Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 7, 2003 Council Meeting Agenda Monday, April 7, 2003 7:30 PM ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of March 17, 2003 Special Meeting of March 24, 2003 Special Meeting of March 24, 2003 (11) 1. DELEGATIONS Roger Anderson, Chair, Regional Municipality of Durham, will address Council to provide an overview of the accomplishments of Durham Region. Bram Zinman, representing Bowood Properties Inc. and Suncor, will address Council with respect to the Storm Water Management Guidelines contained in the Northeast Quadrant Study. The following persons will address Council with respect to parking issues: a) RickAIlan, 1874 Bicroft Court b) Mrs. Flavelle, 734 Sheppard Ave. Pat McNeil, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Strategy & Support, will address Council with respect to the Pickering Nuclear Generating Stations A and B Operating License Renewals. A representative of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will address Council with respect to the Pickering Nuclear Generating Stations A and B Operating License Renewals. (111) 1. RESOLUTIONS To adopt the Finance & Operations Committee Report dated March 24, 2003. To consider Planning & Development Report PD 15-03 concerning the Agricultural Assembly - Ontario Realty Corporation, Modification to the Conceptual Lot Plan, Relocation of Parcel 9. PAGE 1-2 3-7 HCKER1NG Council Meeting Agenda Monday, April 7, 2003 7:30 PM o To consider Planning & Development Report PD 19-03 concerning the City of Pickering Comments -"Shape the Future: Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel- Discussion Paper, February- March, 2003". To consider Planning & Development Report PD 18-03 concerning Comments on City of Toronto Official Plan. To consider Clerk's Report CL 10-03 concerning the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform. To consider Chief Administrative Office Report CAO 04-03 concerning Pickering Nuclear Generating Stations A and B Operating License Renewals. 8-46 47-56 57-98 99-105 (IV) BY-LAWS By-law Number 6118/03 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Plan 418, Part Block K, (40R-12933, Part 2) City of Pickering. (A 08/02) PURPOSE: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ZONING BY-LAW 501 ROSEBANK ROAD SOUTH D. & J. MACKERACHER By-law Number 6119/03 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering. (A 16/02) PURPOSE: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ZONING BY-LAW SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF VALLEY FARM ROAD AND DIEFENBAKER COURT FRED CAMPETELLI, TRUSTEE 106-108 109-123 Council Meeting Agenda Monday, April 7, 2003 7:30 PM By-law Number 6120/03 Being a by-law to amend by-law 2632/88. By-law Number 6121/03 Being a by-law to exempt Lots 1 and 2, Plan 40M-2086, Pickering, from part lot control. 124-132 133-135 {v) 1. NOTICE OF MOTION Moved by Councillor Holland Seconded by Councillor Pickles 136-138 WHEREAS the Municipality of the City of Pickering lies entirely within the Region of Durham; and WHEREAS municipal governance Corporation of the City of Pickering Durham; and of Pickering is shared between the and the Corporation of the Region of WHEREAS almost all volunteer, not-for-profit and other local organizations based in Pickering share resoumes within Durham, not Toronto; and WHEREAS the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario is charged with the responsibility of establishing new ridings on the basis of community of interest while maintaining a riding population that does not significantly deviate from the Provincial quotient as determined by the 2001 census; and WHEREAS the Region of Durham has 506,901 residents as of the 2001 Census and with a Provincial quotient of 107, 642 means five ridings would generate a 5.8% deviation; and WHERAS deviations of up to 8-9% are not at all uncommon in urban Ontario ridings; and Council Meeting Agenda Monday, April 7, 2003 7:30 PM WHEREAS the Region of Durham is growing rapidly and will be significantly under-represented by 2014 when the next redistribution will occur if left with only four and one half ridings; and WHEREAS the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario held a public hearing at which various proposals were submitted that allowed for five ridings in Durham and stressed the community of interest that was shared across the Region; and WHEREAS at no time during the public hearings or through the course of any discussion did the concept of splitting Pickering with Toronto ever arise; and WHEREAS the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission of Ontario, through the Chief Electoral Officer, transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons its Report which was tabled in the House of Commons on March 26, 2003 by the Speaker and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; and WHEREAS in its Report, the Boundaries Commission sent most of urban Pickering to Scarborough and the remainder of Pickering to Ajax; and WHEREAS the Corporation of the City of Pickering and its residents do not share a community of interest of any kind with the former City of Scarborough; and WHEREAS Federal and Provincial representation for Pickering will be vastly diminished by having huge constituencies that lie outside of Pickering; and WHEREAS public hearings are concluded and the only method of achieving change is provided for in Section 22 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which allows the filing of objections to the Report with the Clerk of the Committee within 30 days of the Commission's Report being referred to the Standing Committee; and WHEREAS the filing of such objections can only be in the form of a motion signed by not less than 10 members of the House of Commons; Council Meeting Agenda Monday, April 7, 2003 7:30 PM NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby expresses its absolute objection to the recommendation to divide Pickering as proposed in the Report tabled with the Speaker of the House of Commons, and THAT the Clerk of the Corporation of the City of Pickering write the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs advising of the City of Pickering's objections to the Report and that a letter also be sent to all Ontario M.P.'s advising them of Pickering's concerns and requesting that they support a motion to object to the changes; and THAT the proposal offered by the vast majority of Durham M.P.'s, M.P.P.'s, Mayors and Councillors be considered as an alternative with the inclusion of the Township of Brock and any minor revisions necessary to mitigate a major deviation from the electoral quotient; and THAT the Township of Brock be requested to write to the Clerk for the Standing Committee and the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario by April 21, 2003 with a full retraction of its Council's earlier comments that it does not share a community of interest with Durham Regions; and THAT the Council of the Township of Brock be further requested to send an endorsement of its inclusion within the Region of Durham for the purposes of establishing electoral boundaries to the same parties outlined in the prior operative clause; and THAT the Council of the Township of Brock be further requested to advise the Corporations of the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham, should it decide to maintain its position, that it does not share a community of interest with Durham Region; and THAT this motion be circulated to the Region of Durham for its endorsement at its meeting of April 16, 2003; and THAT this motion be further circulated to; All area Mayors, M.P.'s and M.P.P.'s Council Meeting Agenda Monday, April 7, 2003 7:30 PM (VI) OTHER BUSINESS (VII) CONFIRMATION BY-LAW (VIII) ADJOURNMENT RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Report of the Finance & Operations Committee dated March 24, 2003, be adopted. CARRIED: MAYOR 02 PICI<: EI L4 Appendix I Finance & Operations Committee Report FOC 2003-3 That the Finance & Operations Committee, having met on March 24, 2003, presents its third report to Council and recommends: CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 17-03 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO ACTIVITY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002 That Report CS 17-03 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, concerning the Investment Portfolio Activity for the Year ended December 31, 2002, be received by Council for information. CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 01-03 FORMAL QUOTATIONS - QUARTERLY REPORT FOR INFORMATION That Corporate Services Report CS 01-03 regarding Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information be received and forwarded to Council for information. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 03-03 PICKERING NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PEER REVIEW CONSULTANT SELECTION That Report CAO 03-03 concerning the hiring of a Peer Review Consultant for the Environmental Assessment of the Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility, be received; and That in response to the City's RFP 1-2003, the proposal submitted by IER - Planning, Research and Management Services, in association with SCIMUS Inc. and North-South Environmental Inc., dated February 21, 2003, be approved; and That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect to the above recommendation. -4- 03 RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Council endorse a modification to the Conceptual Lot Plan for the Agricultural Assembly, to eliminate the identification of Parcel 9 from the south side of the Sixth Concession Road, and replace it with a relocated Parcel 9 on the west side of Sideline 34. That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Region of Durham and the Ontario Realty Corporation for their endorsement of the report and revised Schedule "A" to the Conceptual Lot Plan of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the then Town of Pickering, Region of Durham and Ontario Realty Corporation. CARRIED: MAYOR 04 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: PD 15-03 Date: March 26, 2003 Nell Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Agricultural Assembly- Ontario Realty Corporation Modification to the Conceptual Lot Plan Relocation of Parcel 9 Recommendation: That Council endorse a modification to the Conceptual Lot Plan for the Agricultural Assembly, to eliminate the identification of Parcel 9 from the south side of the Sixth Concession Road, and replace it with a relocated Parcel 9 on the west side of Sideline 34. That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Region of Durham and the Ontario Realty Corporation for their endorsement of the report and revised Schedule "A" to the Conceptual Lot Plan of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the then Town of Pickering, Region of Durham and Ontario Realty Corporation. Executive Summary: On January 16, 2003, the Ontario Realty Corporation requested a modification to the Conceptual Lot Plan for the Agricultural Assembly to eliminate Parcel 9 from the south side of the Sixth Concession Road, and replace it with a relocated Parcel 9 on the west side of Sideline 34. This modification is requested in order to recognize and accommodate a long-term leasehold. It is recommended that Council endorse the report and revised Schedule "A" to the Conceptual Lot Plan of the Memorandum of Understanding respecting lot creation within The Agricultural Assembly. Financial Implications: proposal. No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the Background: In May 1999, Pickering Council endorsed a Conceptual Lot Plan for the Agricultural Assembly lands as part of a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the then Town of Pickering, Region of Durham and Ontario Realty Corporation. This Conceptual Lot Plan was the basis for creating lots in the area of the City known as the Agricultural Assembly. Report PD 15-03 Subject: Agricultural Assembly Date: March 17, 2003 Page 2 ,5 In November 1999, and May 2000 Pickering Council supported modifications to the Conceptual Lot Plan to allow the creation of additional parcels for farm units and to recognize a long-term leasehold tenant. Ontario Realty Corporation is no longer pursuing the creation of Parcel 9 as identified on the Conceptual Lot Plan. However, they are requesting the currently identified Parcel 9 be relocated and replaced with a "new" Parcel 9 in order to recognize an existing long-term leasehold tenant. The existing tenant (M. Harvey) has been living on the property for approximately 21 years and wishes the opportunity to purchase the parcel of land. The proposed replacement Parcel 9 is approximately 0.8 hectares (2.0 acres)in area and is located on the west side of Sideline 34 (within Parcel 6) as identified on Attachment No. 1 to this report. No additional lots will be created as a result of this modification. Existing Parcel 9 will merge with Parcel 12, leaving the total lot count of the Conceptual Lot Plan unchanged, It is recommended that Council support this modification to the Conceptual Lot Plan to allow the replacement and relocation of Parcel 9 within Parcel 6, as shown on Attachment No. 1 to this Report. Attachments: 1. Parcel 9 - Ontario Realty Corporation's proposal 2. Schedule "A" to the Conceptual Lot Plan for the Agricultural Assembly Prepared By: Lynda Taylor,~clP, RPP Manager,. DeVelopment Review Approved / ~ndorsg,d.B.y: Nell Ca~*.MClP;' RPP Director,~7~di~g & Development LDT:fn Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ..... ,?-..., TI;~ma~ J. Quinn,~hief A~tministrat'~ffice( O6 PARCEL 9 RELOCATION ATTACHMENT # · '~ TO R~POR7 # PD h5 - ~ %, 5 3 ~ U.I Z ~ /69 o ~- ~8 I.l.I -10 IRELOCATE PARCEL 9 FROM SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH CONCESSION ROAD TO WEST SIDE OF SIDELINE 34 (PART, 40R-20761) Schedule "A" CONCEPTUAL LOT PLAN AS AMENDED, NOV 90, MAY 2000 AND MAR 2003 WHITEVALE WHrrEVAL'E~ RD LEGEND NON GOVERNMENT OWNED LANDS WETLAND TO BE CONVEYED LANDS TO BE DEDICATED CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROPOSED LOTS POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL LOTS ROAD ALLOWANCE TO SE CONVEYED TO THE REGION ROAD ALLOWANCES TO BE CONVEYED TO THE TOWN 407 ROUTE 21 22 27 SOLD & CLOSED RD~ 41 43a PENDING SALE TO CA o n/ O UNDER AG RE'E-M~NT 75 CPR ONTARIO HYDRO 78 CLOSED --.~.:._-~::::-- 57 58 5! CHERRYWOOD TRANSFORMER STATION I:\CORELIREGION~SEATON(amanaed).CDR INITIALLY CREATED {MARCH 8/89) RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report Number PD 19-03, concerning the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel's Discussion Paper, Shape the Future, dated February - March 2003, be RECEIVED; and That the comments contained in the letter from the Director, Planning & Development, to the Chair of the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel, dated March 28, 2002, provided as Appendix I to Report to Council PD 19-03 be ENDORSED as the City of Pickering's comments on the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel's Discussion Paper, Shape the Future, dated February- March 2003; and That the City Clerk FORWARD Council's resolution and Report PD 19-03 to the Panel Chair- Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel, and the Region of Durham. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: PD 19-03 Date: April 1,2003 09 From: Nell Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: City of Pickering Comments - "Shape the Future: Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel -- Discussion Paper, February- March 2003" , Recommendation: That Report Number PD 19-03, conceming the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel's Discussion Paper, Shape the Future, dated February- March 2003, be RECEIVED; That the comments contained in the letter from the Director, Planning & Development, to the Chair of the central Ontario Smart Growth panel, dated March 28, 2002, provided as Appendix I to Report to Council PD 19-03, be ENDORSED as the City of Pickering's comments on the central Ontario Smart Growth panel's discussion paper, Shape the Future, dated February- March 2003; That the City Clerk FORWARD Council's resolution and Report PD 19-03 to the Panel Chair - Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel, and the Region of Durham. Executive Summary: Not Applicable Financial Implications: Not Applicable Background: The central Ontario Smart Growth panel is one of five Smart Growth Panels set up to help the province plan for the anticipated growth over the next 25 to 30 years Current population projections forecast three million more people moving into central Ontario over the next 25 years. It is the province's view that this growth is needed, and that growth can contribute to services and facilities associated with a high quality of life, but only if the growth is properly planned. If not properly planned, the quality of life will diminish. l0 Report PD 19-02 Subject: Comments on the Smart Growth Discussion Paper Shape the Future Date: April1,2003 Page 2 In 2002, the Ontario government set up five Smart Growth panels across the province, including central Ontario, to help plan for the expected population increase over the next 25 to 30 years. The panels are advising on a range of priorities to help the province make decisions on infrastructure investments, including transit, and on means of protecting and managing Ontario's natural heritage and resources. The central Ontario Smart Growth panel is seeking public input on the advice it proposes to provide to the province in its draft Discussion Paper The central Ontario panel has developed recommendations for a long-term growth strategy. The recommendations are contained in a Discussion Paper entitled Shape the Future, dated February - March 2003 (see Attachment #1). The discussion paper was released for public comment through a website posting with a 30-day comment period, ending March 21, 2003. The panel advises that public feedback will help shape the panel's advice to the Ontario government. Staff comments forwarded to panel directly, in light of unreasonably short deadline for comment The Smart Growth panel is commended for preparing a draft discussion paper on strategic directions for the Greater Toronto Area and beyond. The need to develop a long-term growth strategy for central Ontario is acknowledged. The general vision of the paper and many of the principles generally reflect the principles in the Durham and Pickering official Plans. In this regard, the discussion paper reflects existing policy. The Region of Durham has provided a comment on this matter through Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-36 (see text of Report, Attachment #2). We generally concur with the contents of the Region's report and have limited our comments of specific concern to Pickering. Several matters require the panel's action in finalizing a recommended Smart Growth strategy. The action items were detailed in a letter, (see Appendix I), from the Director, Planning & Development that was sent directly to the Chair of the central Ontario Smart Growth panel as there was insufficient time to report to Council within the specified timeframe for comments. The matters to be addressed included the need to: · Establish a precise implementation strategy with a funding commitment; · Acknowledge Pickering's on-going Growth Management Study; · Enable the plan to be updated periodically to reflect local planning decisions; · Change the maps of the designated urbanized areas to 2035 to reflect the Pickering airport site and accurately identify the Highway 407alignment; and · Change the maps to reflect the addition of a new category of "Potential Unique Employment Node" in the vicinity of the Pickering airport site. Report PD 19-02 Subject: Comments on the Smart Growth Discussion Paper Shape the Future Date: April 1,2003 Page 3 Council should, endorse the Director's comments as the City's comments It is recommended Council endorse the comments contained in the letter from the Director, Planning & Development to the Chair of the central Ontario Smart Growth Panel, contained in Appendix I to Report to Council PD 19-03, as the City of Pickering's comments on the discussion paper. Appendix Letter from Director, Planning & Development to the Chair of the central Ontario Smart Growth panel, dated March 28, 2003 Attachments: 1. Shape the Future: Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel -- Discussion Paper, February- March 2003 2. Regional Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-36 Prepared By: ,: J ::? Catherine Rose Manager, Policy CLR:jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickeri.~ng ~cil TI~S J. Qu~(n, Approved / Endorsed,~ Director, Pla & Development APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 19-03 LETTER TO PANEL CHAIR, CENTRAL ONTARIO SMART GROWTH PANEL FROM DIRECTOR, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, DATED MARCH 28, 2003 PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade 1 3 Pickering, Ontario Canada L1V 6K7 Direct Access 905.420.4660 cityof-pickering.com Department 905.420.4617 Facsimile 905.420.7648 plan&devl@city, pickering.on.ca March 28, 2003 Panel Chair Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel c/o Smart Growth Secretariat 777 Bay Street, 16th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 , Subject: City of Pickering Planning & Development Department Comments "Shape the Future: Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel -- Discussion Paper, February- March 2003" We commend the Smart Growth Panel for preparing a draft discussion paper on strategic directions for the Greater Toronto Area and beyond. The need to develop a long-term growth strategy for Central Ontario at a broad scale is acknowledged. We have reviewed the Smart Growth Discussion Paper and have a number of comments that require action in finalizing the panel's recommended provincial Smart Growth strategy. 