HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 24-06
Ciú/ o~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PO 24-06
Date: March 27,2006
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
- Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and
Urban Land, dated January 2006
- Proposed Amendments for Transportation, Commercial, Rural and
Environmental components, dated November 2005
n- Recommel'lded Arterial Corridor Guidelines, dated November2005
Recommendations:
1. That Council RECEIVE Report PO 24-06 of the Director, Planning &
Development as the City's comments on the Recommended Directions Report
for Population, Employment and Urban Land, dated January 2006, Proposed
Amendments for Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental
components of the Durham Regional Official Plan, dated November 2005; and
the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines, dated November 2005;
2. In preparing the amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan to implement
the Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban
Land, dated January 2006, that Council REQUEST the Region to identify the
Cherrywood Community as a Future Urban Policy Area and to expand the urban
area boundary to include lands in the northeast area of Pickering (lands outside
of the Greenbelt Plan) and to designate these lands as Future Urban Study Area
in order to accommodate Pickering's growth potential; and in addition, review the
matters set out in Appendix I to Report PO 24-06;
3. That Council REQUEST the Region to address the issues identified by City staff
regarding the assumptions used in the analysis of population and land supply in
the Recommended Directions Report for Population, Employment and Urban
Land, dated January 2006, as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 24-06;
4. To provide clarity to the Proposed Amendments on Transportation, Commercial,
Rural and Environmental policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan and the
Recommended Arterial Road Guidelines, that Council REQUEST the Region to
incorporate the revisions as set out in Appendix", Appendix" I and Appendix IV
to Report PD 24-06, which among other matters would include the following:
· continue to permit the severance of a farm retirement lot;
· permit as-of-right stand-alone farm-related commercial uses (such as
farm markets, auction barns);
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 2
· allow the limits of development for Hamlets located outside the urban
area boundary to be reviewed by local area municipalities at the time of
the ten-year comprehensive review of Provincial Plans;
· identify Downtown Pickering (Liverpool and Kingston Roads) as an Urban
Growth Centre;
· phase the minimum density target of 2.5 FSI for Regional Centres over
the timeframe of the Regional Official Plan in conjunction with transit and
infrastructure upgrades;
· identify the Greenbelt Plan area as a separate component of the Natural
Heritage System and retain the existing Major Open Space designation
for lands outside of the Greenbelt;
· designate fOUL additional major arteriaL rQads segments as Regional
Corridor, and
· correction of editorial and technical matters;
5. That Council REQUEST the Region to defer the Proposed Amendments to the
Durham Regional Official Plan affecting Central Pickering in order to re-examine, in
consultation with the City of Pickering, policies, schedules and outstanding deferrals
including Dixie Road, in light of more recent planning initiatives for this area;
6. That Council REQUEST the Region to examine Bill 51, the Planning and
Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act and incorporate any enabling
policies in the Durham Regional Official Plan such as the funding of community
improvement plans;
7. That Council REQUEST the Region to defer its approval of the Recommended
Arterial Road Guidelines, and further, that Council DIRECT City staff to continue
discussions with the Region on cost sharing arrangements and to report back;
and
8. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PO 24-06 to the Region of
Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region.
Executive Summary: The Region of Durham, as part of the next stage of its
Official Plan Review process, released three documents for review and comment:
Proposed Amendments relating to Transportation, Commercial, Rural and
Environmental; Recommended Directions Report relating to Population, Employment
and Urban Land; and Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines.
City staff has identified issues respecting the assumptions used by the Region in the
analysis of land supply in the Recommended Directions Report for Population,
Employment and Urban Land. The Regional assumptions resulted in a shortfall of
urban land in Pickering by 2026 whereas City staff assumptions indicate a shortfall
condition well before 2026. To address the urban land shortfall, it is recommended that
Region identify the Cherrywood Community (as shown in Amendment 13) as Future
Urban Policy Area and the northeast area of Pickering (lands outside of the Greenbelt
Plan) as a Future Urban Study Area within the Region's urban area boundary.
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 3
In addition, the Region should provide direction in its Official Plan requiring local
municipalities to undertake a comprehensive review justifying the need and timing of
additional urban land, and to prepare detailed secondary plans for expansion areas.
It is further recommended that the Region's minimum floor space index (FSI) target of
2.5 for Regional Centres be phased over the timeframe of the ROP as higher order
transit and infrastructure funding are provided. This provides a more realistic timeframe
for the market to respond with higher density development.
In general, the majority of the proposed amendments to the Regional Official Plan are
appropriate. The essential elements of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) Amendment
remain unchanged from the recommended directions that were outlined in the
n Recommèndéd Directions Report, dated Octöber2004.
City staff is satisfied with the commercial and transportation components of the ROP
Amendment except for minor revisions to provide clarity. However, we continue to have
difficulty with the direction of the proposed agricultural policies, which apply stricter land
use controls over rural lands in Pickering. Council, in its earlier comment to the Region,
requested that the rural policies be revised to provide greater flexibility and opportunity
for Pickering's rural community.
There are a number of changes relating to Central Pickering in the Region's proposed
amendments. More recent review by both the City and Province indicate that the
Region's current and proposed policies, land use and transportation designations are no
longer appropriate. The Region should defer all official plan matters affecting Central
Pickering in order to re-examine, in consultation with the City of Pickering, policies,
schedules and outstanding deferrals including Dixie Road.
The Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines are intended to be a "toolbox" of
potential strategies to be applied in the process of the planning and design of arterial
corridors by the Region of Durham, local area municipalities and other interested
parties. Although the content of the Guidelines is appropriate, the financial and cost
sharing details have not been adequately addressed. Until the Region provides further
financial information, it is recommended that Council request the Region to defer its
approval of the Recommended Arterial Road Guidelines, and further, that Council direct
staff to continue discussions with the Region on cost sharing arrangements and to
report back.
Financial Implications: Not Applicable.
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 4
1.0 Backç¡round:
1.1 Staff previously commented on the 2004 Recommended Directions Report
for the environmental, commercial and rural components of the Regional
Official Plan, which formed the basis for the proposed amendments
In October 2004, the Region of Durham released the Recommended Directions
Report for the environmental, commercial and rural components of the Durham
Regional Official Plan. The City of Pickering provided comments on the Directions
Report in February 2005.
After reviewing all CQmments received, the. Region released. theprgposed
amendments to the Regional Official Plan as part of the statutory public
consultation process in November 2005. The amendments implement the
Recommended Directions that addressed the environmental, commercial, rural
components. Amendments to the transportation policies and schedules were also
included.
1.2 The Region released the Recommended Directions Report for Population,
Employment and Urban Land in early 2006
The Region released this report in January 2006 with a request for comments
from area municipalities. The Recommended Directions Report responded to
comments received on the previously released Discussion Paper. The City had
provided comments identifying the need for additional urban land to
accommodate Pickering's growth potential to 2031. The Directions Report
presents Regional staff recommendations on the Population, Employment and
Urban Land component of the Regional Official Plan Review, which will form the
basis for future amendments to the Regional Official Plan. The amendments
related to population, employment and urban land are anticipated for release by
end of April.
1.3 The Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines document was released for
comment in November 2005 and is also being implemented through the
Region's proposed amendments
City staff comments on Draft Arterial Corridor Guidelines were provided in
September 2005. A number of the comments were clarified and/or incorporated
into the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines released later in the year.
The Recommended Guidelines are also being implemented through the
proposed amendments to the transportation component of the Regional Official
Plan. Staff from both Planning & Development and Municipal Property &
Engineering have reviewed and provided comments on the Guidelines.
