier municipalities that provision that permits delineate and set density targets have already advanced the upper-tier municipalities for major transit station areas in identification and planning of to delineate and set advance of the MCR, so long as Major Transit Stations within density targets for major the Protected Major Transit their jurisdictions, to move transit station areas in Station Area provisions of the forward with implementation advance of the MCR. Planning Act are used. and related initiatives. Durham Region has already beQun delineatinQ and Page 11 Current Growth Plan Proposed Policy Change Response Policy By Amendment 1 planning for Major Transit Station Areas as a component of their MGR. The number, unique characteristics and density planning for the Major Transit Station Areas will inform the Region's land needs assessment process. While other upper-or single- tier municipalities may find this policy advantageous, it is unlikely that Durham Region will advance major transit station planning ahead of their MGR. 23. The definition of "major Section 7, Definitions, of the The inclusion of "800 metres" transit station areas" in Amendment revised the definition provides greater flexibility in the 2017 Growth Plan of "major transit station areas" as delineating and planning Major refers to an area within an area that can range from an Transit Stations, recognizing an approximate approximate 500 to 800 metres unique aspects of transit 500 metres radius of a radius of a transit station, station areas, such as their transit station, representing about a 10-minute size, shape, walksheds, and representing about a walk. existence of natural and other 10-minute walk. barriers. Page 12 Map of Lands to be. removed from the Proposed Provincially Significant Employment Zone in Pickering Appendix No. II to Report No. PLN 05-19 Removed from the PSEZ C Proposed Provincially Si;~ificant Employment Zones Excerpt from Schedule I of the Pickering Official Plan Edition 8 u,c!:t;.'.::;:,•_.,.. c, • ..,...,::.,, ,.,. .. ,., .... ~ ..... 1-1,i,,,""...,°""""""" • .......... ~c-,_ .. .,,o,, ................. TM. Land Use Structure Open Space System Urban Residential Areas Freeways and Major Utilities -Seaton Natural Low Density A reas Herit age SyStem ~ Medium Density Areas ~ ~ @ Controlled Access Areas ~ Potentia l Multi Use Areas -Natural Areas ~ . . E....=...3 High Density Areas Seaton Symbols -Active Recreational Areas M. d U A ~ 1xe se reas ~ District Park -Marina Areas -Local Nodes (§) Community Park Hamlet Heritage -Open Space Community Nodes @ High School Rural Settlements ~ Rural Clusters ti -=-;] Rural Hamlets -M ixed Corridors Other Designations -Specialty Retailing Node -Prime Agricultural Areas -City Centre [fil] Deferrals Employment Areas ~ Greenbelt Boundary -General Employment ~ Prestige Employment ~ ~ §! Mixed Employment Map of Prestige Employment Area at Whites Road and Highway 401 Appendix No. Ill to Report No. PLN 05-19 Excerpt from Schedule I of the Pickering Official Plan Edition 8 Lake Ontario Land Use Structure Urban Residential Areas Freeways and Major Utilities Open Spa ce System IT] A Low Density Areas ~ -Controlled Access reas - Seaton Natural Heritage System ~ Medium Density Areas ~ Potentia l Mu lti Use Areas -Natural Areas ~ 'c-. 'c-.l High Density Areas Seaton Symbols -Active Recreational Areas Mixed Use Areas @ District Park -Ma rina Areas -Local Nodes (§) Community Park Hamlet Heritage -Community Nodes @ High School Open Space Rural Settlements ~ Rural Clusters f :::] Rural Ham lets -Mixed Corridors Other Designations -Specialty Retailing Node -Prime Agricu ltural Areas -City Centre []iJ Deferrals Employment Are as ~ Greenbelt Boundary -General Employment ~ Prestige Employment ~ ~ ® Mixed Employment Map of Seaton Employment Corridor Appendix No. IV to Report No. PLN 05-19 Excerpt from Schedule I of the Pickering Official Plan Edition 8 Lands to be Added as a PSEZ Land Use Structure Open Space System Urban Residential Area s Freeways and Major Utilities -Seaton Natural Low Density Areas g ~ "§j Controlled Access Areas Heritage System ~ Medium Density Areas Other Designation s -Natural Areas Mixe d Us e Areas [j:jj Proposed Airport Site -Active Recreationa l Areas -Local Nodes -Prime Agricu ltural Areas - Oak Ridges Moraine IBll Community Nodes Natural Linkage Areas Hamlet Heritage Open Space - Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core Areas Rural Settlements ~ Rura l Clusters ~ Rura l Hamlets r--=, Oak Ridges Moraine ~ Rura l Hamlets ml Mixed Corridors Employment Areas ~ Prestige Employment Seaton Symbols (§) District Pa rk @ Community Par k @ High School ~ Prime Agricu lt ural Areas ~ On T he Oak Ridges Moraine - Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Areas ~ • • •• Rural Study Area • • • •• ....... ..... ~ Federa l Lands Oak Ridges Moraine -Boundary ~ Greenbelt Bou ndary ATTACHMENT # I TO REPORT # 8-,N, 05jCj Council Decision Resolution #46/15 May 19, 2015 1. That Report PLN 02-15 of the Director, City Development, regarding comments on the first round of the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans be received; 2. That the comments in Report PLN 02-15 on the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Pians be endorsed, and that the Province be requested to: a) incorporate the recommendations provided through the Durham Region Greenbelt Plan Review study as endorsed by the City of Pickering, in particular: b) c) d) • that the provincial plans allow for stand-alone agricultural supportive uses in prime agricultural' areas (sUch as grain elevators or food · processing operations); that the