1. A Precise Implementation Strategy with a. Fundin.q Commitment is Required It is unclear what status a provincial Smart Growth Plan for central Ontario will have, or how it is to be implemented. While many of the proposed principles in the Discussion Paper are very consistent with current Pickering Official Plan policy, implementation of certain aspects (such as: provision of transit and other infrastructure; provision of affordable housing; mapping, protection and management of significant natural heritage areas; and preparation of watershed management plans) will require major funding by the provincial and federal levels of government. The local municipalities cannot fund these initiatives alone. General implementation statements directed at the "province in collaboration with municipalities and the private sector" are inadequate. In the absence of a specific implementation program, including committed funding, it will be difficult for the Province to achieve the objectives of this document. The Draft Growth Concept for 2035 Should Acknowledge Pickerinq's On-Goinri Growth Management Study The City of Pickering is currently undertaking a Growth Management Study. The Study Area is bounded by the St. Lawrence & Hudson (formerly C P) Rail line on the south, the Pickering - Toronto/Markham boundary on the west, Highway 7 on the north, and Sideline 16/Pickering -Ajax boundary on the east. City of Pickering Planning & Development Department Comments "Shape the Future: Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel - Discussion Paper, February- March 2003" March 28, 2003 Page 2 Among other matters, this study is examining urban-rural boundary options, in Pickering. Recommendations to Council are anticipated by.the end of 2003. It is premature for the Smart Growth Panel to be drawing conclusions on the extent of the area to be urbanized in Pickering to' achieve the 2035 vision until the outcome of the City's Growth Management Study is known. ACcordingly, it is recommended that a specific Growth Concept Plan to 2035 for this study area not be published until'the conclusion of the Pickering Growth Management Study, or that the Plan acknowledge the potential that the urban/rural boundaries may change within the lands subject to the Growth Management Study. 3. A Provincial Smart Growth Plan Should Be Updated Periodically to Reflect Local Planning Decisions There is a reference on Page 11 of the Discussion Paper stating that, "the panel feels that some growth can occur outside areas that are currently designated as urban, if the growth can be justified within the context of a provincial Smart Growth plan for central Ontario". This is extremely vague, particularly since the status of a provincial Smart Growth plan is unknown. The Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, and the Durham Regional and Pickering Official Plans currently guide growth and development in Pickering. The results of.comprehensive planning studies and official plan reviews are the appropriate mechanism for identifying urban - rural boundaries. AccordinglY, it recommended that.any provincial growth concept or long range land use structure plan prepared for central Ontario be updated periodically to incorporate the results of comprehensive planning studies and official plan reviews that are undertaken and which respect the guiding principles of the Smart Growth strategy. 4. Maps of the Designated Urbanized Areas to 2035 Need to be Chanqed to Reflect Pickerinq Airport Site and Accurately Identify Highway 407 Alignment Despite our comments in Section 2 above, if the Smart Growth Panel intended to reflect urban areas as set out in approved official plans, several errors have been made. The draft Growth Concept for 2035 fails to identify lands on both the north and south sides of Highway 407 for development purposes, and fails to identify the potential Pickering airport (which is an urban use) as a potential urban development area. While there has been no determination that there will be an airport on the Pickering lands, planning and other investment decisions made in the absence of any recognition of a potential airport facility may unduly delay needed infrastructure should a decision be made to construct an airport. City of Pickering Planning & Development Department Comments "Shape the Future: Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel- Discussion Paper, February - March 2003" March 28, 2003 Page 3 Additionally, on the Draft Growth Concept for 2035, Highway 407 appears to be located too far north through east Pickering, Ajax and Whitby, and the north-south freeway to freeway connection between Highway 401 and Highway 407 in the vicinity of the Ajax/Pickering - Whitby boundary appears to be missing. Accordingly, the alignment of Highway 407 should be corrected and the connection added. Maps Should be Chanqed to Reflect the Addition of a New Cateqorv of "Potential Unique Employment Node" in the Vicinity of the Pickerin.q Airport Site Notwithstanding earlier comments that no decision has been made to build an airport in Pickering, planning and other investment decisions should be made today so as not to prejudice the viability of the site for a possible future airport. The various maps only recognize the Pearson Airport employment node. A new category of investment node, being a "Potential Unique Employment Node", should be added to the legend of the maps, and such a node be identified for the Pickering Airport site and lands immediately to the south. This would reflect designations and policy statements in current official plans. Conclusion The Smart Growth Panel has recommended a general vision and a number of principles that generally reflect the principles in the Durham and Pickering Official Plans. In this regard, the discussion paper reflects existing policy. The shopping list of steps to be undertaken to achieve the vision is broadly aimed at provincial, municipal and private sector partners without establishing clear responsibilities. Without specific and significant funding support, actions arising from this Discussion Paper will be limited. We are very concerned about the limited time frame for municipal comment on this important document. Although the deadline for comment has just passed, we trust these staff comments will be given full consideration by the Panel. We intend to forward our comments to City Council in the near future for endorsement. Yours truly CLR:hr J;Documents\Planning\Miscellaneous\SmartGrowthComment.doc Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Nell Car~p_p~..MClp Director, P~dng & Development Division Head, Corporate Policy & Projects Manager, Policy 16 Sh,ape the Future 18 ATTACHMENT# .... ~ TO REPORT ~ PD Th& document outSnes draft advice, prepared b)' the central Ontario Smart Growth panel, on a long-term growth strateg~for central Ontario. The panel recognizes that managing growth is a complex undertaking. Thi&' draft advice is comprehensive irc its approach, but it raises important questions that require further discussion and study. The panel is seekir~g public input before presenting'its final advice to the Ontario government. Smart Growth panel seeks public input on future of central Ontario ...................................... 1 Get involved: Have your say in how it ali happens .................................................................... 1 A look to the future ...................................................... 2 Everyone has an interest in Smart Growth ........ 2 How the central panel works ................................... 3 Meet the central Ontario Smart Growth panel.... 3 What if there were no Smart Growth? ................ 4 Map of selected natural heritage and agriculture ................................................................. 5 Map of draft growth concept for 2035 ................ 6 Maps of integrated transportation network .... 7 Map of priority areas for growth and investment ................................................................ '8 Creating a common vision .......................................... 9 A vision for 2035 ............................................................. 9 Guiding principles for a Smart Growth strategy ............................................................................. 10 A comprehensive plan is needed ...................... 10 Reshaping where and how we live ............ 11 Unlocking gridlock ............................................. 13 Rethinking how we manage waste ........... 14 Optimizing other infrastructure ................... 14 Protecting our environment .......................... 15 Glossary of terms ........................................................... 12 We want to hear from you ........................................ 16 Learn more and share your views .......................... 17 ATTACHMENT ~~TO PD_ Jcl - ,, People want to liw: in a yibrant, healthy coxn- ~nunit3' with a strong economy and good job oppo~nmitics. :it the saznc time, they want a positive qualiB~ of life for thcmselvcs and fln~'ir families, including a clean environment and livable communities. CentrM Ontario, home to ~nore than 7.5 million people, has all this and ~norc. 'l]ic tremendous population and cconoxnic growth we've expe- rienced ow;r the past 20 years has alh)wed this area to become one cfi *he bc~st placcs to live in North ~ancrica, ff not thc world. But current population pressures arc straining thc infra- stnxcntrc that provides the ikmndadon for way of life. Our infrastnmmre hasn't kept up with thc pace of growth. "lYaffic gridlock, air pollution and increasing pressure on om: grotto spaces and farmland arc; all signs of thks reali~; Over the next 25 years, three million more people are expectckt to call central Ontario home. We need tiffs growth, lt. can contribute to all thc things that we associatc with a high rpzality of life - such as transportation and transit systems, water and sewer svstczns, and schools and hospitals - if we plan f:or it. The Ontario government has set up five Smart. Growth panels across thc province, including in central Ontario,.to help it plan ibr the tremtmdous poptflafion incre~asc that's expected over the next 25 to 30 years. The panels, znadc up of women and men from local comm~mitics throughout the zone, arc helping thc province and munic- ipalities proznow~ clean, healthy environments, econoznic growth and strong connmmifies. Thc Sznart Growth panels arc advq_shzg on a range of priorities to help the province make decisions on infrasm.xctm.e investments, including t~ansit, and tm memos of pn)ttm~ mzd maxm~,dng Ontario's natural heritage and resources, qqie central Ontario panel hms developed recom- mendations for a hmg-tcrm growth stratc~. Thc panel is hohting consultations to meet with the broader ptfl)lic and seek its input on a s~at%~, for fimxre gro~h. (Scc back page fi)r det~s on how to s~mfit ytaw ~put.) q~e panel needs your hclp ~d fce~)ack to cnsm'e that its recommendations arc on the right wack. P~.fl)~c fec~)ack ~1 help shape thc pmml's ~M ad~Sce to the Ont~o gow~n~ent. 'l~at~ ~po~t, bccansc that adhce ~ gnide an ovcrM1 ~o~h strat%~ for ecn~M Ontario and ~11 be used by thc pro~6ncc, other levels of government ~d ~e private sector in their decisions concerning tim.we ~o~. A [wo~dM Szn~ Groa~ s~ate~ is to ~c flmm~ gm~ ~d prospcfi~ of ccn~M Ont~o. It ~H pfiod~e how p,a, nc don~s sho~fld be ~w~sted roads, ~sk, ~d water ~d sewer systems, over the nc~ 30 ye~s. lands shouht be protet~cd ~d where ~vesmmnt sro,da be &e~cd ~1 touch m~y ~pe~ of mw livem ~ t~s ~l~ boo~c~ pm~dcs baek~)~md on tim p~clq work~ includ~g the ~sion, principlcs~ v~ucs ~d (~et~om that pancl mc~)~s be~cw~ sho~fld ~dc thc pro~ce's gro~h s~ate~ for ccnwal Ont~o. In prcp~hzg its work, the p~d he~d ~om a mz~)er of expeas, coxnmuni~, leaders, sdcnfists and rcsc~chers on a ~dc range of topics, inch.u~g regional economy, ~avcl, social dz~gc, ~cenl~ds ~d a~c~flnwc. No~; thc panel w~ts to hear kozn you. Your involvement is ~po~ant. It ~ influence a flm~c b~oa~ s~ate~ for cen~al Ont~o. Get inwflvcd. Give us yo~ ad, cc mzd fee~a&. q]fis is your ch~ce to have a shap~g thc fim~ of cenwM Ont~o. The proposals included in this doc~m~cnt arc not thc p~d's ~ recommendations to thc pro,ncc. F~M rcco~cndafions ~H be dcvdopcd based on thc fi~e~a& the p~el receives f~m stakehddcrs and zne~)crs of thc p~fl)lic. 20 A,~TACHMEN7 FEPORT # S~nart. Growth is about ~naking rcsponsiblc choices that allow us to maintain a high quality of life while our comm~mities grow. Thc' 2001 Statistics Canada census shows that, from 1995 to 2001, almost half of Canada's total pop~flation growth -- arid more than 90 per cent of Ontario's growth -- took place in eentral Ontario. It's good that people want to live here, and we must keep it that way. Ottr children, grand- children and newcomers from other parts of Canada and M, road all contribute to m~r rich fabric of lffe. They start, businesses that create jobs and contribute tax rcvcm~e. They provide a market for the proth~txs and services that are produced and delivered here. It's dear that we cannot allow growth to just happen. When growth is not managed well, it comes at a price. Chronic gridlock, increasing smog and loss of forests and green spaces can result in fewer economic oppornmities and jobs when businesses choose not to invest in areas where cp~ali~ of life has deteriorated. Stxategic investment in infrastrucntre is needed to accommodate and encmwage funwc growth su~d to ensure a prosper°us flm.trc. It's estimated that more than 15 million people will live in Ontario by 2026. That's almost fottr million more than in ~999. Thc Ontario government wants all regaons of thc province to benefit from that gro~;~th. That means urban, n~ral and remote communities across Ontario. S~naxt Growth is the government's vision for promoting and planning for growth in ways that create strong economies, b~fild vibrant comm~rttities-and promote clean, healthy enviromne~nts. The Smart Growth approach Builds consensus: At its core, Smar~ Gn)wth is about building consensus and creating partnershipS. Growth issues cross municipal bmmdarics and government j~wisdictions; they encompass such arenas as r, ransportation, infrastnmmrc and land usc; and they affeta stakeholders differentl}5. To get everyone working toward thc same gtmls recp]ires b~filding consensus among key Stakeholders, integrating &cision- making within and. among governments and gaining broad pnl~hc support. Promotes and manages growth: Sraart' Growth welcomes growth for its ability to generate new businesses, jd, s and the revenue necess~. :to. support, thc services we value. As ranch as it welcomes growth, this initiative recognizes that growth must be managed to protect thc enviromnent and ensure residents a high ¢pa.'Mity of life. Looks at the big picture: Smart. Growth asks us to take a longer-term view in p~ for growth, lt. calls for being mom srxategic abont where pttblic money is · spent. In other words, Smart. Growth is a plan for finrther' improving q~ahty of life across thc province but for doing so strat%d, callv and'in ways that are right for 'each zone. For more information and examples of Smart Growth initiatives, visit www. smarrgrowth.gov, on.ca. 2I Thc panel's role is to b~fild consensus among stakeholders and thc p]fl~lic ¢ma gro~h s~at%q, for ccntrM Ont~o. Its ad, ce ~H hdp govc~ents ~d o&ers m&c co-or¢~atcd decisions on i~'rasml(~c, ~anspo~afion ~d cozmn]~W pl~ng -- decisions that snppo~ healthy g~o~h. Thc p~el bchevcs that Sm~ Gro~h c~ be ac~evcd if thc economy, ~c cn~romncnt ~d social cqui~- ~c bM~ced in dcvdopmcnt and h~ves~cnt decisions. Dec,ions on pl~i~, ~an~o~a6on, econo~c devclop]ncnt ~d thc en~Sn)~cnt ~nust Mso be bc~er co-ord~atcd ~t~ govc~cn~ ~d across 1(~ bo~m~cs] Over thc past 12 monks, pand mc~crs have sta~cd crea~g a blucp~t for how heM;by ~'o~h c~ oc(a~ h] ecnwal Ont~io over the nc= 30 yc~s. Now they- need fee(~ack on thc dh'ec6ons that they are mapping out. Thc ccn~M panel consists of leaders kom m]micipal govcnnnents, bus,ess, c&.]cation, cn,Sronmcntal ~oups, ~anspo~a6on org~i- za6ons and the development ~&]s~. Meet ks lnci~ers: Hazel Mc~dalllon, znayor, _Vlkssissm]ga (pand chah') Dr. Gordon Chong, chair, GO rlYansit (panel vice-chair, gridlock s]tb-pancl chair) Marcel Brunelie, xnayor, Town of Whitby Debbe Crandall, exec]lti-¢c director, Save ;;he Oak Ridges Moraine CoMition Dr. Brian Desblens, president, Sir Sandford Heming Cdlegc Tony Dionislo, director, ~lbronto Waterfront Revitalization Coq~oration BOu Eddy, mayor, Brant Jim Faught, executive. (hrcctor, Federation of Ontario Nau.u'&t.s ena r, York Region (waste s]~Tanel chair) Peter Gilgau, president and chief cxec]aive officer, Matt, amy Homes Robert Maclsaae, mayor, Ci~- of Bttrh%~on (strategy s]]bTand chair) Bon Milieu, deputy reeve, S~nith-E~mis~nore-Lakcficld Ann Mulvale, mayor, 'lbwn of Oakville Mike Murray, co~nmissioncr of transportation and en~4romncncal services, Regional M]micipality of Waterloo Fraser Nelson, general manager, Metnts Dcw~lopment Inc. Case Ootes, deputy mayor, City of John Sheridan, president, Ball Canada Bob wade, ~nayor, Ci~, of Hamilton Hazel McCallion (shown hem with other panel members)is leading the cenlral Ontario Smart Growth panel. From left ~o rig~ Jim Faught, Debbe Crandat~, Tony DJanisio, Brian DesbJens, Robert A'k]chsaac, Marcel Brunelle, Hazel McCallion, Chris Hodgson (former Minister o~: Municipal Affairs and Housing), Bill Fisch, Ran Eddy, Ann Mulvale, Gordon Chong, Ron Millen, Mike Murray 22 ~EPORT What wo~fld happen in 30 years if gro~h continued at irs c~cnt pace, ff we planned co~m.~fes as we do now ~d ff we ~vested in ~as~ue~.~re ~ we do at present? ~ ~dc~ndent C~a~ ~se~ o~ni~afio~ thc Ncpfs Formation, rccen6y commissioned a rcpo~ &at ~cs to .~swer &ese ques6ons. W~e b~ear pro~s hm been made ~ how we have m~agcd ~o~h over the past decadc, much ~nore c~ be done. ~l~n~ Nepds Fotmdadon~ ~te~ rcpo~ of 9009 enfided Implications of Bmr&ess-as-Usual Development, p~je~s the fi.tnwe ~pa(~ on cen~M more people, ff c~mnt ~ends h i~rasm~cU~e ~ves~ent, emplo~cnt, cons~m~cr preferences and co~.~g pa~ems tongue. It ~nclndes that &e ~pacrs on otw of Hfe wo~.dd be pn)fo~md. Go~u~ to work woffid rake lo~er. ~/}avelling ~ mo~g n~sh ho~w wotdd ~e 45 per cent longer &~ it dtu~s now, ev~ ~ollgh &mnccs would ~crease by ~Iv nine per cent. ~s wotdd be ~c 1o~ ~ o~ family ~d kicnds. ~ q~H~ wo~d get worse. Even ~ s~onger die,de prt~uccd by world go up by 42 pt~ c~nt. Eeono~e eompe~fi~n~s world s~fer. Delays ~ ~e movement of goods dttc to ~creased ~&)ck would hc~c costs for bnshesses ~d consmne~. Even ~)dav congestion costs the e~onomv 'an additional one billion dollars in transportation costs. TaXes could be higher. New rcwmuc sources would be n'~qnired to build roads. transit, water and sewer systems in new urban areas and to maintain and upgrade o~w ctwrent infrastn~cn.trc in existing developments. Thc central pand considered ;he Ncptis n'~port in its work. Thc s~rategics the panel proposes in this docmncnt would prevent so~ne of the negative impacts of growth projected by the fotmdation. For more information on the fotmdation, and to read i,s fttll report, visit www, neptis.org. ATTA[;H~iENT ~ ~_.~ ~ ~ ?,EPORT # 23 \ 2.4 ATTACHMENT # ....~TO REPORT ~ eD___~9_,~6-5 ...... United States 25 CENTFtA,L! N N 26 REPORT # PD~ A~ACHUENT REPORT 27' Preparing fl')r a healthy and prosperous flmlrc calls fl:)r the support mid involveinent of all central Ontario residents. 'lb develop that snpport, and create a plan of actiom wc need m a~'ce on what the flmlre should look like. We need a vision that reflect~s the coller~ve vMucs, principle~s '.&nd goals of the people who live here. That vision will, in ntrn, gqfide decisions on · how lamt is developed and where ptfl)lic dollars are invested. The cenn,al panel has developed a broad ~'ision fi)r this region, m~d roar input is ncedcd. Is the panel's vision on track with what should rake place in ecntral'Ontazio? Do the vMucs and principles that thc panel proposes rcfle(x thc issues that you feel arc i~nportant? More than anything, csntrat Ontario will be a great place to live in 2035. Its communities Will be based on the pi/lam of a strong economy, a clean and healthy environment and social equity. Central Ontario will offer a wide variety of choices for living. Thriving, livable, safe and productive urban and rural areas will foster community and ind~idual well-being. The zone will :be supported by a modern, well-maintained infrastructure built in accordance with a broad plan for growth. Residents will have easy access to shelter, food, education and health-care facilities, arts and recreation and information technology. Getting ~around will be easy, An integrated transportation network will allow people choices for easy travel both within and between u~ban centres throughout the zone. Public transport will be fast, convenient and affordable. Roads, while still a significant means of transport, will be only one of a variety of effective and well-used choices for transportation. Walking and cycling will be practical elements of our 'urban transportation systems. A healthy natural environment with clean air, land and water will characterize the zone. Significant natural features, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara Escarpment, will be enhanced and protected in perpetuity. They will form the key building blocks of a regional natural-heritage system. ~he region's dyers and streams, forests and natural areas 'will be protected and eas~ accessible for residents to enjoy their beauty. Open spaces in our cities, towns and the countryside will provide people with a sense of place. Unique and high-quality agricultural lands will be protected for future generations. Farming will be productive, diverse and sustainable. Throughout the entire zone, urban c~ntras will be characterized by compact settlement and development patterns and will supply a diversity of opportunities for living, working and enjoying culture. The evolving regional economy of the zone ~ll have matured into an economic powerhouse of global significance. It will function as Canada's principal international gateway. The Greater Toronto Area* wiU be a thriving, world-class metropolis with an extraordinary waterfront. And at the heart of this metropolis, and of the zone, is Toronto, a celebrated centre of influence for commerce, culture and innovation. All of this will translate into a place where our residents enjoy a high standard of living and an exceptional quality of life that is world-renowned. Central Ontario Smart Growth pane/, December 2002 *For the purposes of this vision, the Greater Toronto Area includes Hamilton. Central Ontario Smart Growth zone GEORGIAN BAY LAKE ONTARIO · Map is not to stole 28 The panel's Smart Growth vision Js based on three principles: 1. Managing growth in a way that balances the goals of economic prosperity, environmental sustainability and social equity. 