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 5
2.0 Discussion:
This part of the report is divided into the following three sections:
· Part A provides a response to the Region's Recommended Directions
Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land;
· Part B provides a response to the proposed amendments to the
Regional Official Plan for the Transportation, Commercial, Rural and
Environmental components; and
· Part C provides a response to the Region's Recommended Arterial
Corridor Guidelines
Copies of the three documents are available in the Planning & Development
Department, the Pickering Central Library, and can also be viewed by accessing
the Region of Durham website at http://www.reqion.durham.on.ca
Part A - Recommended Directions respecting Population, Employment and
Urban Land
2.1 The Region should reallocate the surplus Ajax population to Pickering and
Whitby to support Pickering's role as a western anchor and Urban Growth
Centre
In recognition of Ajax's Official Plan policy of setting a firm limit to urban growth,
the Region has proposed to reallocate more than 40,000 people to designated
urban lands within other Durham lakeshore municipalities (mainly Oshawa and
Clarington) before any expansion to urban boundaries is considered.
This reallocation of population eastward is contrary to Pickering's role as part of
the western anchor to the Region's urban system and minimizes the importance
of downtown Pickering as an urban growth centre to accommodate future growth.
Also, it potentially delays the timely development of Seaton. Accordingly, it is
recommended that the Region reallocate surplus Ajax population proportionally
to Pickering and Whitby.
2.2 The Region's urban land supply table should be adjusted to reflect current
development experience for residential development in designated Living
Areas
The calculation of urban land supply should be adjusted to reflect current
development experience that a larger share of gross living area needs to be set
aside for environmental protection purposes (approximately 50%, rather than the
37% assumed in the land inventory table). The remaining 50% is utilized for
residential, roads, schools, parks, and stormwater management facilities. By
contrast, the City's Growth Management Study assumed that 65% of lands are
used for non-residential development.
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 6
It is recommended that the Region reassess the actual amount of designated
Living Area land available for residential development.
If this more restrictive approach is taken, the current supply of designated urban
lands in Pickering will be exhausted before 2026 and will require expansion of
urban boundaries in Pickering sooner. It is recommended that the land inventory
table be revised to reflect current development practices/restrictions and that
urban boundaries in Pickering be expanded to accommodate the increased
required urban land supply.
2.3 The Region's land inventory table should be adjusted to reflect a higher
rate of housing starts for Seaton per annum starting in 2009
The calculation of the population forecast and the available land inventory for the
next 25 years assumes the build-out of Seaton at a much lower rate than
anticipated by the City. The City forecasts a higher growth rate of 2,000 to 2,500
new dwellings per year starting in the year 2009, resulting in an earlier urban
land shortfall. Accordingly, it is recommended that the population forecast and
the land inventory table be adjusted to reflect an increased pace of development
for Seaton and that urban boundaries be expanded to provide for further
forecasted population increases following the build-out of Seaton to 2031.
2.4 The Region's proposed floor space index of 2.5 for development in Regional
Centres should be phased over 30 years
The floor space index (FSI) target of 2.5 will apply to the Regional Centres in
Seaton and in downtown Pickering. While the objective of achieving this density
over time is supported, its implementation will be challenging as it is significantly
higher than the FSI for most developments in downtown Pickering, except the
Tridel apartments (Picore office complex is about 0.7 FSI). Developments would
generally require underground or decked parking. Other challenges include the
need for significant investment În community infrastructure requiring major
funding assistance from the Province and Region. Also, the anticipated
reduction of densities at the periphery of downtown Pickering, to be compatible
with the surrounding lower densities, will drive density requirements in the central
part of downtown significantly higher than 2.5 FSI.
Intensification and redevelopment is not a one-time process, but rather an
ongoing evolution of a community. It is therefore recommended that the
minimum overall density target be phased gradually for Regional Centres over
the timeframe of the Regional Official Plan, as higher order transit and
infrastructure funding is provided.
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 7
2.5 The Region should identify the Cherrywood Community as a Future Urban
Policy Area and the northeast sector of Pickering (outside of the Greenbelt)
as a Future Urban Study Area in order to accommodate Pickering's growth
potential
Recently, City staff met with Regional representatives to discuss Pickering's
urban land deficit within the Region's 2031 planning horizon. The Recommended
Directions Report indicated that Pickering would require additional lands to
accommodate residential growth by 2026. The Region, in response to
Pickering's request to designate additional Living Area and Employment Area
lands to accommodate growth to 2031, is considering the expansion of the urban
area boundary in the Regional Official Plan to include lands in the northeast
sector of Pickering. Further, the Region proposed to recognize the Cherrywood
Community as a potential future urban area, notwithstanding its current inclusion
within the Greenbelt Plan.
In light of the Region's comments, it is recommended that northeast Pickering be
designated as a Future Urban Study Area within an expanded Regional urban
area boundary, and the Cherrywood Community be identified as a Future Urban
Policy Area through the Regional Official Plan Amendment process. The future
disposition of the Cherrywood Community as an urban area would follow the
review of the Greenbelt Plan and its subsequent removal from that Plan. Further,
the Region should add a policy requiring a municipally led comprehensive review
to be undertaken, including full public consultation, prior to designating lands
within a Future Urban Study Area for urban uses. In this way, local municipalities
can determine the timing and phasing of urban land to accommodate their growth
needs to 2031. Prior to designating land for urban uses, interim land uses would
be permitted.
If the Region establishes a Future Urban Study Area, the City's proposed
Countryside Area designation and associated policies in Amendment 13 reflects
an appropriate interim use of land between the existing urban areas and the
more permanent agricultural areas within the Oak Ridges Moraine. This would
allow uses not directly related to agriculture.
Part B - Proposed amendments to the Regional Official Plan for the
Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental components
2.6 If the Region does not expand Pickering's urban area, changes are requested
to the ROP Amendment relating to prime agricultural areas, agricultural
related commercial uses, farm retirement lots and hamlet boundaries
Prime Aqricultural Areas
The Region is proposing to merge the two current agricultural designations in the
Proposed Amendments for lands both inside and outside the Greenbelt Plan.
Previously, Council requested the Region to establish a 'countryside' designation
in the Regional Official Plan that reflects a more mixed and diverse setting for
near-urban rural areas.
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 8
As such, a Countryside designation would provide the opportunity for a broader
range of complementary uses including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism,
and non-agricultural countryside uses than is permitted in the proposed Prime
Agricultural Area designation. In the event the Region does not expand Pickering's
urban area, it is recommended that a new Countryside Area designation be
included in the Proposed Amendments to the Regional Official Plan.
Aqricultural related commercial uses
The Proposed Amendment has retained the strict policy to allow
agricultural-related commercial uses onlv bv amendment to the ROP. As such,
any stand-alone commercial use would require an amendment to the ROP. Staff
considers the policy overly restrictive. An amendment is unnecessary as these
uses are typically small scale, associated with agricultural activities, and have
minimal impact on the broader Regional market. Any regional road impacts can
be addressed through a study as part of a zoning by-law amendment
requirement. As such, it is recommended that the establishment of small-scale
agricultural-related commercial uses be addressed through policies in local
official plans. It should be noted that the proposed Provincial Plan for Central
Pickering permits stand-alone, agricultural-related commercial uses.
Farm retirement lots
The ROP Amendment has deleted the policy that permits consideration of one
farm retirement lot from a total farm holding. It is recognized that the deletion of
this policy conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement. However, it is our
understanding that the Province is harmonizing the Greenbelt Plan and Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan for consistency purposes. As an example, a
farm retirement lot is permitted in the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan but not in the
Greenbelt Plan. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Region pursue this
direction with the Province to consider permitting a farm retirement lot in both
Provincial Plans and defer the Proposed Amendment relating to severance
policies for farm retirement lots until the Province has made a decision.
Hamlet boundaries
The ROP amendment has carried forward the Region's previously recommended
policy to implement a firm growth limit of 25% of existing residential units or
current development potential identified in local official plans.
For hamlets outside the urban area boundary, the growth of each hamlet should
not be restricted indefinitely and should be reviewed by local municipalities at the
time of the ten-year comprehensive review of Provincial Plans, such as the
Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Regional staff has
advised that for hamlets within the recommended Future Urban Study Area
designation, local municipalities would be able to establish appropriate growth
limits for hamlets (i.e. Greenwood and Kinsale). The potential for growth would
be assessed in the context of location, local circumstances and future servicing
within the Region's urban area boundary.