provincial plans provide opportunities for rural economic diversification in terms of cultural, educational, recreational and eco-tourism uses and value a·dded agricultural uses which complement farming and the health of rural settlements; and • that the Province establish new, more effective separation distance policies to provide an appropriate buffer between new residential development and farmland to protect the viability of farm operations and avoid land use conflicts; • That the Province establish a process to consider limited refinements to the boundaries of the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, in accordance with Recommendations 16, 17 and 18 of the Durham Region Greenbelt Plan Review study. provide direction for the planning of infrastructure beyond the 20-year land use planning horizon, by extending the population and employment forecasts to at least 2051, and adjusting the Places to Grow Concept and Forecasts accordingly, to allow for the timely and transparent planning of long term urban infrastructure; provide stronger policy direction on implementing affordable housing, in terms of type and tenure; provide the opportunity to redefine the Greenbelt and/or Oak Ridges Moraine boundaries to allow for minor expansions of hamlets, subject to the completion of a municipally led hamlet boundary review; ATTACHMENT #,__..___TQ REPORT # PL N 05 -19 e) identify provincially strategic employment lands within the Growth Plan, such as the Seaton Employment Lands, and actively facilitate the marketing, servicing and development of those lands in concert with other development contemplated by the Growth Plan; and f) allow for minor expansions for existing businesses in the rural area; 3. That the Province be requested to hold Town Hall Meetings in Pickering during the second round of consultation; 4. That the Province consider the implementation strategies, plan coordination measures, and financial tools and incentives as summarized in Appendix I; 5. That comments received at the Town Hall Meeting held by the City of Pickering on April 13, 2015 regarding the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans, as set out in Appendix II be forwarded to the Province; and 6. Further, that a copy of Report PLN 02-15 and Pickering Council's Resolution on the matter, be forwarded to the Region of Durham, other Durham Area Municipalities, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. ATTACHMENT #_.,___TO . RE:PORT # PLt~ 0'5-l9 Council Decision Resolution #202/16 September 19, 2016 1. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) That the comments in Report PLN 15-16 on the proposed changes to Ontario's Land Use Plans be endorsed, and that the Province be requested to: revise the timeline for municipalities to bring their official plans into conformity with the revised Growth Plan, to only take effect after the Ministry has approved and released the standard methodology for the assessment of land needs and that the process for developing the standard methodology. for the assessment of land needs include proper ground-truthing and consultation with municipalities, conservation authorities and other key stakeholders; maintain the intensification target at 40 percent for the 905 region; identify a mechanism to prevent strategic growth areas (e.g. high density residential or high intensity mixed-use) from being down designated to support intensification opportunities that may not be realized within the time horizon of the Growth Plan; consider the potential long-term development and intensification of its major transit station sites by: • introducing policies that require the introduction of alternative station designs that are more compact, diversified and integrated with their surroundings; and • expediting investment in alternative modes of transportation (i.e., local transit, cycling, walking, carpooling) to access such locations in order to limit the amount of surface parking in the future; remove the words "or stop" within the revised definition of the term "MajorTransit Station Area", so that only high order transit station areas are included in the intensification calculation; · · revise Schedule 5 (Moving People -Transit) in the Growth Plan to reflect the . · proposed GP-Belleville rail connection to the new Seaton community, and the "possible" rail extension (GP-Havelock line) towards Peterborough; identify employment lands of provincial significance within the Growth Plan, such· as the Seaton Employment Lands, and actively facilitate the marketing, servicing and development of those lands in concert with other development contemplated by the Growth Plan; maintain the current Greenfield area density target of 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare, or consider developing a more context sensitive approach for 905 communities, with particular attention to factors such as urban structure, availability of public transit and other amenities, built form character, place- making, housing mix and affordability; conduct a financial analysis of the impact of the intensification and density targets on municipal infrastructure and service delivery; · ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT# PL!