2. Leaving future generations an abundance ct clean air, clean water and productive land. Providing the means for all of our citizens to develop to the fullest extent of their capabilities. These guiding principles are built upon the following values: Sustainabiiity: Diversily: Conservation: Our actions today will not limit the choices available to future generations. The decisions we make today will always have tomorrow in mind. We will strive to achieve biological divemity within natural systems, a wide tahoe of economic enterprises and job opportunities in our communities and social diversity within neighbourhoods across the zone. We will strive for efficiencies that consen/e the use. of natural resoumes. Our cultural heritage assets will be respected and protected. We will respond to the needs of the natural world. Providing choi~es:We will provide citizens with choices for where they live, wi]em they work and how they move from place to place. These choices will be subject to a hier- archy of interests, which recognize that, in some instances, the greater public good must override local interests. Equitl/: We will establish a framework within which the citizens of the zone will have equal access to employment opportunities, public services, health and social care and public decision-making. Collaboration: We will reach our objectives through a process of open and collaborative decision-making. Central Ontario Smart Growth panel, December 2002 How will thc vision -- d~wcloped by *tzc Sznart Gro~h panel and shaped by comments and fccdba& from die public -- be achieved? What is needed to relicw.', gridlock, reduce pollution, protect green space and create healthy and vibrant comznmfities ? "~:) help answer tJ~ese <pmsfions, the panel rccozmncnds that the province's Smam, Growdz strategy, provide direction in five key areas: 1, Reshaping where and how we live 2. Unh)cking gridlock 3. Rethinking how we xnanagc waste 4. Optiznizing other h~frastrucntrc 5. Protecting mzr cn~4romnent What follows is a s,mmary of tJze n~cozmncn- dations that thc p~el world like to present m t~c Ontario govcmnnent. A dom~cnt outlining ;he p~cl's dc~cd manmncndafioms k av~M)le on thc Sma~ Gro~h Web sitc, at ~.s~n~gro~.gov. on.ca. You can ~so ~cdvc a copy by zn~ (see contact ~fo~adon on page 17). Over the ne~ 25 years, central Ontario is expc~m'~d to grow by more than three million pcoplo, ff we don't prepare for this growth, the n~s~dt will be urban sprawl, more gridlock, s~nog and increasing costs to support spreading infrasm~en.tre. We need to cnc(mrage growth to happen in a way that Mlows for this pop,ra- tion increase withont placing stress on o~tr infrasm~emrc and environment. A primary, goal of a S,nart Growth strategy sho,fld be to ~nakc the ~nost efficient use ¢ff existing infrastrut~.trc, p~blic investment and resollrces. Thc panel recommends a nmnber of strategies that will achieve Smart Growth: Encourage apatt, crn of growth that reinforces and supports a variety of aetivities. Growth shouht happen within a dyna~nic network that includes a strong mcm~polis, with 'lbn~nt~ at its centre, outlying economic areas, urban centres and mixed-use nodes, 'all linked by a series of corridors. Gn~wth din~cd toward this network would ~nake thc most efficient use of cxisth~g infrasm~c~.~rc and limit thc ixnpact of dcvdopment on our farmland and nan~ral fcanwes (sec ~nap on page 8 for an illustration of this network). We need to ensnare that infrastn~cmn'c is in place m support, growth bc£ore development happcm. Within tiffs network But, the pand feels that some groa~h can occur outside areas that arc currently designated as urban, ff the gro~w.h can be justified within thc contc= of a provinci'M S~nart Growth plan for central Ontario*. (* The panel emphasizes that this is a complex point that requires further discussion and public input to develop a dearer direction.); Promote and invest in affordable housing tltroughout central Ontario by creating more incentives to encourage new rental housing. Thc availability, of affordable housing is essential for comm~mitics to attract workers; Preserve commercial and industhal employment lands designated by official plans, especially those lands located near ~najor transportation corridors, or replace c~nplo..wnent lands ff they arc rcdcsignated to another use. Ens~wc a s~ffficient supply of e~nploymcnt lands for mixed uses and live-work needs; and Revitalize the waterfronts of co~mnmfitics throughont central Ontario. This is importax~t for a healthy region, because thc waterfront provides people with a desirable place to work, visit, and pla,.;. At~ract and promote groaah within existing sctt. lemcnt areas to ensure that people ach)ss central Ontario have thc oppornmity to live and work in their own comm~mitics. Compact dcvelopxncnt sho~fld be encouraged within ~csc areas; The pand rccognizc~ that it will be &allengh~g to aceomxnodate 'all thc people and jobs, expected in central Ontario, within existing ~trban areas. C~wrcnt pohcics that support Smart. Growth~ such as urban intensification, brownfidd redevelopment and good trm~sit, will help to maxime the axno~mt of growfl~ that occurs within existing urban bom~darics. 3O Balanced g~rowth: Increases in p()pnlation and cmploy~mmt that am dis~mted in snch a way tha~ municipMities haw~ a ~ of business ~d rcsidental uses. T~ means that people c~ live near where they work. Econo~eAnter-re~onM co~idors: q}~spo~ation co~idors that li~ rexona1 cconontc ~cas and onfl~lg twban ccn~cs to thc ~ncm)poHs ~d to m~ke~ ~d dcstha- fions onthde cen~M ~tario. Th~x shmfld not be developed along their len~h. ~i'hey c~ ~clnde road, r~l, ~r ~d m~ne rontes. Green infrastructure: These arc nan.rrM feantrcs, such aS lakes, valleys and wood- lands, that perform an impo~ant fltnction in snstaining quantities of dean water and air, in the stone way that hard infrasmmmrc, snch as pipes and scnd, hers, contributes to clean water and air. Metropolis: The largc contignous and continuous urban ama in and armmd qbronto, referred to as thc Greater qbronto Area. Thc mcm)polis inclndcs Ha~kon. Thc p~cl recogn~cs the mem)po~s as having ~e ~atcst potenfiM to acemmnodate ~e majoh~ of thc people ~d jobs expeCted m crone to cen~al Om~o over the ne~ 30 ye~s. Natml-heritage syste~ A systmn of nahum core ~c~ ~d key nanwM co~dors ~th si~cant ecolo~cM vahm. m)Hccfivcly pcrfo~ ~pom~t ccdo~cal tractions, such as pro~&g hM, imt ~d impro~ng ak ~d watcr Nodes: Discrete ~eas ~t~n nrb~ centres that have cx)mpact, ~ed-use (i.e., resident, commercial ~d indnst~) devdlopment ami that are ~ed by ~asit. Rapid ~ansit: ~Mso refe~ed m as ~gh-order ~ansk, rapid ~ansk ~cludes heam~ r~ (s,d, ways), Hgh, r~l (s~eet ears) ~ld bnses that have ~ek o~ de'cared l~e or thck o~ hgh;-of-way. ~l~s creates a ~eater level ~d ke~mnc~ of se~ce. Regional economic areas (REAs): Urhml arc, as that arc not configmous to the mem)polis. R~'is se~-c relafiw~ly ~dependcnt econon6c and twban ~eas. The ~tchcner-Waterloo- Guelph ~ca and ~c Ni~a ~on ~c considered ~As. 'lq~c mcm)polis is a w~ l~gc ~. Reso~(~es: These ~dudc ab~culn~M l~ds, nan~al-heht~e fcattwes, forests, water resonrecs ~d ag~cgates. Thc panel rococos ~at rcsotwccs have both ccolo~cal ~d econo~c vMue. Rml ~e~: qhcse ~c lan&s that ~ not sc~led or dc~i~ated for ~M)an usc. Urban een~es: These ~e mmficipMifics ~ cen~M Ont~o that have ~ansit ~kasm~cn.we, ~cd-usc ~d compact development and thek o~ c~acter ~d idenfi~x q]mse ccnms play imposer econm~c, soci~ ~d fin~cial roles ti~r ~c people who liw~ ~ and ~ound them, Urh~ cents c~st wit~n and outside thc mc~opolis. qbronto is thc largest ~b~ cenm~ of con, al Ont~io. k is a cen~ of national ~d inter- nafionM economic si~ic~cc, k is thc h~fl) for ~ter-r%donM ~sit ~ound thc zonc ~d thc gateway for international ~avel. Urban co~idors: q}~spo~atirm corridors ~t~ urb~ cen~cs or ~tl~ thc mem',polis that link nodes to each othcr. They haw~' compa(~ development along their icnb~. Yonge Smoot ~ Toronto is an exmplc of an ~b~ condor. 31 Gridlock has an enormous inq)act on our eomm~mitics. Moving people around eentral Ontario is becoming increasingly dii'fkalk. "Rush hour" now lasts 13 ho~trs. Thc smog t;roduced by car emissions rednccs air ~aMinT. ~lYansit nsc is declining. And congestion will only get worse anlcss things change. Promoting healthy growth will rcqnirc that govcrmncnts, employers, dew;lopers and citizens change thc way they think about t£ansportation and about how we invest in it. In _4u~ast 2002, thc panel gave Chris Hodgson, thcn-n~istcr of M~micipal Affairs and Hottsing, interhn advice on dealing with gridlock, B~filding on that advice, thc panel recommends that all levels of government and thc private sector work toward the following, as part, of a growth management strategy.: · Dcvdop an integrated transportation system that links u)gcthcr all forms of t~anst~)rtation (sec; ~naps on pages 6 and 7 for thc proposed transportation system). This wonld anean co-ordinating land-use and transportation plamfing so that ~ coImmmities arc bulk with better access to transit (co~npact dcw;lopment ens~tres that there are smqq&;nt people to ri(lc transit and it creates coammmitics that are friendlier to pedestrians); ~ walking and cycling are encouraged; and ~ goods and people ~novc cfficicndy. ~ Make transit the first priority for all trans- potation InvcsUncnt in the atrban centres, nodes, regional ccontanic areas and corridars identified by thc panel on thc map (sc~~, pages 6 amd 8). Sustainable soumcs of timding from all levels of government arc rcq~rired to maintain smmg transit systems. ~M1 levels of goveaxmnmt and thc private scetor arc encouraged to coll'al)orate and form parmerships to find irmovative ways to fired transit over the long term. ~' Invest in cxis~lg inter-regional and local transit, u) bring them up to a high level of (t~aali~~ and link systc~ns fi:)r efficient co~nmnting. Investment is aisc) rcqa~ircd for new transit initiatives to support. ~ow-th along transport, ation corridors and to offcr better transportation options between co~mnunities. In the short term, this wo~fld include suppo~ for the bus rapid transit sya, em proposed hy GO ~lYansit. '~ lnw;st itl highways that facilitate international trade and contrflmtc to economic success, ensuring that all trade corridors (ri)ad, rail, air and marine) arc used for the movement of goods and do not encourage sprawl. Create a strat%w, for moving goods -- one that identifies how to re&ace thc; length of these twips, lessen their cnviromnental impact and increase their efficiency. hnprove the way' traffic incidents, such as collisions, mechanical brcakdowns and spills, an'~ managed tim)ugh greater co-opcration aniong police, fire services, the Ministry of ~lYansportation, tow-tn.ack operators a~d others. 'lYaffic incidents cm.~sc ab(mt 50 per cent of congestion on roads and highways. lmple~ncnt a transportation-demand man- agcment system that incorporates munerons ways of reducing thc need for as ananv cars on thc road. This systcIn can inchadc ~uch steps as c~nployce progrmns and incentives to car. pod and ttsc transit, cxpandcA c~)~rnnnt, er parking lots, disco~mted fares and high- occupancy vehicle lanes. 32 Despite progress in dive~qing waste from ltmdfill sit{ks tltrottgh re&ming, mr~cling amt composting, people and businesses in central Ontario g{mcrate over 6.2 znillion mnncs of wasn~, on average, per year. As {aw population increases, and the eeonmny grows, our waste grows as well. We need new solutions for waste disposal -- and we need thegn fast. In 2002, two major landfill sites nsed by thc City- of Toronto and thc regions of Peel, York and Dttrham wcn'~ dosed. These connmmitics now export their waste to the United States. But this is a short-term answer in need of a long-term solution. Waste management is a complex problem with no single solution, qlte central panel emphasizes that better managing waste will rcrp.tire thc collaboration of decision-makers across the zone. Thc panel proposes a range of options for thc province, in collaboration with ~mmici- palities and the private sector, to bnprove waste management in central Ontario. These inch~dc the following directions: * hnplcmcnt, a diverse portfolio of options to ~nanage waste that indudc reduction at sonr(~, recycling, composting, landfill, deriving energy from waste, thermal treanncnt and new waste ~nanagc~ncnt teclmdogies. Reduce our dependence on the expo~ of municipal wastc to thc United States over the nc~ 10 years. Thc panel 'also recognizes that wc nccd to reduce our dcpcndcncc on landfill. Improve access to private,, landfill sites to re&~cc otw dependence on exporting waste. This is a short.-tc~n Incasm'e that will need to be implemented while thc withdrawal kmn U.S. landfill sites takes place. Set targets for ~mmicipalitics on thc ammmt of waste that must be diverted from disposal sites through recycling and cmnpos~g. These targets shmdd be phased in over thc next 30 years. Regalatc thc cmnposting of organic (kkchen and yard) waste to evcntnally prohflfit thc disposal of organic matter in landfill sites. This .type of matter accmmts for 40 per cent of municipal waste. Reducing its quantity- in household garbage wmdd significantly reduce our dependence on lmxdfill sites. Encourage municipalities to implement user-fcc programs as incentiw'~s for house- holds to reduce their prodn(~on of waste. Encmtragc xnunieipalitics to collaborate on waste reduction, diversion and disposal cffi)rts for residential, in&lslxSal, commercial and institutional waste. Assess industry s 'tandards for paekaging m re&acc waste at its sm~rcc. Explore and invest in (where appropriate) new waste managc~ncnt technologies. In addition m its transit, roads and waste management systems, central Ontario has other infrastzqictttrc that also contributes to its quah~ of life. Our water and wastcwatcr systc~ns, as well as our health-care, education and connnnnity amenitlcs, such as parks, recreation, and mflnwal oppom.ufitics, ~nake communities desirable places m live in and visit, and that, in la.m, at-tracts more gnmnkh. 33 As ga'owth happens, we need to make sarc that wc xnakc the best use of thks i~ffrasm~¢~.tre. Doing so will allow us to acco~nmodate growth in a way' that minixnizcs the i~npact on environment, while making thc most efficient use of our pubhc invcstments. Building on its recommendations to reduce ~,aSdlock and xnanage wastc, the panel proposes thc £ollowing actions to i~nprove o~tr nsc of existing infrastn~cmrc: ~ Invest in ottr social infrastnnmtrc. Schools, health-care facilities and recreation and sports centres arc all neccssan.~ componcmx~s of a vital coratm.mi~: ~ Invest more in cxis~g post-secondary insti- tutions to support knowledge-based activi- ties and research and dcvclopxnent. ~ Invest in broadband infrasmm~mrc m promote and facilitate acc~zs m thc Interact thnmghout central Ontario. New technologies are ma economic boon to many coimmmitics and thc appropriate infrasmicnxrc shotfld be planned and ixnplexncntcd to acco,mnodatc new ~types of jobs and businesses. ~' Invest in renewing and upgrading existing water and wastewater systc~ns to ensure that the3' are wcll-,naintaincd and respcctflfl of the enviromncnt. Encourage and support thc dcvdopmcnt and adoption of n,~ technologies in this field. Watcr mad wastcwatcr systems are inter-related. Thc panel rccommcnds that they be managed in an integrated way. Ens~tre invcsnncnt in altcrnatiw~ enemies. Key alternative cncr~.- so, trees, such as wind, solar power and flxd cells, sho~fld be identfied and sc(hired. Akcrnativc energy so~wccs will allow us to better meet 'thc increased cncrba.~ needs of our growing population and limit the usc of energy, sources that pollutc (nw air. 'lqac panel has a range of strategics for prorating ottr air, land and water. Without adequate green spaces, o~w cpmlity of life wtnfld deteriorate and the very.- features that attract new growth and ~tt~mcnt would dixninish. Well-managcA growth protc¢~ nantral habitats and agricultural land, and protecting our natural environment is a key co~nponcnt of S~nart Grow-th. The panel rccomm~mds that the province, in collaboration with municipalities and thc private sector, * Protect nxral areas, that arc not scaled, pri~narily for sustainable rcsmtrce usc. Devdop criteria m identify., and map thc zone's ~miquc and irrcplace'~fle resources. 34 Identify and protect unique and irreplaceable resources, such as a~iculmral lands, forests, water rcsmwccs, ~nincral aggregates and na.n~M-hehtage feanwes, and outage thc~ appropriate uses. V~ous levels of protection arc needed in different ~c~s. L~ds such as thc Oak ~dges MorMnc rant Niag~a Esc~incnt would get thc highest level of pronmfion. Identify a natural-heritage systc~n of ecological core an~'as and corridors and g~ddc growth in such a way that these areas are ~nanaged and protected (sec map on page 5 for elements of a nantr~-hcritagc s~te~n). Steer growth away frmn key resources, nam;al-heritage areas and water sources by cstahlishing a system m protect lands at different stages of devdopmcnt. Li~nit further settlement and sew~'rancc of land in rural areas to mini~nize the impact of dcvdopmcnt in mrM areas. Recognize and support thc important role of '~'grcen infrasmtcmrc" in both rural and urban areas. Our network of rivers, sn'cmns, lakes, valh'4~s, lxv~cs and grecnspace contribute to a healthy cnviromnent. Greenspacc and parks play a ~najor role in pnrviding recreation and i~nproving air qa.mlity, water mmmgc~nent and energy, conservation. Proretx cleero-water msmwces throtm~h adctp~ate source protet~on and watershed planning. A strong effort should be ~nade to restore degraded l',~kes and rivers. Given that water and was;twa;er xnanagcmcnt arc inw~rrclatcd, we should folh)w an mtcgramd approach that includes water cor~servation, source protection and storm-water SOllrc'e conn'ol. Providc for the opfimmn long-tcm~ avail~dliq- and productiw~ usc of agrieuluwal resources. Snstaining a viable, ceonmnically prosport;us agriculuwc hidnstry is a prioriq~ for central Ontario. · ~ Protect aggrcgatc resources (such ms sa~d, rock and clay) that arc dose to xnarkcts and ~nakc them availal)lc for use. This does not itnply.that aggregate usc should autmnatically override the use of other msonrccs. Aggregates play a vital role in our economy. They arc nscd in a wide variety, of eve,:day products suer as toothpaste and · paper product,s as wcll as in thc concrete used for highways, roads, bridges and houses. The ccnt~M p~d needs ym~ ~put. What do y(m t~ of ~c idc~ and s~at%des ouffined in tl~s booklet? Have we lek an~hing ma? Do you haw~ cmnments or suggestions ? Here arc solnc ~msfions for you to consider in commenting on thcp~cl's ad,cc. Send us your tbcr~ack by marl, fmx or e-mail (sec p~e 17). q~c sn~css of a lo~-tcnn Sm~ Gro~h s~atc~ fi)r ccn~M Ontario depends on your involw~mcnt. 1. What do you ~k of thc panel's overall ideas ~d ~rccfions fbr a Sm~ Gro~h s~atc~? Is there anyXhing ?u wmfld change? 35 '2. Is the fl~ntrc set out in A vision for 2085, on page 9, one that you WOllld welcome? g not, what wo,fld you change? 3. Do you abate ~th thc v~ues ~d pNnciples statement on page 107 ff not, what would yon eh~ge? 4. GNe us yo~ i~e~ack on the rccox~lenda- fio~s for each of ~esc key areas: Reshaping where and how we live U~oe~g ~dlock Re~ing how we manage waste Opt~ o~er ~ast~c~e Protecting o~ en~roment 5. Do you have ~y other co~mncnts? In Fcbruat3,, and March 2003, thc ccntrM panel mcxnbcrs will hold cons~dtations in fl'ye communities across central Ontario (visit the Smart. Growth Wch site for dates and locations). Thc public is invited to thc cons~ltations to gct more information and to speak directly with panel mcmbcrs, qb comment on tJac advice itself, please submit written input through thc Smart. Growth Wch site or by regnlar mail. Thc ~.~cstions outlined above may help you focus yoltr comments. IIere's how to reach us: Central Ontario Smart, Growth panel e/o Smart Growth Secretariat 16th fioor, 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 Phone: toll free 1-866-479-9781 Fax: 416-585-7639 E-mail: smartgrowth@mah.gov, on.ca Wd) site: www. smartgrowth.gov, on.ca The deadline for submissions is March 21 at 5 p.m. Th(: central Ontario Smart Growth panel is collecting this information for the p~trp(:)sc of developing its advicc to thc govcnxment of Ontario for a hmg-tcnn growth strategy.-. Any penonM information you provide is colh:{~(:d in co~npliancc with Section 38(2) of the Frecdo~n of Information and Protection of Priva(3, Act. The panel may' us(; this information to contact you regarding your co~nments. Pica.sc direct any qu(:stJons abo~a the colh:ction of information to thc cxeeutivc lead of the Smart. Growth Secretariat, by phone at (416) 585-7169 or by mail to the following address: Smart. Gmwt. h Secretariat, 16th floor, 777 Bay Street, qbronto, Ontario M5G 2E5. AdjMa=Tosoronfio aiax Algon(t~ Highlands _A_h~wick ! Hal¢timand .Mnaranth Asphodel-Norwood A~kn)ra Barrio Bradford West Gwillimb~try Brampton Brant BranffoM Brighton Brock Barlington Caledon Camhridge Cavan-Millbrook-N orfl~ Monaghan Centre Wellington Clarington Clearvicw Cobo~.wg Collingwood Cramahe Doaro-Dmniner D~fffcx~n Durhan! Dysart ct al East Garafraxa East Gwillimhu~, East Luther Grand Valley Erin Essa 36 Contgnugd from page Fo~ Erie Galway-Cavcndish-Harvcy Gcorgina Grimsby Guelph Guclph-Er~msa HMd~d Halfl~t~on HMton H~ton H~s H~ton, Ci~z of H~nilton, To--ship of Haw:lock-Belmont -Mc~ucn Highl~ds East In.sill Kaw~ha Lakes ~tchcncr L~co~ Maplcton M~am Mclanc~on Mi~d .~ton _~dcn Hills _~nto -~ssissanga _~OIIO Mu~ur New q~cmnseth _Niag~a Niag~a F~s Niag~a-on-thc-L&c Ne~ket Nogh Dnmffics Nox~ Kaw~a Noghu~)crl~d O&~lc Or~gevillc Oro-Medontc Orillia Oshawa Otonabee-South Monaghan Peel Pelham Pcnctanbmishcne Pctcrborough, Ci~- of Peterborough, Coun~ of Pi&c~g Po= Co~,o~c Pog Hope Pus~ch Rmnara ~c~nond ~H St. Ca.aries Scugog SCvc~ ShcHmrne S~coc S,~-Ennismorc-L&efidd Sp~atcr Tay Thordd Tiny qbronto q$cnt ~lls U~)~dgc Vaugh~ W~nflect Wasaga Beach Waterloo, Ci~ of Waterloo, Rc~onM M,~cq:,~, of Welled Wellesley Wcllin~on Wc~on No~h West Lincoln Whid)y W~tchnrch-Sto,ff~lc Wi]mot Wool~ch York To: From: Report No.: Date: ATTACHMENT~_ ' ,~ TO REPORT # PD__ J~- ~ :~ The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Committee Commissioner Planning 2003-P-36 March 11,2003 3? ,,~-v OF PICKERING pI.;'AN,qtNG & DEVELOPMEN¥ D;EP ARTMENT. SUBJECT: Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel's Draft Advice on a Smart Growth Strategy, File: O26-02-01 Correspondence No. 2003-120 dated February 10, 2003 from Nell H. Rodgers, President, Urban Development Institute / Ontario regarding Investing for Tomorrow: Moving Forward with Smart Growth in Central ontario RECOMMENDATIONS: a) THAT Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-36 be endorsed as the Region's comments on the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel's draft Discussion Paper- Shape the Future; and b) THAT a copy of Commissioners' Report No. 2003-P-36 be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Durham M.P.P.'s, Smart Growth Secretariat, and all Durham area municipalities. REPORT: PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to present an overview of the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel's draft discussion paper entitled "Shape the Future" (refer to Attachment 1), and to provide a Regional response to the Panel's vision, values, guiding principles, and strategic directions that will form the basis of its advice to the Province for a long-term growth strategy for Central Ontario. Report No.: 2003-P-36 ~T'i'ACHMEUT ~'~TO Page No. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 As part o} the Province's Smart Growth strategy, five Smart Growth Zones have been created across the Province. Panels in each zone are to provide advice to the Province that will form the basis for a long-term growth strategy for Ontario. In February 2002, the Province appointed the panel for Central Ontario to provide such advice for the Central Ontario Smart Growth Zone. 2.2 The Central Ontario Smart Growth Zone extends around the west end of Lake Ontario, from Niagara in the south to Waterloo and Wellington in the west, across Dufferin, Simcoe and Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton to the north, and as far east as Peterborough and Northumberland. The Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel is chaired by City of Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, and brings together individuals with a wide range of interests and experience. Town of Whitby Mayor Marcel Brunelle is a member of the Panel. 2.3 On February 19, 2003, the Panel released its draft discussion paper entitled "Shape the Future", which will form the basis of the Panel's advice to the Province. The discussion paper contains a vision, values, guiding principles and recommendations within a set of strategic directions, accompanied by a series of conceptual maps. 2.4 To gather public input, public open houses were conducted between February 26 and March 6 at five locations (Barrie, Toronto, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Waterloo and Peterborough) in the Central Zone to obtain feedback on the Panel's draft advice. These open houses were advertised in local newspapers. Comments are also being gathered via written submissions and through the Smart Growth Web site (.http://www.smartqrowth.,qov.on.ca). The Panel has requested comments by March 21,2003. COMMENT To date the activities of the Smart Growth Panel have'generally been conducted in private working sessions to meet the timelines established by the Province. It is of concern that a strategic document of such significance was released with one week's notice for the first public meeting and a minimal Repor~ No.: 2003-P-36 Page No. 3 39 public consultation period of 30 days (the minimum required under the Environmental Bill of Rights). It is essential, as this exercise moves forward, that the Panel more actively involves stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, prior to submission of its final recommendations to the Province. A more inclusive process that reaches and informs the public; stages forums in a broader range of communities, particularly across the GTA Regions; and provides reasonable timelines for input, is essential 3.1 3.2 CENTRAL ZONE PANEL'S VISION~ VALUES~ AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES The Panel has developed a broad vision on what would take place in the Central Zone by 2035. To prepare for a healthy and prosperous future, the Panel is seeking input on what the future might look like, and what policy directions would lead to achieving the vision. The Panel's vision draws upon previous work undertaken by the Greater Toronto Coordinating Committee, the Qffice for the Greater Toronto Area, and the Greater Toronto Services Board. 3.3 The Panel's vision is based on the following principles: · managing growth in a way that balances the goals of economic prosperity, environmental sustainability and social equity; · leaving future generations an abundance of clean air, clean water, and productive land; and · providing the means for all of our citizens to develop to the fullest extent of their capabilities. 3.4 The Panel's guiding principles are built upon the following values: · sustainability (actions today do not limit choices available to future generations); · diversity (in biological and natural systems, economic enterprises, employment, social diversity); i27 40 Report No.: 2003-P-36 REPORT Page No. 4 conservation (of natural and cultural resources); providing choices (to citizens of where they live, work, and how'they move); equity (equal access to employment opportunities, public services, and decision-making); and collaboration (reaching objectives through an open process and collaborative decision-making). A series of Conceptual Maps illustrate in more detail the Panel's proposed vision for the Central Zone to 2035 with respect to natural heritage and agriculture, a growth concept consisting of priority areas for growth and investment that includes designated urban areas, planned and existing nodes, existing and proposed rapid transit system, and existing and proposed "economic corridors" (series 400 highways). COMMENT 4.1 The Conceptual Maps omit a number of key planned and existing transportation elements of significance to Durham. Highway 404 east to Highway 12, and Highway 35/115 to Peterborough, the Taunton/Steeles cross~boundao/ connection and the Pickering Airport, should be recognized to provide a more complete picture of the essential components. The Conceptual Maps suggest that there is, and will be, significant investment in transit and economic corridors to support growth in the western part of the GTA, as weft as north to Barrie. The Panel must ensure that a fair share of anticipated growth and the requisite investment in infrastructure be directed to Durham Region, to ensure its continued vitality. STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS FOR SMART GROWTP The Panel recommends that the Province's Smart Growth strategy provide direction in five key areas: Reshaping Where We Live · Encourage a system of mixed-use nodes linked by corridors. 28 Report No.: 2003-P-36 REPORT Page Nol 5 · Encourage compact development. · Promote and invest in affordable houSing. · Preserve designated commercial and industrial employment lands. ° Revitalize waterfronts. Unlocking Gridlock · Develop an integrated transportation system (transit, walking, cycling and goods movement). · Make transit the first priority. · Invest in inter-regional and local transit. · Invest in highways that do not encourage sprawl. · Create a strategy for moving goods. · Implement a transportation demand management system. Rethinking How We Manage Waste · Implement a diverse portfolio of options. · Reduce the dependence on waste export over the next 10 years. · Set diversion targets. · Require composting of organic waste. · Encourage user fees. Optimizing Other Infrastructure · Invest in social infrastructure. · Invest more in existing post-secondary institutions. · Invest in broadband infrastructure. · Invest in preserving and upgrading water and wastewater systems. · Ensure investment in alternate energies. Protecting Our Environment · Identify a natural heritage system of ecological core areas and corridors. · Limit further settlement areas in rural areas, · Recognize the role of"green infrastructure". · Restore degraded lakes and rivers. · Provide for optimum long-term availability and productive use of agricultural resources. COMMENT The vision, principles, values, and directions are expressed in very broad and general terms. They are generally consistent with the goals for the future development of Durham Region, expressed in the Regional Official Plan !.29 Report No.: 2003-P-36 Page No. 6 Sm 5.1 (ROP) and all other official plans in the G TA. The Panel's work essentially validates the basic policy framework already in place. The next essential step is to develop a series of actions to implement this collective vision. IMPLEMENTATION~ THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT The key to the directions advocated by the Panel is implementation. Existing provincial policy and legislation must be strengthened to provide new planning tools. Sustained funding for transit, affordable rental housing and other infrastructure is essential to achieve the vision. In some cases support from the federal government is necessary to implement the directions. Accordingly, in finalizing its advice to the Province, the Panel should develop an implementation strategy. While not exhaustive, the following actions should be considered when preparing the strategy: i) Amend the Provincial Policy Statement to: restrict expansions to urban boundaries to coincide with the comprehensive review of official plans, and include tests such as increasing densities and linking urban boundary expansions to residential and commercial intensification and infilling targets; limit communal services to rectify a health problem or environmental degradation that resulted from failed individual, private wells and septic systems; and ii) · require major commercial, industrial, and institutional activities in all urban areas to be served by transit. Amend the Development Char.qes Act to: ensure that all new developments bear the full and true cost of providing hard and soft infrastructure (i.~. beyond the limits imposed by the current Act); and Report No.: 2003-P-36 43 Page No. 7 iii) · allow transit infrastructure to be charged on the basis of planned rather than historical service levels. Amend the Planninq Act to: establish a policy for "cash-in-lieu" of public transportation to pay for transit and transportation demand management programs; and require every plan of subdivision to allocate a percentage of units for affordable housing, with an option for "cash4n-lieu" payment that could be put into an affordable housing fund for the development of units at alternate sites. iv) Amend Other Leqislation and Chan.qe Provincial Policy to: establish explicit standards for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation for assessing brownfield and greyfield properties, and require that such properties be reassessed to eliminate any inconsistencies in brownfield land valuations. This will establish a level playing field for owners of brownfield lands, and enable investors to make reliable business decisions; establish suitable funding or tax rebate programs at the federal and provincial levels to provide financial assistance to restore brownfield sites in urban areas; change the tax structure to encourage investment in higher density development for rental tenure; grant federal (GST) and provincial sales tax (PST) rebates on rental housing in Iow-rise and townhouse developments and eliminate or reduce GST and PST on construction materials for all new rental -housing projects; extend the development permit system to all municipalities, especially for development in nodes and corridors, to enable a 44 Report No.: 2003-P-36 Page No. 8 more flexible implementation, better facilitate infill development and redevelopment, avoid financial delays, and streamline approvals; · coordinate all provincial infrastructure funding to ensure that investments advance Smart Growth goals and objectives; re-assess the value of rural lands in Ontario by basing assessment on productive land performance instead of market valueS; establish land trusts, to acquire easements for agriculture and other rural uses, to ensure that rural land remains rural or agricultural in areas close to major urban boundaries; reduce the speculative value of farm and other rural lands through supportive policies that recognize rural uses as legitimate long-term activities; and provide incentives for municipalities to co-ordinate infrastructure and utility investments over the long-term (the York-Durham Servicing Agreements p. rovide an excellent example of such long- term infrastructure co-ordination). v)' Chanqe and/or Introduce New Funding and Revenue Arranaements to: guarantee sustained funding from the federal and provincial governments to assist transit operators with the implementation of integrated and innovative transit plans; allocate a portion of the gas tax, licence fees, and grants/subsidies for transit investments; and require the Province to match the federal government contribution to assisted housing programs. 32 Report No.' 2003-P-36 ~EPOBT # Page No. 9 45 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 In general, the Panel's draft vision and recommended strategies are consistent with the goals for the future development of Durham, as expressed in the FLOP. 6.2 The key to achieving the Panel's strategic directions is implementation. Accordingly, attention must be directed to develop an implementation strategy that: 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 strengthens provincial pOlicy and legislation, to provide the necessary tools to municipalities in order that official plans and other municipal policy can more effectively be implemented; and ensures new sources of revenue and sustained levels of funding from the Province, to support strategic investment in infrastructure. As well, the Panel must be mindful of other Provincial initiatives, legislation and regulations currently being developed (eg Watershed - Based Source Protection Planning, Nutrient Management Act Regulations, Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations, Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act). All will have a profound impact on how and when new services are provided, as well as how existing services are maintained. Some organizations have made submissions to the Panel, including UDI (Council Correspondence No. 2003-120), Prior to its release of the draft vision. It is important that the Panel consider all submissions during this public consultation process. Consideration should be given to extending the timing and process for input, before the Panel finalizes its submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In order to meet the March 2!, 2003 deadline for comments, a copy of this report will be forwarded to the Smart Growth Secretariat, prior to Council consideration on March 26, 2003, with appropriate qualifications. It is recommended that a copy of this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Durham M.P.P.'s, and Smart Growth zig Report No.: 2003-P-36 Page No. 10 Secretariat as the Region's comments to the Panel's draft discussion paper.' In addition, it is recommended that a copy of this report be forwarded to all Durham area municipalities. A.L. Geor~ieff, M.G.I.P., R.P.P. Commissioner of Planning RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE G.H. Cubitt, M.S.W. Chief Administrative Officer Attachment: 1. Shape the Future, Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel, February- March 2003 RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report PD 18-03, concerning the City of Toronto Official Plan, be RECEIVED; and That the Region of Durham be REQUESTED to take any action it considers appropriate with respect to the transportation policies and designations in the City of Toronto Official Plan in so far as they fail to enhance traffic and transit connections at the Toronto/Durham boundary; and That the City Clerk FORWARD Council's resolution and Report PD 18-03 to the Clerk of the Region of Durham. CARRIED: MAYOR 48 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: PD 18-03 Date: March 27, 2003 From: Nell Carroll Director, Planning.& Development Subject: Comments on City of Toronto Official Plan Recommendation: That Report Number PD 18-03, concerning the City of Toronto Official Plan, be RECEIVED; That the Region of Durham be REQUESTED to take any action it considers appropriate with respect to the transportation policies and designations in the City of Toronto Official Plan in so far as they fail to enhance traffic and transit connections at the Toronto/Durham boundary; That the City Clerk FORWARD Council's resolution and Report PD 18-03 to the Clerk of the Region of Durham. Executive Summary: The first Official Plan for the new amalgamated City of Toronto was adopted by Toronto City Council in November 2002. Comments from City of Pickering staff and the Region of Durham identified certain shortcomings with road, road-width and transit supportive designations in the Toronto Plan for the connection between Steeles Avenue in Toronto and Taunton Road in Pickering/Durham, the connection between Kingston Road Toronto and Pickering/Durham, and for a new Momingside Avenue arterial road in Scarborough. The comments were not addressed by the City of Toronto. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved the Plan recently with modifications that satisfy the Morningside Avenue issue and provide only for Toronto to "consult" adjacent municipalities about shared transportation corridors and cross-boundary provisions. Approval of the Plan is subject to appeal by April 10, 2003. As the transpor[ation issues are inter-regional in nature and of significance for the economic development for the Region of Durham as a whole, the Region is requested to take any action it considers appropriate respecting the approval of the City of Toronto Official Plan. Financial Implications: Not Applicable Report PD 18-02 Subject: Comments on City of Toronto Official Plan Date: March 27,2003 Page 2 Background: City of Toronto Adopted it's New Official Plan November, 2002 On November 28, 2002, Toronto City Council adopted the first Official Plan for the new amalgamated City of Toronto. This followed release of the Plan in May 2002, earlier release of a number of reports, and initiation of the Plan review process in April 1999. The proposed Official Plan for the City of Toronto presents a strategic vision and principles to guide the growth of Toronto over the next 30 years. The Plan sets out urban structure and growth management policies and establishes goals for building a successful City. It also establishes land use designations and sets out a general approach to implementation. As a strategic plan, it seeks to protect existing neighbourhoods and directs a population increase of up to an additional one million persons to the Downtown and Waterfront, four Centres, major Avenues and employment Districts. The Plan emphasizes compact urban form and mixed use development in pedestrian-friendly communities with a more fully co-ordinated transit system. Pickering Staff Identified Shortcomings Pickering Planning & Development staff comments (see Attachment #1) supported the Toronto Plan's proposed principles for growth and change, protection of neighbourhoods and the environment, and many other policies. In addition, the Plan's clarity in presenting policy at various levels (general, area and site specific) was supported. The staff comments also identified a number of transportation matters in the Toronto Plan which are inconsistent with the Pickering Official Plan. These include road, road- width and transit designations for a north-south connection within Toronto, and for a number of east-west cross-boundary routes into Pickering. Without modifications, cross-boundary traffic and transit flows will not be maximized as they should be. The provisions in the Toronto Plan for the north-south connection of Morningside Avenue into the Town of Markham did not adequately reflect a previous OMB decision to protect for the proposed extension of Morningside Avenue as an arterial road. The road, road-width and transit designations in the Toronto Plan mainly provide for lower classifications for the connections of Steeles Avenue to Taunton Road, and for Kingston Road into Pickering. Details are provided in Attachment #1 to this Report. Similar comments made by the Region of Durham respecting the Morningside Avenue arterial and the Steeles Avenue connection to Taunton Road received no response from Toronto, and were subsequently forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 5O Report PD 18-02 Subject: Comments on City of Toronto Official Plan Date: March 27,2003 Page 3 Further, a number of the land use and transportation designations, identified on a map in the Toronto Plan of municipalities surrounding Toronto, do not accurately reflect designations contained in the City of Pickering or Durham Region Official Plans. City of Toronto did not Respond to Comments The Pickering staff comments, forwarded to the City of Toronto in September 2002, received no response and were not addressed in the Toronto Official Plan adopted by Toronto City Council. Similarly, subsequent Pickering Planning & Development inquiries to the Toronto Planning Department, following receipt of the notice of adoption of the Toronto Plan, received no response. On March 3, 2003, the Director, Planning & Development forwarded the staff comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (see Attachment #2) and requested modifications to the Toronto Plan to address the concerns. Toronto Plan Now Approved On March 24, 2003, Pickering received a Notice of Decision from the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approving the Toronto Official Plan subject to certain modifications, including: · A new policy requiring Toronto to consult adjacent municipalities regarding shared transportation corridors and cross-boundary service provisions; and, ° A new footnote that addresses the Morningside Avenue matter. The approval of the Toronto Official Plan may be appealed, with the last date for appeal being April 10, 2003. Appeal by City in Pickering Not Recommended While the policies in the Toronto Plan for the Steeles Avenue/Taunton Road, and Kingston Road connections do not maximize opportunities for traffic and transit capacity between Toronto and Pickering, the two modifications appear to settle the Morningside Avenue issue and provide for mandatory consultation on shared transportation corridor and cross-boundary service provisions. The undertaking of an appeal to provisions of another municipality's Official Plan requires investment of considerable staff, resources, which are better applied to more pressing matters of importance to the City of Pickering at this time. Inter-regional transportation is a key issue in ensuring healthy economic development for the Region of Durham as a whole. The Region of Durham is responsible for such regional matters through its Official Plan and for the review of the Durham Region Transportation Master Plan. Regional staff are better positioned to provide the technical justification that would be required to support an action, such as appeal, to transportation policies in the Toronto Plan. Report PD 18-02 Subject: Comments on City of Toronto Official Plan Date: March 27, 2003 Page 4 5! Conclusion: The Region is requested to take any action it considers appropriate respecting the decision to approve the Toronto Official Plan, in order to ensure co-ordinated and maximized cross-boundry traffic and transit opportunities between Toronto and Pickering/Durham are secured. Attachments: 1. Letter from Manager, Policy, dated September 11, 2002, to City of Toronto 2. Letter from Director, Planning & Development, dated March 3, 2003, to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Prepared By: Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner II Approved / Endorsed By: Neil 0arroll~P, Director, Plann~ Development Catherine Rose Manager, Policy SG:jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ,,,:,~ ~""---~x~ ~ ~( ,~ ~°~as J~uinn~ef Admi~ative dfficer PICKERiNG Pickering CMo C~pl One The Espl~a ?ickering, Onta~ Ca.tla~ L1V 61 Direct Access 905.420.46, dtyof-pickerin~,co PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEP)2V.