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 9
2.7 The Region should designate four additional major arterial roads segments
as Regional Corridor in the ROP Amendment
The Region is showing Kingston Road as the only Regional Corridor in Pickering
on the proposed land use schedule amendment to the Regional Official Plan.
Brock Road from Highway 401 to Highway 407, Whites Road/Sideline 26 from
Highway 401 to Highway 407, Taunton Road from Brock Road to Whites Road,
and Highway 7 from Brock Road to Townline Road should similarly be
designated as Regional Corridor. These roads are major arterial and transit
corridors that serve a Regional function by accommodating the movement of
people, goods and services through Pickering.
The emerging plan for Central Pickering designates these roads as major transit
corridors. These corridors would accommodate transit stations at key nodes to
facilitate local and interregional transit and inter-modal transportation. These
road segments are intended to provide an important transit loop connecting
Seaton to downtown Pickering, an urban growth centre in the Province's Growth
Plan. To support Pickering's urban system, the Region should identify these
corridors in the ROP Amendment.
2.8 The Region should defer all policies and schedules relating to Central
Pickering in the Regional Official Plan
The use of Section 8.3.4 in the current Regional Official Plan to permit any
deviations from the designations for Seaton without an amendment to the Plan is
inappropriate. The emerging plan for Central Pickering supports major changes
to the policies, land-use and transportation designations in the Regional Official
Plan. A number of changes relating to Central Pickering in the Region's
proposed amendments do not reflect these major changes. As such, it is
recommended that the Region defer all official plan matters affecting Central
Pickering in order to re-examine, in consultation with the City of Pickering,
policies, schedules and outstanding deferrals.
In addition, this would provide the opportunity to address an outstanding deferral
relating to Dixie Road. The designation of Dixie Road from Kingston Road and
Third Concession Road is deferred in both the ROP and the City's Official Plan
due to Council's objection to the Type B arterial designation proposed by the
Region and the proposed extension of Dixie Road to connect with Sideline 22
and ultimately Highway 407. It should be noted that the emerging plan for
Central Pickering show Dixie Road discontinued north of the Third Concession
Road. As such, there is no need to designate Dixie Road as a Type B arterial
road in the Regional Official Plan.
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 10
2.9 The Region should incorporate any enabling policies in the Durham Regional
Official Plan such as the funding of community improvement plans
Bill 51, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act
proposes to amend the Planning Act to allow upper-tier municipalities to make
grants or loans to lower-tier municipalities for the purpose of carrying out a
community improvement plan, but only if the municipality providing the grant or
loan has related policies in its Official Plan. Accordingly, it is recommended that
the Region incorporate any enabling policies in the Durham Regional Official
Plan such as the funding of community improvement plans.
Part C - Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines
2.10 The content of the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines is generally
appropriate but the financial and cost sharing details remain vague
Many of the recommended options for the various road classifications provide for
more robust road and boulevard treatments (e.g. enhanced landscaping, street
furniture, specialty paving) than what has been done in the past. City staff
support the treatments proposed by the Region. However, questions respecting
who is responsible for the increased costs to construct, maintain and rehabilitate
these upgrades have not been resolved.
In response to City concerns previously expressed on cost sharing, the Region has
replied that cost sharing of capital and long-term maintenance for Regional roads
will be further explored on a project-to-project basis, based on the results of a
corridor visioning or equivalent exercise. However, the financial and cost sharing
details have not been adequately addressed especially relating to improvements
such as enhanced landscaping, boulevard and median treatments, and upgraded
standards for street lighting and sidewalks. It will also require the City and the
Region to coordinate the prioritization and scheduling of projects, and the approval
of funds through their respective annual budget processes. Until the Region
provides further clarification on the financial requirements, it is recommended that
Council request the Region to defer its approval of the Recommended Arterial
Corridor Guidelines, and further, that Council direct staff to continue discussions
with the Region on cost sharing arrangements and to report back.
3.0 Conclusion
3.1 Council should request the Region to address the City's comments
provided in this Report and in the Appendices
Many of the issues previously raised by City staff on the Natural Environment,
Commercial, and Rural components have been addressed through the ROP
Amendment. In addition, staff met with representatives from the Region both on
the Proposed Amendments and the Recommended Directions for Population,
Employment and Urban Land and appreciated the clarifications provided.
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 11
Staff's detailed comments on the Recommended Directions Report, ROP
Amendment, and Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines are provided for
Council's review and endorsement (see Appendices I, II, III and IV).
There is general agreement with most of the Region's directions, amendments and
recommendations. It is recommended that Council request the Region to
incorporate the changes set out in Report 24-06 and in Appendices I, II, III, and IV.
APPENDICES:
COrnrn~nts on.. the Region's Recommended Directions Report for Population,
Employment and Urbánland, dated Janúary 2006 ~.-
II Comments on the proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment, dated November 2005
III Technical Comments on the proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment
Schedules
IV Comments on the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines, dated November 2005
Report PO 24-06
Date: March 27, 2006
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 12
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
C(1vlo- P ù~~~
Carla Pierini
Planner II
"~
Neil Carroll, CI PP
Director, Planning & Development
.5
Grant McGregor, MCIP, P
Principle Planner - Policy
~~~-
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Policy
CP:GM:ld
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Division Head, Corporate Projects and Policy
Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
J ~/ð6 "
· DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS
ON
REGION OF DURHAM
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS REPORT
FOR POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT
AND URBAN LAND, JANUARY 2006
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT PD 24-06
Region of Durham
Official Plan Review
Recommended Directions for
Population, Employment and Urban land
I Recommended
Item # Directions
POPULATION FORECASTS
1. That the Rap be amended to include
population forecasts, 2011 - 2031, as
summarized in Table 1 (see Attachment #1 to
Appendix I).
Pickering was allocated 205,800 people for
the year 2031 ¡ a decrease of about 5,000
from the Proposed Directions.
I
Staff
Comments I Recommendations
Reallocate Ajax surplus population to
Pickering:
The Ajax Official Plan has set a firm limit to
future urban expansion and the surplus
population can now be reallocated to other
area municipalities. Table 1 reallocates
the surplus . first to the already designated
Living Area lands in Oshawa and
Clarington until those lands are fully
occupied with the remainder then allocated
to the other area municipalities.
The population surplus should be allocated
to Pickering and Whitby. Pickering will
need significant growth potential to fulfill its
new role as an Urban Growth Centre in the
Greater Golden Horseshoe Plan.
Should the Region not allocate the surplus
Ajax growth to Pickering and Whitby, it
should be allocated proportionately to local
municipalities based on adjustments from
the proposed review/monitoring of actual
population data from Census Canada
every five years that is recommended.
The Region should not first allocate the
surplus to the designated Living Area lands
in Oshawa/Clarington.
Include rural and urban forecasts:
It is recommended that Table 1 include
separate figures for the rural and urban
population forecasts for each municipality.
Item #
1.
cont'd
Recommended
Directions
I ~
Staff
Comments I Recommendations
Revise the calculation of land supply:
The net land calculation methodology
assumes 63% of gross land area will be
developable, despite recent environmental
standards that typically require
approximately 50% of land to be used for
non-development purposes. An up-to-date
ratio should be determined and the
methodology amended to reflect such a
finding.
Reflect a higher growth rate for Seaton:
The forecasts in Table 1 assume a rate of
development for Seaton that is too
conservative. It is recommended that
Table 1 and the land supply table be
amended to reflect an increased average
annual rate of growth for Seaton due to
stronger anticipated demand for
development in Seaton.
2. No new designations of urban land are Revise urban boundaries to
included in the Recommended Directions accommodate more urban growth in
Report. Pickering:
It is recommended that the Cherrywood
Community be identified as a Special
Urban Policy Area for consideration as a
future urban area in the ROP, once
necessary amendments to the Greenbelt
Plan occur.
Also, it is recommended that lands outside
the Greenbelt in northeast Pickering
(generally north of Highway #7, east of
Westney Road) be designated as a Future
Urban Study Area now, within the urban
area boundary, subject to a policy
requirement for a municipally initiated
comprehensive review, including public
consultation, prior to establishing urban
designations and permitting development
to occur.