\\ 05-19 j) consider extending the newly proposed policy that would recognize existing employment areas on "rural lands" with opportunity for expansion, subjectto . certain criteria, to include existing cultural and educational uses; k) move forward with the development of the Transportation Planning Policy Statement outlined in the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, to clarify the role of the Big Move in relation to the Growth Plan, and to include a statement that acknowledges this relationship within the Growth Plan. This would help ensure that the integration and coordination of transportation infrastructure planning and land use planning at local, Regional and Provincial levels are properly.acknowledged in the Plan; I) as part of supporting the new Growth Plan, investigate financial tools (e.g. parking space levy, fuel tax, sales tax, payroll tax, vehicle kilometers travelled tax, highway tolls, development charges, land value capture, property tax, development charges, fare increases, etc.) and funding opportunities to enable the timely implementation of transportation and other municipal infrastructure and services; m) base the mapping of the "natural heritage system" upon approved watershed plans, and that the Province collaborate with conservation authorities to develop a standard methodology for mapping of the "natural heritage system"; n) build on the Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) analysis that was completed by the Region of Durham .for mapping the "agricultural system", and that the mapping process include the application of standard methodology, proper ground-truthing and consultation with municipalities, conservation authorities, the agricultural community and other key stakeholders; o) engage municipalities in the identification, establishment or update cifthe documents listed as Supplementary Directions to the Growth Plan; p) revise the timeframe for municipal official plan conformity to commence upon completion of the documents listed as Supplementary Directions to the Growth Plan; q) as part of the Supplementary Direction for implementing the Growth Plan, identify and develop programs to attract and retain workers and businesses to achieve the growth plan targets, and to foster the development of balanced communities (for example, such measures could include, investing in, or subsidizing training programs that will ensure that municipalities have the resident labour force to attract new businesses in targeted sectors; eliminating or reducing tolls for trucks on Highway 407 making the highway a more attractive goods movement corridor; and promoting further employment growth in the 905 Region); r) provide more guidance regarding the type and extent of buffer planning necessary to protect existing agricultural practices, by minimizing and mitigating impacts of new adjacent urban development on the Agricultural System; ATTACHMENT # _ _._ __ TQ RtPORT # PLN 05-19 s) retain the existing policy in the Greenbelt Plan that permits the minor rounding out of hamlets at the time of municipal conformity, and modify the policy to read as follows: "Outside of specialty crop areas, minor expansion of Hamlet boundaries may be permitted only through a municipal initiated study, that must address matters such as the merits and appropriate scale and form of development; the protection and enhancement of key natural heritage and hydrologic features and functions; the impact on agricultural lands and agricultural operations; soft and hard servicing needs, constraints and solutions; and the rationale for any minor expansion to the hamlet boundary"; t) revise proposed policy 6.2, subsection 1, in the Greenbelt Plan, by making all lands within the Urban River Valley designation, whether publicly or privately owned, subject to the Greenbelt Plan policies associated with this designation; u) remove the policy 3.4.4.2a in the current Greenbelt Plan and in the proposed Greenbelt Plan (policy 3.4.5.2a) that prohibits the consideration of a municipally initiated settlement area expansion proposal to proceed on the lands bounded by the GP Belleville Line in the south; the York-Durham Townline to the west; and West Duffins Creek to the east (referred to as the Cherrywood Area Lands); v) retain the existing policy in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan that permits the minor rounding out of rural settlements, and modify the policy to read as follows: "New lots may be created in Countryside Areas for the following purposes only, and subject to Parts 111 and IV: Minor expansion of Rural Settlements designated in the applicable official plan as appropriate for this type of lot creation, only through a municipal initiated study, that must address matters such as the merits and appropriate scale and form of development; the protection and enhancement of key natural heritage and hydrologic features and functions; the impact on agricultural lands and agricultural operations; soft and hard servicing needs, constraints and solutions; and the rationale for any minor expansion to the rural settlement boundary."; w) establish a simplified process including criteria and timeframes to consider limited refinements to the boundaries of the Greenbelt and Oak Rides Moraine Conservation Plan that result from further ground-truthing of the boundary; and 2. That a copy of Report PLN 15-16 be forwarded to the Region of Durham, other Durham Area Municipalities, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and the Members of Parliament for Pickering-Scarborough East and Ajax-Pickering. ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT# PL.~ O5-1:L__ (') :::,- c cl ::,; ,=~--'::=========~- ====:;i IL===I Hydro Corridor J 111111.1 : ·r· City of Pickering Boundary '1111111 .c c., "' Q) Cll "ch 'a,---ir' 'c ·o a, D Proposed Provincially Significant Employment Zone in Pickering Proposed Provincially Significant Employment Zone is conceptual. To be used for quick reference only. , .... , ..... ••'' , ... ·••" t••· , .... ...... ~ (/) \ - ~ , .........