~vIENT Department 905.420.4617 Facsimile 905.420.7648 ptan&devt@ci .ty. pickering.on.ca 52 September 11,2002 Kerri Voumvakis Manager of Official .Plan Urban Development Services Metro Hall, 22nd Floor 55 John Street Toronto, ON M5V 3C6 Subject: Toronto's New Official Plan (May 2'002). Preliminary CommentS from the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department City of Pickering Planning & Development staff was unable to attend the roundtable discussion held Friday, August 18th, 2002; on Toronto's new Official Plan. Staff h.as briefly reviewed the new Official Plan for Toronto, dated May 2002.' Our prelimina~ comments are as follows: 1, General Matters Overall, staff supports the Plan's proposed principles for steering growth and change to selected parts of the City'of Toronto, while protecting the neighbourhoods and green spaces from development pressures,' Staff also supports the additional policy directions t'hat guide decision making aimed at: nurturing the residential neighbourhoods, parks, ravines and natural' areas; improving air, .soil and water quality while expanding the economy; and encouraging high quality redevelopment. Staff finds the Plan is clearly organized, given the complexity and amount of material contained in the three-volume document. The policy and mapping is presented at a variety of scales appropriate to the issue.' in general, the Plan is easy to read and understand. 2. Transportation ~atters Staff conciudes the Plan consistently falls to recognize the importance of east-west connections to Durham Region, and fails to maximize the use of existing opportunities to increase capacity along existing east-west routes. The chart on the following page identifies designations, or lack thereof, within the new Toronto's New Official Plan (May 2002)', f ,.. C.i~y of Picketing Planning & Development Department Comments Page 2~ ,~ Toronto Plan that are inconsistent with designations or oolicy approaches within the Pickering Official Plan. ' :: :::? ............. ' ......... Map 3: Right- Steeles Right-of-way Taunton Road: ~ev~se ~p 3 of-Way Widths Avenue Width Maximum right-of-way todesignate Associated 36 metres width maximum Sta~les Avenue with Existing 50 metres as having a. Major Streets 45 metres and over m~imum right,f-way Map 4: Higher Steetes Fails to Designates Add to Map 4, a Order Transit Avenue . designate as a Taunton Road Transit Corridors Trans~ Corridor as a Transit Corridor Feeder Se~ice da~'ignatJon on Steal'es Avenu~. Map.4:. Higher Kingston Fails to Designates Add to ~ap 4., a Order Transit. Road designate as a Kingston Road Transit ' Corridors Transit Corridor as a Transit Corridor ~ Spine designation on Kingston Road Map 5: Stee. les Fails to Designates Add to ~ap 5, a Su~ace Transit. Avenue · 'designate as a ·Taunton Road Transit Priority Priori~ TranSit Priority as a Transit Segment on _ Ne~ork segment Feeder Se~ice Ste~ies Avert ua Map 5: Kingston Fairs to Designates Add-to ~ap 5, a Sudace Transit Road designate as a KingSton Road Transit:Priority Priority T~nsit Pdority as a Transit Segment Ne~ork Segment Spine designation on Kingston Road T° better .co-ordinate east-west transportation p~anning initiatives between. Toronto 'and Pickering/Durham, staff recommends the changes to the new Toronto 'Official Plan outlined in the above table be made. 54 l~.v Officiai PIsn (May '" - ~Ns:~'~' ~, Fe~ .......... oeptemDer 1 'I, 2002 City of Pickerin_~ Planning & Development Depa~ment Comments Page 3 The Plan would be improved with some changes to Schedule 2, The Designation of Planned but Unbuilt Roads. Staff recommends that Schedule 2 be revised to include the proposed right-of-way widths of the roads, and that a Map of the SchedUle 2 information be added 'to enable s reader to visualize the location of the proposed roads. . Picketing is in support of maintaining the opportunity for a .high,speed artedal road in .the Morningside corridor, to connect Toronto. and Markham. However, the City's records are incomplete on the fina~ disposition of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on the Morningside Heights Secondary Plan and extension of Momingside Avenue. Staff requests confirmation that the ~anguage' in the new Toronto Official Plar~ implements .the OMB decision to protect for the proposed extension of a Mo.rnJngside arterial road. ' The proposed' designation of Finch Avenue, Beare Road and Plug Hat Road through the Rouge Park as 27-metre rights-of-way is inconsistent with Pickering Council's position. City Council's position is that,these roads be maintained as 20-metre rights-of-way through the Rouge Park. However; staff notes that. within the Site and Area Specific Policies, section 141.(d) reads "[these] 27 metre riqhts-of-way will not be used'.to accommodate four lane oads. Staff requests clarification on this matter. r " 'Asa minimum, Scheduie .l, Existing Minor 'Streets with Right-of. Way Widths Greater .than 20 Metres, should be revised with a footnote referring the reader to the related policy exception .for these roads. By contrast, .staff notes the Plan is consistent with Picketing Council's position to maintain Twyn Rivers as a 20-metre road a. llowance through the Rouge Park. Further, staff notes the Plan is consistent with the positions of Durham and Picketing Councils to abandon connections of Bayly Street in. Pickering with Lawrence Avenue in Toronto, and RoSsland. Finch Avenues in Picketing with Finch Avenue in Toronto. Although Map Ils provided for informational purposes only, we note the following matters that should b.e corrected: The Durham Regional Areas on both sides of ,~iff~%l~ayPl~(~TcaunrTn~ioYthde.s!gnates Employment Picketing; s~de of Brock Road in The Durham Regional Official Plan Employment Area on the north' no longer designates an side' of the St. Lawrence & Hudson Rail line between West Duffins Cre..k to jbst west of Brock Road; 'The Pickering Official Plan currently designates a Potential GO Line on the St. Lawrence & Hudson Rail line terminating just west of Brock Road (not east of Brock Road); Toronto's New Official Plan (May 2002) ; ::'~.:'~" ~; ;~[: .1~:~'3 ~' - -- ~ · oeptembu, 1 I, 2'002 C~'ty of Pickering Planning'& Development Department Comments Page ~ ~ The Highway 407 alignment shoutd be illustrated throughout Durham Region as shown in the .Durham Regional Official Plan, not ius][ ending it in the middle of rural Pickedno (currently, the road is constructed only to Highway 7, just east of Brock R~ad);. The new Toronto Plah identifies a Potenfial GTA' Trans/t Corridor along Kingston Road but does .not illustrate such a transit corridor on the corresponding operative Maps in the Official Plan;. The new Toronto Plan should be showing a Pofenfial GTA Transit Corridor connecting Highways 401 and 407 in the vicinity of Whites' Road in Pickering; Employment Areas appear to be identified On the Map, but are not labelled in the. Legend as such; and There is an unnecessary municipal boundary fine east of the Rouge River, running east along.the Lake Ontario shoreline. Your consideration of these comments is appreciated. Staff .reauests a written response to these comments so that we may determine Whether 'to 'appraise our Council: Further, we would appreciate informa'tion on whether this is .the only opportunity for the City of Pickering. to comment, or whether a revised version of the plan with-a :subsequent requestfor comments will be forthcoming. Please telephone me at (905) 420-466:0, extension 2038, if .you wish to discuss the comments further. Yours truly CLR:pr Mgrn~\~ r~ p as~,To ro nt o.clo ~ Copy: Manager, Policy Director, Planning & Development Michael Cook, Region of Durham Planning Department PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Pickering Eivic Compiex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario Canada LIV 6K7 Direct Access 905.420.4660 cityofpickering.com Department 905.420.4617 Facsimile 905.420.7648 plan&devl@city, pickering.on.ca March 3, 2003 Sybelle von Kursell Municipal Planning Advisor Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Munici-pal Services Division - Central & Southwest 777 Bay Street, 2nd Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Subject: City of Toronto Official Plan Your File, No.: 20-0P-2002 I am writing to provide City of Pickering staff comments on the Official Plan for the City of Toronto. These comments, which were previOusly sent to the City of Toronto in September 2002, were neither addressed in .the adopted Official Plan nor responded to when staff contact with City of Toronto staff was recently attempted. Our concerns are outlined in the attached letter. I anticipate that a motion will. be forwarded shortly Providing Pickering City Council's endorsement of these comments. I am requesting that these concerns be considered by the Minister as the baSis fOr modifications to ther propoSed Official Plan for the City of Toronto. · I would also request that a notice of the Minister's decision on the proposed City of Toronto Official Plan be forwarded to the City of Pickering once issued. If you have any questiOns respecting the:se comments, please contact Steve Gaunt at extension 2033. Yours truly SG:jf SG/Misc/TorontoPlanMMAHOommentLetter Attachment N6il Carrok~l~;p'¢kPp Director, Pl~a~g:gt~' Development Copy: Mayor Arthurs Chief Administrative Officer A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning, Region of Durham Kerry Voumvakis, Manager of Official Plan, Urban Development Services, City of Toronto RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board was created to resolve municipal land use issues at a time when municipal governments were small and had limited planning expertise; and WHEREAS the role and mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board have not been significantly altered in response to increased municipal planning skills or expanded municipal responsibilities for land use planning under the Planning Act; and WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board has broad planning powers and can make decisions in the absence of a full municipal review of a planning application and can overtum local planning decisions; and WHEREAS Ontario municipalities invest significant resources in staff time, legal and other associated costs in establishing and implementing local planning policy; and WHEREAS there is growing concern from municipalities and citizens that the decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board are eroding local planning authority; and WHEREAS there have been numerous Council resolutions, municipal reports and reports from planning professionals and academics advocating reform of the Ontario Municipal Board; and WHEREAS the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, an informed group of municipal elected representatives and staff, after study and consultation, has made practical recommendations for improvements to the planning appeal process; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses the Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform dated March 5, 2003; and FURTHER THAT this resolution be circulated to the Chair of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, the Attorney General, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Provincial party leaders. CARRIED: MAYOR REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CL 10-03 Date: March 17, 2003 59 From: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk Subject: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Recommendation: WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board was created to resolve municipal land use issues at a time when municipal governments were small and had limited planning expertise; and WHEREAS the role and mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board have not been significantly altered in response to increased municipal planning skills or expanded municipal responsibilities for land use planning under the Planning Act;, and WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board has broad planning powers and can make decisions in the absence of a full municipal review of a planning application and can overturn local planning decisions; and WHEREAS Ontario municipalities invest significant resources in staff time, legal and other associated costs in establishing and implementing local planning policy; and WHEREAS there is growing concern from municipalities and citizens that the decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board are eroding local planning authority; and WHEREAS there have been numerous Council resolutions, municipal reports and reports from planning professionals and academics advocating reform of the Ontario Municipal Board; and WHEREAS the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, an informed group of municipal elected representatives and staff, after study and consultation, has made practical recommendations for improvements to the planning appeal process; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses the Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform dated March 5, 2003; and FURTHER THAT this resolution be circulated to the Chair of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, the Attorney General, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Provincial party leaders. Report CL 10-02 Subject: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Date: March 17, 2003 Page 2 Executive Summary: To consider the endorsement of the Final Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform. Financial Implications: Not applicable Background: Please find attached to this Report correspondence from the 15 members of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform in which they convey their final report, which is also attached hereto. Pickering Council is being requested to endorse the Report of the Task Force. The Task Force recommendations contained in the Final Report focus on four key areas of improvement: 2. 3. 4. Update the role of the Ontario Municipal Board Enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information Support citizen participation through intervenor funding Promote an independent and fair tribunal The Director, Planning & Development, has reviewed the Report of the Task Force and generally concurs with the conclusions and recommendations of the Task Force and believes that they will provide a good foundation to guide the Province in implementing Ontario Municipal Board reforms. I have also attached for Council's information a copy of the report of the Commissioner of Planning of the Regional Municipality of Durham in which he summarizes the recommendations of the Task Force and also recommends endorsement of the Report of the Task Force. Several Ontario municipalities have passed resolutions expressing frustration with the Ontario Municipal Board and seeking some type of reform of that agency. More particularly, the City of Pickering Council passed the following resolution at its regular meeting of February 4, 2002: WHEREAS in a review of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) it was found that 15 GTA municipalities spent over $20 million on cases relating to policy issues and new large-scale urban area designations over the last five years; and Report CL 10-02 Subject: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Date: March 17, 2003 Page 3 6! WHEREAS the Corporation of the City of Pickering dedicates significant resources in staff time, legal fees and other related costs, as outlined in the memo from the Solicitor for the City dated January 31, 2002 to represent the corporation at cases before the OMB; and WHEREAS the members of the OMB are appointed by the Government of Ontario and have no direct accountability back to the electorate; and WHEREAS the original intent of the OMB was to be a check against bad or biased planning but has grown into a body that may overturn sound planning decisions and reshaping communities in a manner that is contrary to their will and vision; and WHEREAS there is an increasing trend for developers to appeal matters before local Councils to the OMB prior to the elected representatives considering the matter and often before public statutory meetings occur; and WHEREAS in many recent decisions the OMB has overturned decisions of local councils because a land use was not expressly prohibited thus creating an impossible burden to municipal official plans which will require a laundry list of allowable and disallowed uses for protection; and WHEREAS a municipal official plan should be broad based and flexible but will become encumbered by restrictions that may have undesired outcomes in an attempt to provide protection from the OMB; and WHEREAS the Government of Ontario can not expect 'smart growth' to occur in an environment where local planning and years of public input and debate can be overturned by an appointed body with often little knowledge of the municipalities who's future they are shaping; and WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report on the OMB states that "as an appointed tribunal, the OMB should not be determining growth patterns of the GTA" and notes that, "municipal taxpayers, after paying for exhaustive planning policy processes, have to pay an unacceptable price to defend their decisions in the OMB arena"; and WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report further states "There is no evidence, at least in the opinion of municipalities, to suggest that the $20 million plus yields a higher quality of life and a better-planned GTA than would have been yielded by the decision-making of the elected municipal Report CL 10-02 Subject: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Date: March 17, 2003 Page 4 Councils, following the exhaustive planning processes and legal requirements that we now follow". NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering urges the Government of Ontario to remove or, at the least, radically reduce the role of OMB back to a pure check against bad or biased planning; and THAT the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be requested to act upon the report done by the Town of Caledon, work done by the GTSB and requests of municipalities by applying meaningful and lasting pressure to dissolve or radically alter the OMB; and THAT the leadership candidates for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition be requested to respond back to the Council of Corporation of the City of Pickering as to their position on this issue; and THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Region of Durham be requested to endorse this motion; and THAT this motion be circulated to; All area Mayors and Chairs Janet Ecker, M.P.P - Pickering-Ajax-Whitby Jim Flaherty, M.P.P. - Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance Tony Clement, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Elizabeth Witmer, Environment Minister Ernie Eves, former Minister of Finance and candidate for the leadership of the Ontario PC party Dalton McGuinty, Leader of the Official Opposition Mike Harris - Premier of the Province of Ontario Chris Stockwell, M.P.P. Attachments: Letter dated March 7, 2003 from GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Report of the Regional Commissioner of Planning dated March 11, 2003 Report CL 10-02 Subject: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Date: Prepared By: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Attachments Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council TimoroUs J. Qu~n, C~ief Adm~~ March 17, 2003 Page 5 64 GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Roger Fl. Anderson Chair c/o Region of Durham 605 R0ssland Rd. East Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Ph: 905~668-771~ Fax: 905-668-~567 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM March 7, 2003 TO: - Clerks of Greater Toronto Area Municipalities FROM: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Dear Madam or Sir, Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform for consideration and endorsement by your Council. Last summer, Durham Regional Council endorsed the City of Mississauga's resolution that highlighted the need for reform of the Ontario Municipal Board appeal process. That resolution outlined the many problems and costs that municipalities were experiencing in defending their planning decisions at the OMB. Durham Council was acutely aware of these difficulties. Council instructed Regional Chair Anderson to invite GTA municipalities to form a Task Force with the goal of preparing recommendations to the Province for significant changes to the OMB process. This report is the result of a focussed effort by a group of GTA municipal politicians and staff since September 2002. We encourage your Council to study the Report and add your support for reform of the planning appeal process in Ontario. The Task Force requests that your Council formally endorse the Report and inform the Task Force Chair of its decision. A model Council resolution is attached for your use if desired. In the interests of raising the profile of this issue in both the public and political arenas during the anticipated provincial election campaign, we urge you to respond to Chair Roger Anderson at the Region of Durham by April 15, 2003. Sincerely, Regional Chair Region of Durham William F. Be Ifl~ Mayor Town of Richmond Hill AndreVw Allison Senior Solicitor Region of Durham / Frank D'Amico ' Councillor City of Hamilton TASK FORCE ON OHB REFORH 65 Alex Geor.~t:~ Commission Planning Region of Durham Paul Mallard ~ .'"-.~.'