The Recommended Directions Report
notes that the Province's draft GGH
Growth Plan forecasts 350,000 jobs by
2031 for Durham, a 1 :2.7 ratio of jobs to
population, and that the Durham Official
Plan will have to conform to these figures,
once they become Provincial policy.
If the GGH Growth Plan forecast becomes
Provincial policy, the result will be a
greater relative tax burden on the
residential sector, compared to the rest of
thª GTð. _ further, D~rhall1 wULbe at a
disadvantage in competing for scarce
Provincial infrastructure investment in
major transportation, piped services etc.
than would those Regions with a 1:2 jobs
to population ratio.
The City supports the 1:2 ratio for Durham
Region in the Recommended Directions
Report.
EVALUATION OF LIVING AREAS - BOUNDARY EXPANSIONS
Recommended
Directions
EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS
3. Employment Forecast:
Item #
Year
Emplovment
Jobs: Population
2011
2021
2031
225,800
306,600
398,800
1 :2.9 (34%)
1 :2.7 (36%)
1 :2.6 (38%)
4.
Permit urban boundary expansion
amendments only through comprehensive
review undertaken by the Region, in
consultation with the respective area
municipality.
5.
Areas (for urban boundary expansions) shall
be required to:
· be large enough to create a complete new
community at secondary plan level, or to
complete an existing community;
· be contiguous to existing urban areas;
· allow for sequential development; and
· be serviced by full municipal water and
sewer services.
Staff
Comments I Recommendations
The recommended direction is unclear as
to who can initiate a comprehensive
review. It is recommended that only the
Region or area municipalities should be
able to initiate a comprehensive review.
Further, it is recommended that a definition
of 'comprehensive review' be added to the
ROP to specify that a review of urban
boundaries in one or more area
municipalities would be considered as a
'comprehensive review'.
Require clarification. The terms "complete
new community", "complete an existing
community" and "sequential development"
should be defined/clarified.
Item #
6.
Recommended
Directions
Require that approved secondary plans build
out to 75% of dwelling unit capacity prior to
approval of sequential secondary plans.
Staff
Comments I Recommendations
The exact percentage of build-out required
to release the next sequential secondary
plan should be established in area
municipalities secondary plans. Also, the
established amount of build-out should
delav development in the next sequential
secondary plan, not approval of the next
secondary plan.
7. Seek to achieve the development of Regional A sampling of current Floor Space Indeces
Centres to a minimum overall Floor Space in Pickering's downtown includes:
Index (FSI) of 2.5.
-
-
· Pickering Town Centre at 0.37
.~..
.T6bfawsStóre dáf 0.21
· MPAC/Picor Office
Complex
· Tridel Apartments
· Rockport Townhouses/
Seniors Complex
at 0.71
at 2.89 to 6.48
at 2.0
Additional funding for piped and
transportation infrastructure may be
required in downtown Pickering to service
significant redevelopment to achieve a
minimum 2.5 FSI overall. It is
recommended that the minimum overall
FSI for Urban Growth Centres and other
Regional Centres be phased over the
timeframe of the Rap as infrastructure
funding becomes available.
/-\ttachment #-1-
TABLE 1
Recommended Population Forecasts
2011 ·2031
MuniciiJalitv 2011 2021 2031
Ajax 102,000 128,500 135.200
Brock 13,600 15,600 18,200
Clarinaton 95,200 131,000 177,800
Oshawa 161,700 194,000 237,200
PickerinQ 105,100 149,400 205,800
SCUgOq 23,200 25,600 26,100
Uxbridae 22,300 23,400 24,000
WhitbY '134,100 174,200 226,200
Durham '657,300 841,800 1,050,600
Source: Durham Region Planning Department.
Notes: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
Refer to Appendix II for further details.
DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS
ON
REGION OF DURHAM
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION, COMMERCIAL,
RURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPONENTS
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
NOVEMBER 2005
APPENDIX II TO
REPORT PD 24-06
Region of Durham
Official Plan Review
Proposed Amendments
Proposed Region of Durham
Amendments*
SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENT
1. 2.3.3
Item #
Where residential and noise sensitive land
uses are located within 750 metres of a railway
corridor, Regional Council shall ensure regard
is given to the noise, vibration and safety
standards of the Ministry of Environment and
the affected rail company through consultation
with these· agencies and, where necessary; by
requiring the preparation of a noise and
vibration analysis. Further. in accordance with
Transport Canada Guidelines. no new noise
sensitive land use shall be permitted above the
25 NEF/NEP noise exposure contour for new
airports.
2. 2.3.12
To ensure that water resources are available
in sufficient quality and quantity to meet
existing and future needs of the Region's
residents, Regional Council shall:
a) promote and support water resources
conservation and management initiatives
of other agencies;
b) in the process of assessing development,
require lakes and streams and adjoining
lands to be retained in or rehabilitated to
a natural state, the protection of fish and
wildlife habitat and minimize alterations to
natural drainage systems and sediments
entering a watercourse or lake;
c) discourage alterations to watercourses
with minor adjustments considered by the
authority having jurisdiction where
evidence can be provided that the
functions of the watercourse will not be
adversely affected;
Staff
Comments I Revisions**
The proposed increased area of influence
adjacent to railway corridors from 300 metres
to 750 metres is excessive. For example, a
land use proposed on the north side of
Kingston Road at Liverpool Road would
require involvement of the railways.
It is recommended that the current 300 metre
area of influence be retained.
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
*. Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff
Amendments* Comments I Revisions**
2. d) ensure that, where appropriate, area
cont'd municipal official plans require
stormwater management and erosion and
sedimentation control plans be prepared
in the context of subwatershed plans and
that stormwater management facilities be
implemented as part of the pre-servicing
of development proposals; The requirement that stormwater
e) ensure that, for lands located on the Oak management plans and watershed plans
Ridges Moraine and the lands Qoverned (and their components) for lands within the
by the Greenbelt Plan, stormwater Greenbelt Plan be subject to the provisions of
management and watershed plans and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
their components, - meet the requirements provides for stricter regulations. The
of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Greenbelt Plan contains policies that apply to
Plan; and stormwater management infrastructure
proposals, and identifies the required
f) promote qroundwater infiltration. throuQh components of watershed plans.
improved stormwater management
desiQn. It is recommended that the reference to lands
governed by the Greenbelt Plan be deleted
from clause (e).
3. Aquifer Vulnerability Areas It is recommended that the aquifer
vulnerability area mapping and restrictions be
Sections 2.3.22. 2.3.23. 2.3.24. 2.3.25 applied only to the rural area, as all uses
everywhere have to demonstrate appropriate
stormwater management and environmental
regulations, etc.
SECTION 5 - CULTURAL, HEALTH and COMMUNITY FACILITIES, SERVICES and UTILITIES
4. 5.2.2 The establishment of municipally owned
community facilities should be permitted
Municipallv owned and operated community within all designations, including Prime
facilities. for such purposes as day care Agricultural Areas.
centres and recreation shall be encouraqed to
locate within Urban Areas and if appropriate in It is recommended that the restriction
scale. in Hamlets. but may be permitted in any regarding the Prime Agricultural Area be
desiqnation. except the Prime Aqricultural deleted from this policy.
Area. Within the Oak RidQes Moraine. such
uses are encouraqed to locate in Settlement
Areas and Hamlets, but may be permitted in
the Countryside Area. outside of Prime
Aqricultural Areas. subject to the provisions of
the Oak RidQes Moraine Conservation Plan.
These uses shall be directed to locations that
are visible and accessible to residents of the
Region. preferably in close proximity to
existinq and future transit routes.
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item #
Proposed Region of Durham
Amendments*
5.
5.2.7
The development of electric power facilities,
includinQ commercial wind turbines, shall
occur in an orderly manner to facilitate the
efficient and reliable provision of adequate
electric power. It is the policy of this Plan that
electric power facilities are permitted in all land
use designations, provided that the planning of
all such facilities satisfies the requirements of
the Environmental Assessment Act and is
carried out having regard to the other policies
of this Plan. Area Municipalities should
consider the inclusion of policies in their
respective Official Plans, ensurinQ that
commercial wind turbines are located
appropriatelv.