~ Manager, Develop .m~t Planning Planning and Development Department City of Hamilton Gary Muller Senior Planner Planning & Development Town of Ajax Patrick O'Connor Director of Legal Services Corporate Services Department Region of Peel Arvin Prasad Director of .Planning Policy and Research Planning Department Region of Peel Ann Mulvale Mayor ~T°wn of Oakvill~~ Steve Parish Mayor Town of Ajax Don Sinclair Director, Development Law Corporate and Legal Services Department Region of York Nancy L. Smith Assistant Corporate Counsel City of Hamilton 66 MODEL RESOLUTI'ON FOR ENDORSEMENT WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board was created to resolve municipal land use issues at a time when municipal governments were small and had limited planning expertise; AND WHEREAS the role and mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board have not been significantly altered in response to increased municipal planning skills or expanded municipal responsibilities for land use planning under the P/anning/Ic'¢,, AND WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board has broad planning powers and can make decisions in the absence of a full municipal review of a planning application and can overturn local planning decisions; AND WHEREAS Ontario Municipalities invest significant resources in staff time, legal and other associated costs in establishing and implementing local planning policy; AND WHEREAS there is growing concern from municipalities and citizens that the decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board are eroding local planning authority; AND WHEREAS there have been numerous Council Resolutions, municipal reports and reports from planning professionals and academics advocating reform of the Ontario Municipal Board; AND WHEREAS the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, an informed group of municipal elected representatives and staff, after study and consultation, has made practical recommendations for improvements to the planning appeal process; NOW THEREFORE BE i-I- RESOLVED THAT the Council of the endorses the Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform dated March 5, 2003; AND FURTHER BE 1-1' RESOLVED THAT this resolution be circulated to the Chair of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, the Attorney General, the Minister of Hunicipal Affairs and Housing, and the provincial party leaders. Report of the GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM Recommendations for Reforming the Ontario Municipal Board and Ontario's Planning Appeal Process March 7, 2003 GTA TASK FO£CE ON OMB R£FORM 68 SUB.~ECT: Recommendations for Reforming the Ontario l~lunicipaJ Board and Ontario's Planning Appeal ~Process REPORT: PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to recommend reforms to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and the related land use planning appeal process, and to seek endorsement of these recommendations by the local and regional governments within the Greater Toronto Area. The Task Force will then forward the endorsed recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General and others who may be in a position to implement or influence those reforms. BACKGROUND Originally created as the Office of the Provincial Municipal Auditor in 1897 to supervise account keeping by municipalities, the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board was formed in :L906 with an added responsibility for railways. Renamed the Ontario Municipal Board in :[932, its powers have expanded greatly over time and the Board now obtains its jurisdiction from more than 100 statutes. This report is concerned with its jurisdiction under the P/anningAct. The Board was created to arbitrate municipal issues in a predominantly rural society where municipal government was small and unsophisticated. After World War ]::[, Ontario's population became increasingly urban, planning departments began to emerge in Ontario cities and towns, and land use planning legislation began to be enacted provincially. At the dawn of the 21st century., Southern Ontario, in particular, is primarily an urban culture with rapid development in and around its major cities. Municipalities now possess considerable planning expertise. Since 1995, the Province has downloaded most land use planning responsibilities to the municipal level of government. The new Hun/c/pa/Act, 2001 recognizes municipalities as an order of government. While the O[VlB has undergone some administrative changes over the years and recent ............. p~du~ ~veme ~ t~s_role_an ~l~n~at~o_bave~o~e~icj~n.t~y_alte~6t~i~ ................ response to the increasing maturity of the municipal planning role and process. GTA TASK FORC£ ON OMB FORMAT~'ON OF TASK FORCE Many Ontario municipalities have expressed growing frustration with the planning appeal process administered by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). They feel it undermines their planning authority and is a drain on their financial and staff resources. In June 2002, Durham Regional Council discussed and endorsed a City of Mississauga resolution citing difficulties experienced by municipalities in relation to the OMB. Durham Council further directed the Regional Chair, Roger Anderson, to convene a meeting of Greater Toronto area (GTA) officials to see if, jointly, such a group could formulate and agree upon recommendations for reform of the OMB appeal process. On September :1.6, 2002, a group comprising GTA and Hamilton elected officials and municipal staff met at the Region of Durham Council Chamber. A possible course of action to stimulate meaningful reform of the OMB appeal process was discussed and the group agreed to work as a Task Force to pursue this objective. Attachment 1 lists the Task Force Members. The Terms of Reference adopted by the Task Force are provided as Attachment 2. The objective was to prepare a report to the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing recommending reforms that would address the key issues that municipalities face in the planning appeal process. Task Force members saw it as essential to engage stakeholders in their review process, to look at the appeal mechanisms used in other jurisdictions and, with a Provincial election approaching, to hear the position of each provincial party with respect to the OMB mandate and function. The Task Force invited a variety of stakeholders in the planning process to present their views. Representatives of each of the three provincial political parties were invited to present their party's perspective. The Ontario IVlunicipal Board was also invited to provide information about the appeal process and any planned Changes. The Task Force also hoped to generate some media interest in the process so that the broader community would become aware of the issues and the work underway. CONSULTAT?ON PROCESS Based on suggestions from members of the Task Force, sixteen stakeholder groups and knowledgeable individuals including academics, ratepayer groups, government agencies and the development industry were invited to appear before the Task Force to present their recommendations for changes to the OMB appeal process. Three consultation dates were offered during December 2002 and 3anuary 2003. Nine representatives . a_~p_peared before the'l-ask Force (.see A~achmed3t.~ro~ in_~ not respond. Some stakeholders were unable to attend as they were invOlVed with cases before the Board or because their schedule did not allow it. The Ontario Professional Planners ]:nstitute (OPP]:) felt that their February 2002 paper fully explained their position. 2 ?0 TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM In addition to the stakeholder groups, representatives of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party spoke to the Task Force on Feb. 3, 2003, to explain the kinds of changes they envisioned making to the OMB or the planning process, if elected. The Chair of the OMB made a presentation on changes and improvements to the appeal process that had been made, were underway or were being considered by the OMB itself. He provided copies of their Code of Conduct, recently revised forms and some caseload statistics. Each group or individual that appeared before the Task Force was asked to make a short presentation and then respond to questions from Task Force Members. This was an extremely informative process and covered a full spectrum of views on the OMB, from those who felt that very little or no change to the appeal process was needed, to those who felt it was beyond fixing and should be abolished. Various municipal resolutions calling for reform of the orviB had been passed on to the Task Force by its members and by the Durham Regional Clerk's Office. Several reports on the OMB from municipalities, planning professional groups and academics were also brought to the attention of the Task Force. These also represented quite a broad range of perspectives. Some focussed on procedural adjustments while others advocated radical reforms. The Task Force reviewed the notes and materials frOm all the presentations, the municipal motions and the various reports and extracted, grouped and summarized the recommendations contained in them. See .Attachment 4, Summary of Consultation and Submission Recommendations. PLANNING APPEAL PRACT]:CE$ ]:N OTHER 3URISDICT]:ON$ Task Force research showed that the nature of appeal boards, both provincial and local, and the extent of their authority on land use planning appeals vary significantly from province to province. Each province has taken a different approach to planning appeals based upon what was decided, who made the decision, and how the decision was made. All provinces, with the exception of British Columbia and Quebec, have provincial boards that have jurisdiction to hear appeals of land use planning decisions made (or not made) by municipal councils, local o[ reg_ional planninq authorities, committees or boards. Generally, the range of planning i~stru~ent§ over which.provin~iai, b6a'fd~ have jurisdiction is limited. No provincial board in Canada has jurisdiction over planning- related matters as extensive as that of the Ontario Municipal Board. GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB RE?ORM In most provinces, provincial boards do not have appellate jurisdiction over official plans. The appellate jurisdiction of provincial boards with respect to other planning approvals varies from province to province. Generally, zoning by-laws cannot be appealed to provincial boards, but planning controls that affect the details of development proposals (for example, development permits and minor variances) can be appealed. Some provinces have local boards that hear appeals. However, to the extent that they have appellate jurisdiction, these local boards typically only review decisions of administrative officials. 71 Every province has statutorily codified processes that provide for property owners and other interested parties to have a full and fair opportunity to present their views to the original decision-maker and/or an appeal board on planning-related matters. Where the provinces differ is in their views as to whether appeals to a provincial board and/or a local board are necessary to ensure that the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness are respected in the decision-making process. In provinces where appeals of certain municipal decisions are not allowed (for example, official plans and zoning bylaws in British Columbia and Alberta), the legislation sets out stringent procedural requirements. Tn these situations, a hearing before an appeal board is not seen as required to ensure that the process is fair. For those limited matters in respect of which provincial boards have appellate jurisdiction, the legislation typically provides for de novo hearings~. ISSUES IDENTIFICATION The following key issues were identified as a result of. the consultation and research: Role and 3urisdiction of the Board · The OMB: · can overrule or support decisions of elected councils o is not accountable to the electorate - often makes decisions that undermine local Official Plans created through considerable public consultation · deals with much more than Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issues and approval of Official Plans "de novo" hearing: According to the Guide to the Ontario Municipal Board, p.9, a hearing before the OMB is "usually a new presentation of the issues. This means that the Member(s) look at each application or appeal from the beginning as if no decision had ever been made by a previous tribunal such as a municipal council, a committee of adjustment, land division committee or the Assessment Review Board (therefore you must prove your case again). The Board can make any decisions that the earlier tribunal could have made and the decision may be different". GTA TASK FORC~ ON OMB R~FORM 72 No other Canadian jurisdiction has an appeal body with a similar scope of planning appeal powers Guidelines & limits on the OlVlB mandate are unclear. Procedural Complaints · 90 day appeal period is perceived as an unrealistic processing timeframe for municipalities · Hearing is not a true appeal or review, but a de novo hearing · Pre-hearing process and mediation often are not used. Barriers to Public Participation · OMB procedures are complex, legalistic and are perceived as a barrier to public participation · 90 day appeal provision can circumvent local planning process and may limit opportunity for public input · Citizen input is given less weight as evidence than professional opinion · Cost, time requirements are a barrier to public participation Cost of Municipal/Agency Participation · Deters municipal participation · Potential of costly OMB hearing affects local planning decisions · Diverts scarce municipal/agency resources from other planning needs and local expenditure priorities · Municipalities are forced to spend large sums if they are to defend local planning decisions Credibility/:[mpartiality of OMB · Appointment process, length of tenure could be revised to enhance the Board's independence · There is no transparent process for evaluating the performance of the OMB or its members Strength of the Planning Policy Framework · P/ann/n_q Act could give the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) more weight · Provincial Policy Statements are vague in some respects [] Local planning process/Official Plans could be given more weight Value Added by the OMB Process [] No evidence to demonstrate that decisions of the Board are better planning decisions than those made at the municipal level · OMB perceived as being less oPen to innovative Planning than it is to more traditional planning [] Little evidence to show that the OMB is successful in taking into account cumulative impacts of discrete planning decisions. 5 GTA TA$/~ ?oRc~ ON OMB 73 ANALYSlrS Two basic principles seemed to be at the heart of the issues discussed by stakeholders and form the basis for the Task Force's recommendations: Planning decisions of democratically elected Municipal Councils should not be replaced by the decision of a Provincially appointed body unless there is demonstrable evidence of error or impropriety on the part of the Council. Property rights are important and aggrieved parties should be entitled to some relief and remedy when a Municipal Council acts improperly, arbitrarily or outside of its jurisdiction. Tn balancing these two guiding principles, the Task Force rejected the option of advocating the abolition of the Ontario Municipal Board. While abolition would clearly recognize the authority of elected Municipal Councils, it may not adequately provide for the rights and remedies of aggrieved parties. While the courts could play this role, the Task Force felt that the Ontario Municipal Board does possess helpful qualifications and experience with respect to municipal planning matters. These could not be easily duplicated and replaced by the Courts. Some stakeholders viewed the courts as a potentially more expensive and less inclusive mechanism for appeal. The Task Force believes that the current system of OMB planning appeals does not give adequate deference to the process that municipalities go through in developing their Official Plans. Changes should be made to the planning system that support and validate the plans and decisions generated through the municipal planning process. Therefore, in formulating its recommendations, the Task Force focused on what they felt were the primary flaws of the present system and the reforms that would most effectively address the issues identified in the research and consultation process. The Task Force anticipates that its recommendations would work best in conjunction with a stronger, clearer Provincial Policy Statement that should result from the PPS review currently underway. RECOMMENDATIONS The Task Force recommendations focus on four key areas of improvement: 1. Update the role of the Ontario Municipal Board 2, Enable timely municipal decisions ~d on_c.o_~jnformation 3. Support citizen participation through intervenor funding 4, Promote an independent and fair tribunal. 6 TASK FORC~= ON OMB £EFORt~ The Task Force believes that these improvements are achievable with the changes proposed. Update the Role of the OAIB Municipalities have grown and matured since the OMB was created. Provincial planning legislation and policy have also matured and support a rigorous public process for the development of municipal planning instruments such as Official Plans. The new /Vlunicipa/Act recognizes municipalities as an order of government. The Province has delegated approvals of local Official Plans to single and upper tier municipalities. The role and mandate of the OlVlB should be updated to recognize and respond to these changes. The Board should provide a true appeal or review mechanism as a last resort for dealing with faulty decisions, rather than substituting themselves as the planning decision-maker. Provincial legislation gives the primary responsibility for land use planning within a community to the municipal government. The P/anning Act sets out a detailed procedure that municipalities are expected to follow in discharging that responsibility. A municipality is, and should be, required to go through a full, complete and open public process to establish or amend its Official Plan, zoning regulations and other planning instruments. Having gone through that mandated process, the municipality's decisions should be final and binding unless it can be demonstrated that a significant error or impropriety has taken place. The onus of demonstrating the error or impropriety should be placed onthe complaining party. However, under the present system, appeals result in hearings de novo that effectively void the municipal planning process and decision, and allow the Board to substitute its own process and decision. The Task Force believes that an applicant's rights of appeal should arise only where a Municipal Council makes a clearly improper or unreasonable decision or'deprives the parties of their rights to natural justice. Recommendation: The Task Force strongly recommends that the OMB process should be a review or true appeal of the municipal planning decision and not an automatic hearing de novo. To achieve this, the Task Force recommends that a two stage process be adopted. At the first stage, the Board would review the planning process and the complaint and determine whether leave to appeal should be granted. Leave to appeal would be granted only if the obje~ing party establishes to the Board's satisfaction that the Council has acted unreasonably. To make this determination, the Task ForCe suggests that Board Could apply a test such as the following: 7 GTA TASK FORC£ ON OMB REFORM That no reasonable Council, applying sound planning pr/nc/p/es and acting in good ?aith~ could have made the same dec/s/on or have ?a/led to make a dec/s/on. Only if the Board finds that the Municipal Council demonstrably failed to act reasonably could an appeal proceed to the second stage, a hearing de novo, This screening process should greatly reduce the number of appeals by granting proper deference to the municipal planning process and requiring an appellant to demonstrate a substantial error as the basis for appeal. A de novo hearing should become an exception, reducing costs to all parties and providing for a more timely resolution of planning matters. 2. Enable Timely Municipal Decisions Based on Complete tnfoi;~atioi~ Most submissions to the Task Force highlighted difficulties related to the 90 day appeal provision in the P/anning,4~ This provision allows an applicant to launch an OMB appeal 90 days after submitting an application, if the municipality has not yet rendered a decision. Stakeholders cited numerous cases where the studies to support a proper planning decision could not possibly be completed in 90 days (e.g. a four-season environmental impact study) or where an applicant provided required studies only a few days before the 90 day deadline. These situations made it impossible for the municipalities or other commenting agencies to review the information before the deadline. Resources have to be diverted from normal business to hastily review last minute submissions. Only the Urban Development :Institute and the Greater Toronto Homebuilders were satisfied with the present 90 day rule and felt that abuse of the rule was rare. ];f a duly elected Council has the primary responsibility and authority to render well- considered planning decisions for its community, that Council must have sufficient time and reliable information to make such decisions. Based on the consultations, the Task Force believes that the 90 day appeal provision presents a major problem in this regard. A fundamental problem is the present definition of a "complete" application in the Planning Actand regulations. Currently, an applicant need only submit a planning application form and cheque for the application fee to "start the 90 day clock ticking". This definition of "completeness" fails to recognize that an applicant should provide necessary studies and information related to their application in a timely way, to perm t municipalities to render an informed planning decision. Before removing the municipality from the decision-making process and substituting the Board, the municipality should be given a reasonable opportunity to make an informed decision. Based on statistics presented by David .Johnson, Chair of the OMB, 75% of appeals are not referred in any case until :150 days after municipal receipt of the 8 ?6 GTA TA$/~ FORCE ON OMB REFORM application. The Task Force believes it is sensible that an appeal period should not commence until a truly complete application is in the hands of the municipality. Where an application is submitted with all the information needed to make a decision, municipalities would be able to render a properly considered planning decision within 150 days on most applications. Straight-forward applications may be dealt with more quickly. There will also be complex applications that require a municipal review period of more than ::[50 days due to the need for extensive public consultation, multi-season studies or peer review of studies. The Province has seen fit to vest municipalities with land use planning responsibilities. Thus, the starting assumption for the planning appeal system should be that elected Hunicipal Councils can be trusted to properly fulfill legislative requirements, to act in good faith and to make timely, well-considered planning decisions. Recommendations: Therefore the Task Force recommends the following' Amend the P/anning Actto create a definition of "complete application" that includes information and documentation required by a municipality to properly process the application and make an informed decision. The information required to constitute a complete application will include 1) any requirements of general application contained in municipal planning documents (e.g. Official Plan) and 2) any other information reasonably required to make a sound planning decision on that specific application. A municipality could reject an incomplete application. Amend the P/ann/ng Act to mandate pre-c, onsultation between the municipality and the applicant on all Official Plan amendment applications. Municipalities should provide written confirmation of the information requirements to the applicant within a specified time after the pre- consultation. 