6. 5.3.6
Cemeteries are recognized as necessary and
essential community facilities. Cemeteries
may vary in scale, depending upon the
location and needs of the population to be
served. Existing cemeteries are recognized as
permitted uses in this Plan.
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
Staff
Comments I Revisions**
In addition to commercial wind turbines there
are other forms of renewable energy sources
that can supply electric power. As such, it is
recommended that this policy be revised to
permit a broader range of energy sources.
It is recommended that the specific term
"commercial wind turbines" be replaced with
the more generally defined term renewable
energy facilities as follows:
"The development of electric power facilities,
including renewable energy facilities, shall
occur in an orderly manner to· facilitate the
efficient and reliable provision of adequate
electric power. It is the policy of this Plan that
electric power facilities are permitted in all
land use designations, provided that the
planning of all such facilities satisfies the
requirements of the Environmental
Assessment Act and is carried out having
regard to the other policies of this Plan. Area
Municipalities should consider the inclusion of
policies in their respective Official Plans,
ensuring that renewable energy facilities
are located appropriately."
In light of the above, it is recommended that
the following definition for renewable energy
be added to Sub-Section 15A - Definitions of
the Regional Official Plan:
"Renewable Energy: means energy
sources that produce electricity or
thermal energy without depleting
resources, and include solar, wind, water,
earth and biomass power".
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item #
6.
cont'd
-
Proposed Region of Durham
Amendments*
Such cemeteries may be permitted to expand
to the limits of the license issued under the
Cemeteries Act, provided that they comply
with the respective zoning by-law and intent of
this Plan, and that provisions have been made
for roads identified in this Plan and the
respective area municipal official plan.
The establishment of new cemeteries may be
permitted by amendment to the respective
area municipal official plan, provided that the
proposal for a new cemetery:
a) meets the general intent of this Plan;
b) has no adverse traffic, parking and visual
impacts on the surrounding land uses and
residents;
c) is situated on lands suitable to be
developed as a cemetery;
d) has no adverse impacts on the natural
environment and satisfies the provisions
of Section 2 of this Plan;
e) has made provision for future roads; and
f) is not located in Prime Aqricultural Areas.
In addition, within the Oak Ridges Moraine, the
establishment of cemeteries may only be
permitted in the Countryside and Settlement
Areas, subject to the provisions of the Oak
Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
SECTION 8 - URBAN SYSTEM
7. 8.3.10
For the purposes of this Plan, Reqional
Interest in commercial planning shall be based
upon the followinq:
ill Anv commercial proposal of 56.000 m2 or
larqer, on an individual or cumulative
basis; or
Q} Anv commercial proposal that would have
the potential to neqativelv impact the
planned function of a Regional Centre.
Staff
Comments I Revisions**
It is unclear if this policy applies to the
expansion of existing cemeteries within the
"Prime Agricultural Area" designation (as it
should). Further clarification is required.
It is recommended that policies 8.3.10 and
8.3.11 be moved from Section 8 to
Sub-Section 8A as these policies relate to
implementation.
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item #
Proposed Region of Durham
Amendments*
7. 8.3.11
cont'd
Reqional Council shall require the preparation
of a retail impact study for any retail commercial
development proposal that is of Reqional
Interest. in accordance with Policy 8.3.10.
8.
8A.2.2
Centres shall be classified in a hierarchy of
functions as follows:
a) Reqional Centres shall be planned and
developed in accordance with Policy
8A.1.2 as the main concentrations of
urban activities within area municipalities,
providing a fully integrated array of
community, office, service and shopping,
recreational and residential uses.
Generally, Reqional Centres shall
function as places of symbolic and
physical interest for the residents, and
shall provide identity to the area
municipalities within which they are
located. The Reqional Centre (Simcoe
and King Streets) in the City of Oshawa
shall continue to be, and function as, the
dominant Centre within the Region, with
specific emphasis on office, business and
administrative services;
Q1 Local Centres desiqnated In area
municipal official plans shall be planned
and developed in accordance with the
followinq:
U Urban Centres shall generally be
smaller in scale than, the Reqional
Centres, serving large segments of
Urban Areas through the provision
of uses which complement those
offered within the Reqional Centres;
ill Community Centres shall generally
be smaller in scale than, the Urban
Centres serving small segments of
Urban Areas through the provision
of uses which complement those
offered within the Urban Centres'
and '
Staff
Comments I Revisions**
The provincially proposed Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe identifies two
Urban Growth Centres in the Region of
Durham. One is located in Downtown
Pickering, and the other is in Downtown
Oshawa.
It is recommended that the ROP reflect the
two proposed Urban Growth Centres, and
that a new "Urban Growth Centre"
classification be added to the hierarchy of
centers as Clause (a). In addition, the
existing Clauses should be re-alphabetized,
and the reference to a single Regional Centre
at Simcoe and King Streets in Oshawa be
deleted from Clause (b) as follows:
"a) Urban Growth Centres shall be
planned and developed in
accordance with Policy 8A.1.2 as
focal areas for investment in
institutional and region-wide public
services, as well as commercial
,
recreational, cultural and
entertainment uses. Urban Growth
Centres shall accommodate and
support major transit
infrastructure. Two Urban Growth
Centres, one in the City of
Pickering (Liverpool and Kingston
Roads) and the other in the City of
Oshawa (Simcoe and King Streets)
shall accommodate a significant
share of population and
employment growth and serve as
high density major employment
centres that will attract
provincially, nationally or
internationally significant
employment uses;
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff
Amendments* Comments I Revisions**
8. !ill Neiqhbourhood Centres shall b) Regional Centres shall be planned
cont'd generally be smaller in scale than and developed in accordance with
the Community Centres, serving Policy 8A.1.2 as the main
the day-to-day needs of the concentrations of urban activities
residents of the surrounding within area municipalities, providing a
neiqhbourhood. fully integrated array of community,
office, service and shopping,
recreational and residential uses.
Generally, Regional Centres shall
function as places of symbolic and
physical interest for the residents, and
shall provide identity to the area
municipalities within which they are
located. The Regional Centre
(Simcoe and King Streets) in the
City of Osha\":a shall continue to
be, and function as, the dominant
Centre within the Region, 'J:ith
specific emphasis on office,
business and administrative
services;
c) ."
...,
In addition to the above revisions, all other
text and schedule amendments to implement
the proposed changes should be made in the
ROP.
9. 8A.2.6 Disagree. In policies 8.3.10 and 8.3.11, the
Regional interest in commercial planning has
Prior to the consideration of the expansion of been clearly defined. Therefore, this second
an existinq Regional Centre. as detailed in an set of policies is not necessary, and it is
area municipal official plan, the Council of the recommended that policies 8A.2.6 and 8A.2.7
area municipality shall determine if there is a be deleted.
Reqional Interest in accordance with Policy
8.3.10. Where there is a Reqional Interest. a
retail impact study shall be required to iustify
such expansion. and ensure that the proposal
does not undulv affect the viability of any other
Centre.
· Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
.. Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item #
Proposed Region of Durham
Amendments*
9. 8A.2.7
cont'd
10.
Prior to the designation of ª new Local Centre
in an area municipal official plan or the
expansion of an existinq Local Centre, the
Council of the area municipality shall
determine if there is a Reqional Interest in
accordance with Policy 8.3.10. Where there is
a Reqional Interest. a retail impact study shall
be required to iustifv such desiqnation or
expansion and ensure that the proposal does
not unduly affect the viability of any other
Centre
8A.2.11
In the preparation of area municipal official
plans, Councils of the area municipalities shall
ensure the inclusion of:
a)
policies and designations to implement
the intent of this Plan and provisions of
this Section, particularly Policies 8A.1.2
and 8A.1.5;
Staff
Comments J Revisions**
Regional and Local Corridors should also be
designated in area municipal official plans
with defined boundaries and refined land use
designations.
It is recommended that Regional and Local
Corridors be added to clause (b), so that it
reads as follows:
lib) boundaries, as well as land use
designations, within all Regional and
Local Centres and Corridors;"
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
boundaries, as well as land use
designations, within all Reqional and
Local Centres;
c) a network of walkways, civic squares and
parks;
b)
d) requirements for the preparation of traffic
access studies;
e) development of higher densities;
f) transit nodes;
g) policies to ensure and guide the
development of housing in Reqional and
Local Centres: and
bl policies to ensure that qenerally new
development alonq Corridors shall either
front or flank the roadway. Reverse lottinq
alonq Corridors should only be permitted,
where other desiqn solutions are not
feasible.
Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff
Amendments* Comments I Revisions**
SECTION 9 - RURAL SYSTEM
11. 9A.2.7 The listed uses are considered to be
small-scale commercial uses that support the
The establishment of aqriculture-related agricultural community and have minimal
commercial uses. such as farm markets. impact of the broader Regional market.
auction barns. and feed stores. that support Similar to small-scale home occupations /
and directly service aqriculture. and require businesses and agricultural-related industrial
locations in proximity to aqriculture and uses, small-scale agricultural-related
agriculture-related uses. shall be encouraqed commercial uses should be permitted within
to locate in Urban Areas and Hamlets. Prime Agricultural Areas. The establishment
However. such uses may be permitted in of such uses should be addressed through
Prime Agricultural Areas by amendment to this policies in local official plans.
Plan. In the consideration of such amendment. It should be noted that the emerging plan for
reqard shall be qiven to the applicable po-licies
of 9A.2.6. Central Pickering permits agricultural related
commercial uses.
It is recommended that this policy be revised
and additional wording be added as follows:
"The establishment of agriculture-related
commercial uses, such as farm markets,
auction barns, and feed stores, that support
and directly service agriculture, and require
locations in proximity to agriculture and
agriculture-related uses, shall be encouraged
to locate in Urban Areas and Hamlets.
However, such uses may be permitted in
Prime Agricultural Areas without
amendment to this Plan provided
appropriate policies are contained within
area municipalities official plans.
Area municipal official plans shall include
detailed policies to limit the scale and
number of agricultural-related commercial
uses, and include policies to address
compatibility with surrounding uses."
12. 9A.2.12 Staff disagree with the deletion of the current
The severance of land for farm retirement or policy which permits the consideration of the
intra-family purposes shall not be qranted. severance of one retirement lot from a
farmer's total farm-related land holdings.
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff
Amendments* Comments I Revisions**
12. It is recognized that the deletion of this policy
cont'd conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement.
However, it is our understanding that the
Province is harmonizing the Greenbelt Plan
and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
for consistency purposes. It is recommended
that the Region pursue this direction with the
Province to consider permitting a farm
retirement lot in both Provincial Plans and
defer the Proposed Amendment relating to
severance policies for farm retirement lots
until the Province has made a decision.
13. 98.2.7 Staff agree with the concept of limits to
growth for hamlets. However, for hamlets
Hamlets within the Oak Ridqes Moraine shall outside the urban area boundary the growth
be delineated and developed in accordance of each hamlet should not be restricted
with the requirements of the Oak Ridqes indefinitely and should be reviewed by local
Conservation Plan and the applicable policies municipalities at the time of the ten-year
contained in Section 10 of this Plan. comprehensive review of Provincial Plans.
For all Hamlets outside the Oak Ridqes The Region has advised that for hamlets
Moraine. a firm limit to Hamlet development of within staff's recommended Future Urban
25% of existinq residential units (as of vear Study Area designation, local municipalities
end 2000). or the residential development would be able to establish appropriate growth
potential within the limits of the Hamlet, limits, and the potential for growth would be
identified in area municipal planninq assessed in the context of location and local
documents (as of year end 2000). whichever is circumstances within the Region's urban area
greater. shall be established in area municipal boundary.
official plans. toqether with a firm Hamlet
boundary. Area municipalities may choose to
be more restrictive.
The delineation of Hamlet boundaries based
on the above criteria shall take into account
infill potential within the existinq limits of the
Hamlet first. Any remaininq development
potential may be accommodated throuqh an
expansion to the Hamlet, in accordance with a
comprehensive review as outlined in Policy
98.2.8. Once the Hamlet boundary is
desiqnated in the area municipal official plan.
no further Hamlet boundary expansions shall
be permitted.
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item #
Proposed Region of Durham
Amendments*
SECTION 10 - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM
14. 10.3.9
15.
16.
The lands designated as Prime Aqricultural
Area between the Oak Ridges Moraine Area
and the Natural Heritage Area and Waterfront
Area, as identified in Policy 10.3.8, shall
function as open space linkages.
Sub-Section 1 OA - Natural Heritaqe Areas
-
1 0A.1 .1
Natural Heritaqe Areas are desiqnated on
Schedule 'A' and include key natural heritaqe
and hvdroloqic features.
10A.2.5
Within Urban Areas. the minimum veqetative
protection zone shall be determined throuqh
an environmental impact study. in accordance
with Policv 2.3.35.
Staff
Comments I Revisions**
In light of the recommendation that the
proposed "Prime Agricultural Area" in
northeast Pickering be identified as a Future
Urban Study Area, it is recommended that
this policy be deleted.
The lands contained within the Provincial
Greenbelt Plan shall function as appropriate
open space linkages.
As part of the proposed ROP Amendment,
lands currently designated "Major Open
Space" are to be designated "Natural
Heritage Area". The general policies
established for all lands within the proposed
"Natural Heritage Area" designation are
based on policies contained within the
Provincial Greenbelt Plan. As such, lands
located outside of the Greenbelt Plan area
will be subject to the rigorous Greenbelt
policies. This is considered inappropriate as
the Province's Greenbelt policies should be
confined to the Greenbelt area. The existing
"Major Open Space" designation, and
policies, are considered more appropriate for
rural lands that are not part of the Greenbelt.
It is recommended that the Greenbelt be
identified as a separate component of the
Natural Heritage System and that the existing
"Major Open Space" designation be retained
for rural lands outside of the Greenbelt Plan
area.
It is recommended that an environmental
impact study in accordance with the Durham
Regional Official Plan be required only when
amendments to the Regional Official Plan are
required, or when local official plans do not
already contain policies regarding such
studies or the protection of natural features.
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff
Amendments* Comments I Revisions**
16. It is recommended that additional wording be
cont'd added as follows:
"Within Urban Areas, where an amendment
to this Plan is required or where an area
municipal official plan does not contain
policies regarding environmental impact
studies or the protection of natural
features, the minimum vegetative protection
zone shall be determined through an
environmental impact study, in accordance
with Policy 2.3.35."
17. 10A.2.6 See comments provided for Item # 16.
Outside of Urban Areas, an environmental It is recommended that additional wording be
impact study, in accordance with Policy 2.3.35, added as follows:
shall be required for any proposal for new
development or site alteration within 120 "Outside of Urban Areas, where an
metres of a key natural heritaqe or hydroloqic amendment to this Plan is required or
feature. In the case of fish habitat, an where an area municipal official plan does
environmental impact studY shall include the not contain policies regarding
qreater of: environmental impact studies or the
protection of natural features, an
ill the hazardous land limit; environmental impact study, in accordance
Q1 the meander belt limit; or with Policy 2.3.35, shall be required for any
proposal for new development or site
9 120m from the stable top of bank. alteration within 120 metres of a key natural
heritage or hydrologic feature... "
18. 10A.2.7 See comments provided for Item # 16.
Within Urban Areas, the need and/or scope of It is recommended that additional wording be
an environmental impact study, in accordance added as follows:
with Policy 2.3.35, for any new development or
site alteration shall be determined in "Within Urban Areas, where an amendment
accordance with the Council approved EIS to this Plan is required or where an area
Guideline. municipal official plan does not contain
policies regarding environmental impact
studies or the protection of natural
features, the need and/or scope of an
environmental impact study, in accordance
with Policy 2.3.35, for any new development
or site alteration shall be determined in
accordance with the Council approved EIS
Guideline."