'i Amend the P/ann/n.q Actto provide that a d.spute, in regard to the information required in order to constitute a complete application, could be brought to the Board or arbitrated at any time. Give the OHB the jurisdiction and direction to stay any appeal process, including a request for leave to appea_l, if it determines that any_information required to make a decision has not been made available to the municipality or that the municipality has not had sufficient time to consider such necessary information. 9 ?? Establish a time period of 150 days from receipt of a complete application for municipal review and processing of an application. Only after 150 days could leave to appeal a lack of decision be obtained by convincing the Board that the lack of decision is unreasonable (see the test for "reasonableness" proposed on page 8). Support Citizen Participation - Intervenor Fundinq All of the stakeholders who presented to the Task Force commented on the obstacles faced by ordinary citizens in participating in the ORB process. Expense, time commitment and legal complexity were repeatedly cited as barriers to citizen participation in the OMB process. Citizen groups often cannot effectively present and defend a public interest at an OMB hearing without legal representation and expert evidence. The 90 day appeal provision was seen as a means for developers to circumvent public participation. The frequeht shift of a hearing into a negotiation of settlement was also noted as sometimes eliminating the public voice from the proceedings. The Task Force feels that public and third party participation in the OMB hearing process, especially on complex Official Plan and zoning matters, is no longer possible without expert assistance. Creating an intervenor funding mechanism may be the only way to ensure that citizens groups are able to participate on a level playing field with other parties in a de novo hearing. However the Task Force believes the best way to support public participation in planning matters is to make full use of the municipal planning process. That process includes both informal and structured opportunities for public involvement and is geared toward gathering citizen input into such things as Official Plans, secondary plans and zoning changes.. Participation is inexpensive for citizens and does not require special expertise. This aspect of the planning process should be made as effective as possible to ensure that balanced plans and good decisions are made at the local level. Public participation should be supported and validated by an OMB process that affords an appropriate respect and deference to the plans developed and decisions made utilizing this public input. ]:f municipal planning decisions are shown greater deference in the OMB appeal process', as suggested in the previous recommendations, and de novo hearings become the exception instead of the rule,, the need for intervenor fundincL.a.~ a m_eans t_o en_sure public participation should be significantly reduced. lO GTA TASK ?ORC£ ON OM~ R~FOR~ 78 Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the Province establish a program to fund 3rd party public participation in OMB de novo hearings with clear criteria defining eligibility. To qualify for funding a citizen's group should: · be incorporated or appropriately organized to take on the rights and responsibilities of participating in an OMB proceeding · have participated in the local planning process · have the ability to raise a poAion of the funds required for the appeal process. In addition, to qualify for funding, the case in which the group wishes to participate should involve issues of broad Public or provincial interest (e.g. protection of environment, affordable housing or farmland). The province should allocate an amount annually to support intervenor funding, possibly supplemented with a small surcharge on development applications, and set a cap on the amount available to a single group. The government may wish to specify how funding could be used (e.g. to retain legal counsel). ..4. Promote an Independent and Fair Tribunal The Task Force feels that generally the OMB members are well qualified and discharge their duty effectively. While statistics presented to the Task Force do not support the notion that the OIVlB is "a captured agency" in terms of its decisions, there is definitely a public perception that the Board and the appeal process, as currently structured, favour developers. Recommendation: The Task Force believes that several changes could be made to enhance both the reality and the perception of the Board as an impartial and fair arbiter. It is therefore recommended that: The term of appointment be increased to 6 years A job description, outlining the qualifications and expertise required of Board Members, be developed and used in the selection process An open process be adopted for soliciting qualified applicants A non-partisan, multi-stakeholder screening committee be created to interview and recommend to Cabinet candidates for appointment or reappointment A mOre open Performance evaluation process for Board Members be implemented. 11 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB RE?ORH If the all the Task Force recommendations are implemented, the Province may find that fewer Board members are needed as the incidence of appeals and hearings should be significantly reduced. ?,9 CONCLUS]~ON In summary, the Task Force feels that if implemented, the recommendations above will substantially address the criticism of the current planning appeal process that was documented in our consultations. By updating the role of the OMB to make it primarily a review body, with a specific' standard of review to guide it, the number of hearings should be significantly reduced, lowering the costs for all parties. The continued availability of a de novo hearing in the case of egregious error offers an incentive for municipalities to make sure they conduct themselves properly in planning matters. It also offers applicants and appellants recourse if a serious mistake occurs. However, the starting assumption must be that Municipal Councils properly fulfill their legislated duty and responsibility to make good planning decisions for their communities. Official Plans and zoning bylaws are a result of the community input process mandated in the P/ann/ng,4ct. The OMB must not intervene to assume decision-making authority unless such intervention is demonstrably justifiable. This is essential to build citizen confidence in the process and will provide greater certainty for the development industry. ]~f every planning decision of a Nunicipal Council can be challenged, then that confidence and certainty does not exist. The planning process loses credibility and the Municipal Council is considered ineffectual on planning matters. IViunicipal Councils must also live up to their plans in order to provide this certainty. Without the palpable threat of a full OrVlB hearing hovering over each planning decision, a Council's resolve to stand by their plan should be enhanced. With the system proposed, where a mistake is the basis for an appeal, municipalities will have added incentive to make sure their process is solid, that public input is widely sought and well reflected in their reports and decisions. This public input will be acquired in a setting which is much more informal and accessible than an OMB hearing. The '"justified appeal" process recommended by the Task Force gives greater weight to both the local planning process and the public input that are part of that process. Documentation of both would be examined during the review stage of the two step p_Locess the Task Force has pEopos_ed.. By redu_ci_rLg_Lh_~: co~sts~ should be reduced for all parties. Providing intervenor funding for exceptional cases that do warrant the full hearing de novo, due to some grave error, would ensure that effective participation by citizens in the more complex process can occur. 12 GTA TA$~ FORC~ ON OMB R~FOR~ 8O While the OMB may never enjoy public popularity, its credibility as an impartial arbiter on important issues rests in part on a public perception of fairness and independence. The current 3 year terms for Board members, the political appointment process, a real or imagined association with a business-oriented government and the barriers to citizen participation have somewhat tarnished the public reputation of the Board. Revisions to the selection, appointment and tenure of Board members, 'as well as regular performance evaluation, would help considerably in achieving both the factual and perceptual independence critical for a quasi-judicial body. Various stakeholders expressed the desire for greater clarity and direction from the Province within planning legislation and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The Task Force agreed that the vagueness of the current PPS and the "have regard for" provision of the P/anning Act are problematic, A key theme of _]ohn Chipman's study2 of the OMB is that the Board developed and applied its own planning policy in the absence of clear provincial policy direction. Clearer provincial policy should strongly support municipal Official Plans and the municipal role in delivering land use planning at the local level. Since a review of the Provincial Policy Statement is currently-underway and municipalities have been active participants in that process, the Task Force decided to confine its recommendations to the planning appeal process. However the Task Force encourages the Province to expeditiously resolve these broader planning framework issues through the PPS review process. The GTA Task Force on OMB Reform has developed these recommendations with the objectives of resolving some specific issues and improving the planning appeal process for all involved. We hope our municipal colleagues will see fit to endorse these recommendations and that the Province will act upon them. 2 Chipman, John G. 2002. A Law Unto Itself Toronto:The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, University of Toronto Press. 13 ATTACHMENT 1 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM Membership List,, Chair: Roger Anderson Chair, Region of Durham Members: Andrew Allison Senior Solicitor Region of Durham William F. Bell Mayor Town of Richmond Hill Frank D'Amico Councillor City of Hamilton Kevin Daniel Flynn Regional Councillor Ward 1 - Oakville Region of Halton Alex Georgieff Commissioner of Planning Region of Durham Mark Holland City/Regional Councillor City of Pickering Paul Mallard Manager, Development Planning Planning & Development Department City of Hamilton Howard Moscoe Councillor City of Toronto Gary Muller Senior Planner Planning & Development Town of Ajax Ann Mulvale Mayor Town of Oakville (alternate) Patrick O'Connor Director of Legal Services Region of Peel Steve Parish Mayor Town of Ajax Arvin Prasad Director of Planning Policy and Research Planning Department Region of Peel Don Sinclair Director, Development Law Corporate & Legal Services Department Region of York Nancy L. Smith Assistant Corporate Counsel City of Hamilton 81 14 82 GTA Staff Technical Support: Debi Bently Deputy Clerk Clerk's Department Region of Durham Stan Floras Assistant Corporate Counsel Legal Services Region of Halton Jody Wellings Manager of Current Planning Planning & Transportation Services Region of Halton Christine Drimmie Policy & Research Advisor Regional Chair & CAO's Office Region of Durham Lino Trombino Planner Planning Department Region of Durham Kal Yew Manager, Plan Implementation Planning Department Region of Durham 15 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB RE?ORM 83 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM Terms of Reference (Revised @200209:t6) ATTACHMENT 2 In response to a motion from the City of Mississauga, the Region of Durham Council instructed Chair Roger Anderson to invite GTA municipalities to form a task force on the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). OB.]EC77VE The purpose of the task force is to review the mandate, purpose and function of the OMB, the OMB appeal process and related matters and make recommendations for its reform to the local and regional governments within the 905/705/4:16 areas and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General. DEL~VERAB£E Report on Recommendations for Reform of the Ontario Municipal Board, endorsed by GTA Municipal Councils, RESOURCE COMMITMENT Time of Councillors and staff to attend several meetings; to research, read, review materials, prepare comments and suggestions; undertake tasks as assigned including consultations with invited stakeholders, research or writing; Council review of the resulting report. OPERA T~NG PRINCIPLES FOR TASK FORCE · Members of the Task Force are asked to participate as equals, based on their expertise with OMB issues, not as representatives of their municipality. · Decision-making will be based on consensus. · Task Force minutes will be recorded and distributed by staff of the Clerk's Department, Region of Durham. · Meetings to be open to public. REPORTING Members of the Task Force will be responsible for making information on the activities of the Task Force available to their respective Councils. APPROVAL PROCESS & DISTRIBUTION Final report will be sent to Councils in the GTA for their endorsemenL Councils are asked to send notice of their endorsement to the Task Force. The Task Force will then submit the endorsed report to the Minister of IVlunicipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General, the Opposition parties and AMD. Copies of the report could also be sent to the Red Tape Commission and the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel. EVALUA TZON OF PROGRESS AND IMPACT OF FINAL PRODUCT · Check at the end of each meeting that the tasks are on target. · Monitor changes to OMB legislation, Planning Act etc. that reflect the suggestions of the Task Force. Follow up with Ministers. t6 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM 84 ATTACHMENT 3 Stakeholders and Sources consulted by the Task Force in the preparation of this report: MUNICIPAL RESOI. UTZON$ AND REPORTS RECEIV£D BY TASK FORCE Aurora - Sept. 24, 2002 Burlington - Mar. 18, 2002 Caledon - Sept. 21, 2001 Durham Region -June 19, 2002 Halton Hills - Oct. 2001 Halton Region -June 19, 2002 Mississauga - May 8, 2002 Oakville -April 2, 2002 Oshawa - Sept. 9, 2002 Ottawa - June 26, 2002 Peel Region -Aug. 8, 2002 Pickering - Feb. 4, 2002 Toronto - May 23, 2002 Whitchurch-Stouffville - Oct. 15, 2002 STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS TO GTA TASK J=ORCE: Dr. John Chipman- Jan. 20, 2003 Greater Toronto Homebuilders Association - Jan. 20, 2003 Joshua Creek Ratepayers Association inc. - Jan. 13, 2003 New Democratic Party (Ontario), Michael Prue - Feb. 3, 2003 Oakvillegreen - Jan. 13, 2003 Ontario Liberal Party, David Caplan - Feb. 3, 2003 Ontario Municipal Board, Chair, David Johnson - Feb. 3, 2003 Pickering East Shore Community Association - Jan. 20, 2003 John Sewell- Jan. 13, 2003 Toronto Region Conservation Authority - Jan. 20, 2003 Urban Development Institute (Ontario and Peel Chapter) - Jan. 20, 2003 OTHER REPORTS CONSUL TED: Greater Toronto Services Board, Countryside and Environment Working Group - Oct.5, 2001 Ontario Association of Chief Planning Officials (OACPO) - 1999 report to OMB Ontario Professional Planners Institute Report and Recommendations - Feb. 25, 2002 Chipman, John G. 2002. A Law Unto Itself Toronto: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, University of Toronto Press Joint Recommendations - Ontario Municipal Board Process and Procedures- AMO,OPPI, Toronto Board of Trade, GTHBA, UDI., Feb. 20, 2003 Ontario Municipal Board Annual Report 1998-200(:j OMB - Your Guide to the Ontario Municipal Board - Dec.2000 17 87 CD 88 89 © OOm~ $,TTACHMENT #~TO R~POP, T # ~._~_~ The Regional Municipality of Durham To: From: Report No.: Date: The Planning Committee Commissioner of Planning 2003-P-35 March 11, 2003 93 ,.SUBJECT: Report of the GTA Task Force on Ontario Municipal Board Reform, File: A01-27 RECOMMENDATIONS; a) THAT the Report of the GTA Task Force on Ontario Municipal Board Reform be endorsed.; b) THAT a copy of Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-35 be forwarded to the Chair of the GTA Task Force on Ontario Municipal Board Reform, the Attorney General, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Provincial Party Leaders. ' REPORT: PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform Committee and Council and recommend endorsement of the Report of the GTA Task Force on Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Reform. BACKGROUND 2,1 in June, 2002, Durham Regional Council directed the Regional Chair, to convene a meeting of Greater Toronto Area (GTA) officials to see if such a group could formulate and agree' upon recommendations for reform to the OMB pfanning appeal process. 2.2 On September 16, 2002, a group comprising of GTA and Hamilton ejected officials and municipal staff agreed to work as a Task Force in order to prepare a report which would generate reform to the planning appeal process. 94 Report No.: ,,~. 'TO REPORT# 2003-P-35 Page No. 2 Durham's representatives included the Regional Chair, Councillors Parish and Holland, the Commissioner of .Planning and the Senior Solicitor. 2.3 The Task Force met on a regular basis between the period spanning September 2002 and February 2003. The Task Force considered various municipal resolutions promoting reform of the OMB, as well as, reports from planning professionals and academics. The Task force also examined appeal practices in other jurisdictions. 2.4 A variety of stakeholder groUps also appeared before the Task Force and presented their views concerning the OMB planning appeal 'process. The group of stakeholders included academics, ratepayer groups, government agencies, the development industry and representatives from the .Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the OMB. 2.5 Although the Task Force examined a broad range of perspectives ranging from minor procedural adjustments to abolishment of the OMB, the Task Force focused primarily on the shortcomings of the current system and only pursued the reforms that would most effectively address the issues identified in the research and consultation process. = THE TASK FORCE REPORT 3.1 The GTA Task Force on OMB.Reform has released its report recommending changes to the planning appeal process and the role of the OMB. 3.2 The Task Force Report identifies numerous issues behind the growing concern with the existing planning appeal process administered by the OMB. The Task Force agreed that two key principles were at the heart of these issues and should form the basis of the Task Force's recommendations: a) The authority and mandate of a democratically elected Municipal Council to plan for the community should be supported; and b) Property owners, should be entitled to some recourse or remedy in the case of an error or impropriety by a Municipal Council. Report No.: 2003-P-35 Page No. 3 95 t TASK FORCE IF1ECOI~MENDATIONS 4.1 The report of the GTA Task Force contains 4 key recommendations:' OiVlB as a true appeal body- The Task ForCe proposes a two-stage process to deal with appeals of planning decisions. At the first stage of the process, the Board would determine whether an objector has established that Council has acted unreasonably or improperly in reaching its decision, or failed to make a decision. A majority of appeals of municipal planning decisions would not result in an automatic hearing. Only if the Board finds that a municipal council failed to act reasonably could an appeal proceed to the second stage, a hearing de novo. Enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information - The Task Force recommends that.the definition of a "complete" application be updated and that an appeal period should not begin until 150 days after a "complete" application has been submitted. The new definition of a "complete" application would ensure that the necessary studies and information related to an application are submitted to municipalities before the 150-day time limit begins. Other recommendations related to a complete application include: Require pre-consultation between the municipality and the appiicant on all Official Plan amendment applications; Allow the OMB to arbitrate, at any time, disputes in regard to what constitutes a "complete" application; and Provide the OMB the jurisdiction to stay appeals, if it determineS that information has not been provided to a municipality or that the municipality has not had sufficient time to consider such information, Support citizer~ participatior~ through ~r~tervenor fur~din9 - The Task F.orce recognizes that expense, time commitmant and legal complexity are barriers to citizen participation in the OMB process. Accordingly, the Task Force recommends a Provincial program to fund third party Participation in 96 Report No.: 2003-P-35 · .i~ REPORT# c'~/~ - o % Page No. 4 OMB hearings. Funding would have clear eligibility criteria, including limits to issues that involve a broad public.or provincial interest. Promote and independent and fair tribunal - Suggested changes are aimed at enhancing the reality and perception that the OMB is an impartial and fair arbiter. Specific recommendations include: InCreasing the term of appointment from 3 years to 6 years; Specifying qualifications and expertise required of Board Members; Soliciting qualified applicants in an open process; Using a non-Partisan, multi-stakeholder screening committee to interview and recommend candidates; and Evaluate the performance of Board Members in an open process. COMMENTS 5.1 The Region of Durham has made significant commitments in establishing and implementing planning policy. There is a fundamental concern that the OMB's planning appeal process and decisions are eroding-the role of Regional Council. In addition, an increasing amount of resources are being diverted to defend its policies at the OMB. Recent padicipation in hearings involving issues such as urban boundary expansions and the Oak Ridges Moraine have reinforced the Region's' concerns regarding the planning appeal process. 