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff
Amendments* Comments I Revisions**
SECTION 11 - TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
19. Existing Policy 16.3.20 is to be deleted from Staff disagree with the deletion of this policy
the ROP in its entirety. and recommend that a similar, reworded
policy be retained as follows:
"Regional Council shall endeavour to
provide transit service on all arterial roads
in the urban areas of Pickering, Ajax,
Whitby, Oshawa, Courtice and
Bowmanville. "
20. 11.3.33 This policy needs to be strengthened in order
to further clarify when to initiate the corridor
The Reqion in coniunction with area plans associated with a Municipal Class
municipalities may develop corridor plans in Environmental Assessment for significant
coniunction with Municipal Class development.
Environmental Assessments for maior road
works, or siqnificant development applications It is recommended that the following be
or plans. Such corridor plans will provide a added to the last paragraph of this policy:
vision for the development of Reqional Road
corridors over time and shall address: 'These corridor plans will be used to guide
a) the transportation environment. the development of key arterial corridors and
will provide implementation measures and
includinq present and future mobilitv and financial commitments for activities such
access requirements; as planning, design, maintenance, planting,
b) adjacent land uses and the future built construction, or reconstruction."
environment; and
c) streetscapinq and the public realm. It is further recommended that the following
paragraph be added at the end of the policy:
These corridor plans will be used to quide the "These corridor plans will only be required
development of key arterial corridors and will for development when the Region, in
provide direction for such activities as conjunction with the local area municipality,
planninq, desiqn, maintenance. plantinG, determines the need for a corridor plan."
construction. or reconstruction.
21. 11.3.34 Partially Agree. This policy needs to be
strengthened in order to give proper direction
Where a development application or site plan is to the area municipalities on how to initiate a
continqent upon road improvements that are corridor plan and a Municipal Class
subject to a Municipal Class Environmental Environmental Assessment associated with
Assessment or a corridor plan. the development development applications or site plans that
application or site plan shall not be approved require road improvements.
until the Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment or corridor plan are completed to
the extent required to assess the development
application or site plan.
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
** Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
Item # Proposed Region of Durham Staff
Amendments* Comments I Revisions**
21. It is recommended that the following
cont'd additional paragraph be added at the end of
Policy 11.3.34:
I "The requirements for a corridor plan or
Municipal Class Environmental
Assessment in conjunction with road
improvements will be determined by the
Region in conjunction with the local area
municipality."
SECTION 13 - SPECIAL POLICY AREAS
22. 13.2.1 This area is currently designated as "Mixed
Use Area - Mixed Corridors" within the
Special Policy Area A (Pickering) Pickering Official Plan, and as such this
policy has become obsolete and is no longer
This area presently contains a mixture of required.
residential, retail, personal service and industrial
uses. The policy of this Plan is to maximize the It is recommended that this policy, along with
area's highway exposure as a mainstreet and the Special Study Area designation shown on
gateway to the Region. Development shall be Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' - Regional Structure,
intensified in a manner that will not adversely be deleted and that a "Living Area" or
affect similar development within the Main "Regional Corridor" designation be applied to
Central Areas of the City of Pickering. The this area.
improvement of its visual impact from Highway
401 and Highway 2 shall be a major
consideration in the development of this area.
SUB-SECTION 15A - DEFINITIONS
23. Aqricultural use: means the qrowinq of crops. It is unclear whether or not riding and
includinq nursery and horticultural crops. boarding stables would be permitted under
raisinq of livestock; raisinq of other animals for this definition. As these are common uses
food, fur or fibre. includinq poultry and fish; that occur on rural properties, it is
aquaculture; apiaries; aqro-forestrv; maple recommended that Agricultural use definition
syrup production; and associated on-farm be revised to specifically include these uses.
buildinqs and structures.
POLICY ADDITION
24. It is recommended that the following policy be
added to Section 4-Housing as follows:
"Regional Council shall promote more
energy efficient buildings and
infrastructure including retrofitting
existing development to more energy
efficient standards."
* Note: The underlining indicates new policies and wording
*. Note: The bold print indicates the proposed wording for the staff recommended revisions
DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS
ON
REGION OF DURHAM
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION, COMMERCIAL,
RURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPONENTS
PROPOSED SCHEDULE AMENDMENTS
APPENDIX III TO
REPORT PD 24-06
Region of Durham
Official Plan Review
Proposed Schedule Amendments
Item #
Proposed Region of Durham
Schedule Amendments
Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' - Regional Structure
identifies a Regional Corridor designation only
on Kingston Road.
1.
2.
Schedule 'B' - Map 'B1' - Key Natural
Heritaqe And Hvdrologic Features identifies
key natural heritage features and hydrologic
features on a regional scale.
Staff
Comments I Revisions
The segments of Brock Road from
Highway 401 to Highway 407, Whites
Road/Sideline 26 from Highway 401 to
Highway 407, Highway 7 from Brock Road
to Townline Road and Taunton Road from
Brock Road to Whites Road are
designated as Arterial Roads, but not
Regional Corridor.
It is recommended that the segments of
Brock Road, Whites Road/Sideline 26,
Highway 7, and Taunton Road be designated
as Regional Corridor. These roads will serve
a Regional function by accommodating the
movement of people, goods and services
through Pickering.
In addition, the emerging plan for Central
Pickering designates these roads as major
transit corridors. These corridors would
accommodate transit stations at key nodes to
facilitate local and interregional transit and
inter-modal transportation. These road
segments are intended to provide an
important transit loop connecting Seaton to
downtown Pickering, an urban growth centre
in the Province's Growth Plan.
Staff continue to note that the scale of the
mapping on the proposed schedule requires
detailed mapping to be provided in local
official plan schedules.
It is recommended that Schedule 'B' - Map
'B1' be removed in its entirety, and that the
key natural heritage features and hydrologic
features be identified only in local area
municipalities official plans.
3. Schedule 'C' - Map 'C1' - Road Network omits It is recommended that this mapping error be
a portion of Highway 7, west of Lake Ridge corrected.
Road (the proposed Kinsale by-pass).
Item #
Proposed Region of Durham
Schedule Amendments
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network
states that Finch Avenue, west of Altona Road
should be re-designated from a "Type A"
Arterial to a "Type C" Arterial road, whereas
the designation illustrated for Finch Avenue
shows it as a "Type B" Arterial.
4.
5.
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network
identifies a network of Type "A", "B " and "C"
Arterial roads through Central Pickering.
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C3' - Transit Priority
Network identifies a transit spine and several
future Commuter Stations within the Central
Pickering.
6.
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network
designates Dixie Road as a "Type B " Arterial
road.
Staff
Comments I Revisions
The ROP Amendment should state that Finch
Avenue, west of Altona Road is proposed to
be re-designated from a "Type B" Arterial to a
"Type C" Arterial, not from a "Type A".
It is recommended that the current "Type B"
designation for this portion of Finch Road not
be amended. Maintaining the existing
designation provides consistency along Finch
Avenue to Durham Regional Road 30, which
is currently designated as a "Type B".
It is recommended that the road and transit
networks for Central Pickering be deferred
until the plan for this area is finalized. This
will ensure that the approved road and transit
networks are accurately reflected in the
Regional Official Plan.
The designation of Dixie Road from Kingston
Road and Third Concession Road is deferred
in both the ROP and the City's Official Plan
due to Council's objection to the "Type B"
arterial designation proposed by the Region
and the proposed extension of Dixie Road to
connect with Sideline 22 and ultimately
Highway 407.
As the emerging plan for Central Pickering
shows Dixie Road discontinued north of the
Third Concession Road, Dixie Road should
be designated as a "Type C" Arterial road.
7. Schedule E - Table E7 - Arterial Road Criteria It is recommended that the exception to
allows for exceptions to right-of-way widths in arterial road right-of-way widths also apply to
Central Areas and Hamlets. Regional Corridors.
8.
A future by-pass at Regional Road 30 (York -
Durham Townline Road) and Highway 7 is
identified on the following schedules:
Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' - Regional Structure;
Schedule 'B' - Map 'B1' - Key Natural Heritage
and Hydrological Features;
Schedule 'B' - Map 'B2' - Aquifer Vulnerability
and Wellhead Protection Areas;
It is staff's understanding that there is
physically insufficient room for another
intersection at Regional Road 30 (York -
Durham Townline Road) and Highway 7, and
therefore it is unlikely that the future by-pass
could be accommodated.
It is recommended that the future by-pass be
removed from the listed schedules.
Item #
Proposed Region of Durham
Schedule Amendments
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C1' - Road Network;
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network;
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C3' - Transit Priority
Network;
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C4' - Strategic Good
Movements Network;
Schedule 'D' - High Potential Aggregate
Resource Areas.
8.
cont'd
9.
The future Brock Road by-pass around
Brougham is illustrated close to the Hamlet on
the following schedules:
Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' - Regional Structure;
Schedule 'B' - Map 'B1' - Key Natural Heritage
and Hydrological Features;
Schedule 'B' - Map 'B2' - Aquifer Vulnerability
and Wellhead Protection Areas;
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C1' - Road Network;
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2' - Road Network;
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C3' - Transit Priority
Network;
Schedule 'C' - Map 'C4' - Strategic Good
Movements Network;
Schedule 'D' - High Potential Aggregate
Resource Areas.
Staff
Comments I Revisions
It is recommended that the Brock Road
by-pass be represented more easterly of the
Hamlet of Brougham, generally reaching
Sideline 16 to the east as shown in the
Environmental Assessment, on the listed
schedules.
I
DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS
ON
REGION OF DURHAM
RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL
CORRIDOR GUIDELINES
NOVEMBER 2005
APPENDIX IV TO
REPORT PD 24-06
Item #
1.
Region of Durham
Official Plan Review
Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines
Arterial Corridor Guidelines (ACG)
Provisions for access to major
commercial/activity centers.
2.
Section 4.5, Noise Attenuation Strategies,
Road Design: suggests reducing noise by
reducing speeding.
3.
Section 5.2, Crosswalks and Intersections
4.
Section 5.3, Item #8, continues to read that "if
a live tree must be removed, replace it with
two saplings".
5.
Section 9.0, Typical Street Cross Sections:
some of the cross sections recommend the
provision of border areas, which can be as
wide as 5.5 meters.
Staff
Comments
The guidelines do not address the provision
of signalized access to major I
commercial/activity centers where the
minimum intersection spacing is not
available.
The provision of signalized access should be
further explored through the Access
Management Policy study.
The Guidelines should give details on the
design elements that could be implemented
on local arterial and collector roads to reduce
speeding.
It is recommended that a minimum width of
2.5 metres for crosswalks be specified in the
ACG.
It should not matter whether the tree is alive
or dead if it has to be removed. Spatial
requirements for tree growth and road cross
sections will dictate how many trees should
be replanted. The removal of a dead or alive
tree should be replaced with a tree of similar
size and species, or of a minimum calliper of
50mm.
Staff are concerned that large border areas
may be too excessive in the urban area,
particularly when combined with municipal
setback requirements for development. Large
borders may result in a large and under
utilized boulevard. It is recommended that
the guidelines promote that the size of the
borders be reviewed in conjunction with
adjacent developments, anticipated activity
levels, and zoning provisions to ensure that
the borders are appropriate in scale.
Item #
6.
Arterial Corridor Guidelines (ACG)
Appendix B: Street Tree Species Possibilities.
7.
Table 1.0 - Street Type Matrix with Corridor
Considerations indicates a 30 metre right-of-
way width for a two lane rural road under the
"Type A" arterial road designations.
Staff
Comments
This list contains only a few large deciduous
tree species and does not contain any
Maples, Ashes or other varieties of species,
which have proven to do well under urban
conditions. Arterial corridors are wide
expanses of relatively flat spaces
and require vertical elements with volume to
break up the wide flatness. Street trees of
large deciduous varieties have these
characteristics and can shade and shelter
pedestrians. This desire is expressed I
throughout the landscaping guidelines within
the ACG.
Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road
Classification System in the ACG, and
Schedule E - Table E7 of the Rap
Amendment provide a right-of-way width of
36 - 45 metres for a "Type A" arterial road.
It is recommended that Table 4 of the ACG
and Table E7 of the Rap be revised to be
consistent with Table 1.0 of the ACG, and
that a special provision which allows for a
reduced right-of-way width of 30 metres for a
two lane "Type A" rural arterial road be
provided.
8. Table 1.0 - Street Type Matrix with Corridor Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road
Considerations in the ACG indicates a 26 Classification System in the ACG, and
metre right-of-way width for both two/four lane Schedule E - Table E7 of the Rap
commercial main streets, and two lane Amendment provide a right-of-way width of
commercial main streets under the "Type B" 30 - 36 metres for a "Type B" arterial road.
arterial road designation.
It is recommended that Table 4 of the ACG
and Table E7 of the Rap be revised to be
consistent with Table 1.0 of the ACG, and
that a special provision which allows for a
reduced right-of-way width of 26 metres for
both two/four lane commercial main streets,
and two lane commercial main streets under
the "Type B" arterial road designation be
provided.
Staff
Comments
The maximum right-of-way widths as
recommended in Table 4 - Recommended
Arterial Road Classification System should
only be applicable to intersections where
channelization is required. Mid-block arterial
corridors should have minimum right-of-way
widths to ensure that arterials do not act as
physical barriers.
Staff recommend amendments to the ACG
and the ROP Amendment to reflect this.
10. Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road This Table is not consistent with Schedule E
Classification System, Land Service/Access - Table E7 of the ROP Amendment as the
for a "Type A" arterial lists the following following criteria is not provided:
criteria:
Permit private access generally located a
Rigid/Progressive access control; minimum of 200 metres apart in Urban
Areas;
Permit major developments such as central
business districts, regional commercial centres It is recommended that Table 4 be revised to
and large industrial centre. reflect Table E7 of the ROP Amendment.
Item #
Arterial Corridor Guidelines (ACG)
That roadway corridors and right-of-way widths
should be kept to a minimum to support
adjacent land uses.
9.
11.
Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road
Classification System, Land Service/Access
for a "Type B" arterial lists the following
criteria:
I ncremental/Progressive access control;
Promote higher densities with shared or
combined access.
12.
Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road
Classification System, Transit for "Type A",
"Type B" and "Type C" arterial roads states the
following:
Type A Arterial: May serve as major and minor
transit corridors.
This Table is not consistent with Schedule E
- Table E7 of the ROP Amendment as the
following criteria is not provided:
Permit private access generally located a
minimum of 80 metres apart in Urban
Areas;
It is recommended that Table 4 be revised to
reflect Table E7 of the ROP Amendment.
This Table is not consistent with the wording
provided in Schedule E - Table E7 of the
ROP Amendment. As such, it is
recommended that both tables be revised to
combine the different wording provided in
each table as follows:
Type A Arterial: May serve as major and
Type B Arterial: May serve as major transit minor transit corridors, and as regional
corridors. transit spines.
Type C Arterial: May serve as minor transit Type B Arterial: May serve as major
corridors. transit corridors, and as regional transit
spines.
Type C Arterial: May serve as minor
transit corridors, and as local transit
corridors and connectors to regional
transit spines.
--
Item # Arterial Corridor Guidelines (ACG) Staff
Comments
13. Section 8.8 - Street for Future Intensification It is recommended that the . .
minimum
states the following: intersection spacing (east-west direction) for
"Type A" and "Type B" arterial roads provided
Frequent intersections and pedestrian access in Table 4 - Recommended Arterial Road
should be encouraged and should generally be Classification System of the ACG and
at a minimum of every 250 metres. Schedule E - Table E7 of the ROP
Amendment be revised to 250m/50 Om [not
300m/500m as currently shown] to be
consistent with Section 8.8 of the ACG.