5.3 The Task Force's recommended two-stage appeal process will only allow appeals resulting from unreasonable decisions of Council. Planning decisions that have been based on sound planning principles and made in good faith will not proceed to a hearing; Under this approach, a majority of appeais will not automatically proceed to a hearing de novo. The decisions of Council will remain paramount and there will be significant reductions in the resources required in defend, in9 Durham's land use policies. Concerns regarding the "90 day" appeal provisions in the Planning Aot have been addressed by the recommended new definition for "complete" Report No.: ATTACHHENT # ~ '.~.,~ TO REPORT # ~_..~ ,. 003-P-3~ Page No. 5 application and the introduction of a new 150 day appeaJ period. The recommended changes will provide municipalities with a proper time frame and supporting material to review planning applications and 'render decisions. Savings for municipalities will result from the reduction of early appeals based on incomplete applications. 5.4 The creation of an intervenor Funding program will allow for greater public participation in the planning appeal process and will also result in a,more accessible appeal body, especially in the more complex cases before the OMB. Clear eligibility ,criteria and limiting funding to issues of broad public or provincial interests will ensure that intervenor funding will be used appropriately. An increase in the qualifications and expertise required of Board Members, longer terms of appointment and a more open evaluation process will further.the quality of OMB decisions and reinforce impartial and independent decision making. CONCLUSION 6.1 The Ontario Municipal Board plays a key role in the land use planning process in Ontario. Recently, administrative and procedural improvements have been implemented, however, significant concern remains with the planning appeal process. 6.2 The Report of the GTA Task Force examined the role of the OMB and focuses its recommendations on solutions that would most effectively improv~ the appeal process, The Task Force recommendations are geared towards assisting municipalities in achieVing greater independence in planning decisions, The resulting appeal process wilt save municipaiities resources and provide for a more timely resolution of planning matters. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Task Force Report be supported and endorsed. Commissioner of Planning 95 Report No.: 2003-P-35 Page No, 6 RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE Chief Administrative Officer AttaChment: i. Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform (To Be Distributed Under Separate Cover) H:\l-2\agendas~003\03.t 1-03\GTA OMB Reform Tai~k Force.doc RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 1. That Report CAO 04-03 concerning Pickering Nuclear Generating Stations (PNGS) A and B Operating License Renewals be received; and That Council inform the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that it does not object to a five year license renewal for Pickering Nuclear Generation Station B, providing the Commission requires a status report from CNSC staff at the mid-point of the license period, and that the City of Pickering is given an opportunity to review and comment to the Commission on the mid-license status report; and 3. That Council inform the CNSC that it does not object to a two year license renewal for Pickering Nuclear Generation Station A; and That Report CAO 04-03 be forwarded to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ontario Power Generation, and the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities. 100 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CAO 04-03 Date: April 1, 2003 From: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Pickering Nuclear Generating Stations A and B Operating License Renewals - City of Pickering Comments for CNSC May 21, 2003 Day Two Hearing - File: RTC-04-03 Recommendation: That Report CAO 04-03 concerning Pickering Nuclear Generating Stations (PNGS) A and B Operating License Renewals be received; That Council inform the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that it does not object to a five year license renewal for Pickering Nuclear Generation Station B, providing the Commission requires a status report from CNSC staff at the mid-point of the license period, and that the City of Pickering is given an opportunity to review and comment to the Commission on the mid-license status report; That Council inform the CNSC that it does not object to a two year license renewal for Pickering Nuclear Generation Station A; That Report CAO 04-03 be forwarded to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ontario Power Generation, and the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities. Executive Summary: The operating licenses for Pickering NuClear Generating Stations (PNGS) A and B expire on June 30, 2003. Ontario Power Generation has applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for renewal of the two licenses and will appear before the Commission at the Day Two Hearing on May 21, 2003. The City of Pickering has an opportunity to provide comments to CNSC on the license renewal applications. CNSC staff have conducted an extensive review of PNGS-A and B as part of the license renewal process and have provided favourable ratings for both facilities. CNSC staff are recommending a five year license for PNGS-B and a two year license for PNGS-A. City staff concur with the CNSC recommendation providing CNSC institutes a mid-point license review with respect to the PNGS-B five year operating license. Report CAO 04-03 April 1, 2003 Pickering Nuclear Generating Stations A and B Operating License Renewals Page 2 101 Financial Implications: Not applicable Background: The current Pickering Nuclear Generation Station (PNGS) A and B operating licenses were issued by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for twenty-seven month terms that expire on June 30, 2003. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has therefore submitted license renewal requests and supporting materials to CNSC. OPG also appeared before CNSC on February 27, 2003 for the Day One Hearing to present its request for license renewals. CNSC staff also appeared at the Day One Hearing to present its report on the operations of PNGS-A and B during the current license period. CNSC staff supported OPG's license renewal request and recommended a two year license for PNGS-A and a five year license for PNGS-B. CNSC staff used nine major performance areas to evaluate the license renewal applications. Each performance area was separately reviewed and assessed by examining program design/content and implementation factors. Each area and sub- area was ranked using a scale that ranged from "A" to "E." An "A" rating signified that the performance area was assessed as "exceeding requirements" while "E" meant it was "unacceptable." The nine performance assessment areas used by CNSC staff are as follows: 1. Operating Performance, 2. Performance Assurance, 3. Design Adequacy, 4. Equipment Fitness for Service, 5. Emergency Preparedness, 6. Environmental Performance, 7. Radiation Protection, 8. Nuclear Security, 9. Safeguards. Attachment 1 summarizes the overall performance ratings for both plants. An overall "B" ranking was applied to both PNGS-A and B's performances. PNGS-A's individual ratings consisted of "A" and "B" assessments. Both plant's scores were' the same except for the assignment of one "C" that was applied to PNGS-B's Performance Assurance Program. CNSC staff also concluded in their report that overall improvements have occurred at both facilities since the last license review was conducted. 102 Report CAO 04-03 April 1, 2003 Pickering Nuclear Generating Stations A and B Operating License Renewals Page 3 To arrive at their recommendation for a two year license for PNGS-A and a five year license for PNGS-B, CNSC staff considered the following five conditions: 2. 3. 4. 5. Licensed activity is not expected to change, Hazards are understood, impacts well predicted and within safety case, Management structure and quality assurance program in place, Effective compliance programs, Good operating experience. Using the five conditions, CNSC staff determined that PNGS-B was eligible for a five year license because an affirmative answer to all five items was evident. Both CNSC staff and OPG staff also supported the idea for longer license renewal periods by noting that even at a five year term, such a license would still be less than licenses issued in most nuclear jurisdictions which are often for periods of ten years and greater. However, CNSC chose to only recommend a two year license for PNGS-A because in relation Item 5, operating experience of the rehabilitated reactors is currently limited. City staff concur with the five year license for PNGS-B providing the same condition that City Council approved in January, 2003 for the Nuclear Waste Management Facility license renewal is applied to the pending PNGS-B license. The City had suggested that a mid-point license review would provide City Council and staff with an opportunity to examine and comment on issues of concern. City staff have recently contacted both OPG and CNSC staff and were informed that if the same mid-term review request was made by the City, it would be favourably supported. Furthermore, OPG has agreed to continue its regular effort at keeping the City informed of business at its Pickering sites. CNSC had also proposed some increased opportunities for City staff to interact with local CNSC staff and the commencement of periodic presentations to Council. On May 21, 2003, OPG and CNSC staff will appear before the Commission at the Day Two Hearing for the two license renewals. This Report and the related Council resolution will be provided as input to the Commission in advance of that meeting. The City also has the option of attending the Day Two Hearing in Ottawa to supplement this written submission with a presentation to the Commission. Attachments: Performance Areas Summaries for PNGS-A and B, excerpts from OPG March 24, 2003 presentation to Finance and Administration Committee, based on CNSC documentation. Report CAO 04-03 April 1, 2003 Pickering Nuclear Generating Stations A and B Operating License Renewals Page 4 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: A.L. (Joe) Hu~wicks. Emergency Response Coordinator rnomas J. Qulhn ~' ~ ~~_..._. Chief Administrative Officer Thomas E. Metymul~"' Division Head, Corporate Project~-'~'~eJj..c..~.~.~.. TJQ:alh Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy K:\RTC-04-O3.doc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thdmas J. Quinn, Chi~ A~inistrativ~~ 104 105 I06 March 24, 2003 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Geoff Romanowski Planning Technician Draft Amending By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/02 D. & J. MacKeracher Plan 418, Part Block K RP 40R 12933 Part 2 (501 Rosebank Road South) City of Pickering On September 9, 2002, Planning Committee considered Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 08/02 to amend existing zoning of the subject lands to permit a second dwelling unit within the main dwelling unit. A draft amending by-law has been prepared. The draft by-law has been circulated to and approved by the applicant and is attached for the consideration of City Council at their meeting scheduled for April 7, 2003. A Statutory Public Meeting was held for this application on June 19, 2002. Please note that this by-law may be given all three readings at the April 7, 2003 Council Meeting. The purpose and effect of this by-law is to permit the establishment of a second dwelling unit within the main dwelling unit. If you require further assistance or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. I concur that this by-law be considered at this time. Nell Car~.M~li~, RPP ' Director, ~,.~rn~g & Development GXR:jf grom anowski/zoning/rezoning/a08/memotoclerks.doc Attachment THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6118/03 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Plan 418, Part Block K, (40R-12933, Part 2) City of Picketing. (A 08/02) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to change the zoning of the lands to permit the establishment of a second dwelling unit within the existing dwelling on the subject lands, being Plan 418, Part Block K, (40R-12933, Part 2) City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2511, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. TEXT AMENDMENT Section 9 - ONE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING; THIRD DENSITY ZONE - R3 is hereby amended by adding the following section after subsection 9.3.1: 9.4 Exception 9.4.1 Plan 418, Part Block K, (40R-12933, Part 2) (1) (2) (3) Notwithstanding subclause 9.1 or any other provision of this By-law, a detached dwelling unit on Plan 418, Part Block K, (40R-12933, Part 2) may include a second dwelling unit in the main dwelling. A covered and unenclosed step or platform may project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required flanking side yard; Where a detached dwelling on Plan 418, Part Block K, (40R-12933, Part 2) contains a second dwelling unit, the following parking provisions will apply: (a) (b) a minimum of three parking spaces shall be provided and maintained on that lot. no vehicular access to the site from Cowan Circle 2. BY-LAW 2511 By-law 2511/00 is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as set out in Section 1 above. Definitions and subject matter not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this of April ,2003. day Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 107 108 TOYNEVALE DRIVE: ROAD It A'r~NOOD LAYTON CRESCENT MAiTLAN O DR. COWAN CIRCLE DRIVE City of Pickering L~K~ ONT,~t~IO Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF BLOCK K, PLAN 418; PART 2, 40R-12933 OWNER DONALD MACKERACHER APPLICATION No. A 08/02 DATE MAY 2, 2002 SCALE 1:7500 DRAWN BY RC CHECKED BY GR FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-1 P-A- March 21, 2003 To: From: Subject: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Bruce Taylor City Clerk Tyler Barnett Senior Planner- Site Planning Draft Amending By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 16/02 Fred Campetelli, Trustee Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 Block 11,40M-1231 (South-east corner of Valley Farm Road and Diefenbaker Court) City of Pickering 10..9 On January 20, 2003, City Council recommended approval of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 16/02 to amend the existing zoning to add nursing home/retirement home uses; to reduce the minimum height provisions from 6 storeys to 3 storeys to facilitate the construction of 54 townhouse units; to increase the maximum height provision for an apartment structure from 10 storeys to 16 storeys. The by-law provides flexibility to permit the development of a nursing home\retirement home, townhouse and\or apartment building or a combination of the proposed uses. The attached draft by-law has been circulated to and approved by the applicant. The conditions of approval, related to the forwarding of the implementing by-law have been satisfied. A Statutory Public Meeting was held for this application on October 17, 2002. The purpose and effect of this by-law is to amend the existing zoning to add nursing home/retirement home uses; to reduce the minimum height provisions from 6 storeys to 3 storeys to facilitate the construction of 54 townhouse units; to increase the maximum height provision for an apartment structure from 10 storeys to 16 storeys, for the subject lands. If you require further assistance or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. I concur that this by-law be considered at this time. Director~fig & Development TbarnettXRockpo~ - Nodh~By-law Memo.doc Attachment T~ler I .~_ 0 THE CO, RPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. /03 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering. (A 16/02) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit the development of high density residential and mixed uses; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS, AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULE I Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering, designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto. GENE,~AL PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved, or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By- law. DEFINITIONS In this (1) By-law, "Build-to-zone" shall mean an area of land in which all Or part of a building elevation of one or more buildings is to be located; (2) "Business Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which the management or direction of a business, a public or private agency, a brokerage or a labour or fraternal organization is carried on and which may include a telegraph office, a data processing establishment, a newspaper publishing office, the premises of a real estate or insurance agent, or a radio or television broadcasting station and related studios or theatres, but shall not include a retail store; (3) "Convenience Store" shall mean a retail store in which food, drugs, periodicals or similar items of day-to-day household necessities are kept for retail sale primarily to residents of, or persons employed in, the immediate neighbourhood; (4) (5) "Day Nursery" shall mean lands and premises duly licensed pursuant to the provisions of The Day Nurseries Act, or any successor thereto, and for the use as a facility for the daytime care of children; "Dwelling" shall mean a building or part of a building containing one or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer; (6) (7) -2- "Dwelling Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities; "Floor Space Index" shall mean the ratio of the aggregate of the floor areas of the specified use or uses established or to be established in a zone (excluding any building or part of a building below grade), to the area of that zone; 111 (8) (9) "Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey; "Gross Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic, or a cellar; (10) "Gross Leasable Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys above or below established grade, designed for owner or tenant occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding storage areas below established grade; (11) (12) ~',Livinq Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a living area, and containing sanitary facilities; "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (13) "Multiple Dwellin,q-Horizontal" shall mean a building containing three or more dwelling units attached horizontally, not vertically, by an above- grade wall or walls; (14) "Multiple Dwellinq-Vertical" shall mean a building containing three or more dwelling units attached horizontally and vertically by an above-grade wall or walls, or an above-grade floor or floors, or both; (15) "Nursinq Home" shall mean a building or part of a building where people are lodged, fed, cared and provided for, and may be aided in any or all daily activities, and may include the provision of nursing services, medical care or treatment, and ancillary administrative offices, which is operated by a pdvate, public, religious, cultural or charitable organization, and which is duly licensed pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario; (16) "Personal serVice Shop" shall mean an establishment in which a personal service is performed and which may include a barber shop, a beauty salon, a shoe repair shop, a tailor or dressmaking shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include a body-rub padour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; (17) (18) "Private Garage, shall mean an enclosed or partially enclosed structure for the storage of one or more vehicles, in which structure no business or serVice is conducted for profit or otherwise; "Professional Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, orany successor thereto; 112 (19) (20) (21) -3- "Retirement Home" shall mean a residence providing accommodation primarily for retired persons or couples where each private bedroom or living unit has separate entrance form a common hall, where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided and common lounges, recreation rooms, medical care facilities and ancillary administrative offices may also be provided; "Storey" shall mean that portion of a building other than a basement, cellar or attic, included between the surfa, ce of any floor and the surface of the floor, roof deck or ridge next above it; "Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon. PROVISIONS Uses Permitted ("RH/MU-2" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (~) (2) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) business office; convenience store; day nursery; multiple dwelling-horizontal; multiple dwelling-vertical; nursing home; (vii) personal service shop; (viii) professional office; (ix) retirement home; Zone Requirements ("RH/MU-2" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (i) FLOOR SPACE INDEX: (maximum) (ii) BUILDING HEIGHT: A 3.0; For Multiple Dwelling Vertical uses; Minimum 3 Storeys and 10 metres; Maximum 16 Storeys and 45 metres; For Multiple Dwelling Horizontal uses; Minimum 3 Storeys and 8.5 metres; Maximum 6 Storeys and 16 metres; C -4- For Nursing Home .and Retirement Home uses; Minimum 3 Storeys and 9 metres; Maximum 8 Storeys and 24 metres; 113 (iii) BUILDING LOCATION AND SETBACKS: A Buildings and structures shall be located entirely within the building envelope shown on Schedule I attached hereto; B Any multiple dwelling-vertical, nursing home, and\or retirement home use shall only occur within "hatched" area, as illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto; C No building, part of a building, or structure shall be erected within the "hatched" area of the "RH/MU-2" Zone, unless a minimum of 70% of the length of the' build-to-zone within the "hatched" area, as illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto, contains a building or part of a building; D No building, part of a building, or structure shall be erected outside of the "hatched" area of the "RH/MU-2" Zone, unless a minimum of 70% of the length of the build-to-zone, as illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto, contains a building or part of a building; E For multiple dwelling-vertical buildings located within the "hatched" area of the "RH/MU-2" Zone, and within the build-to-zone, any portion of a building or structure in excess of 13.0 metres in height, shall be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from the main wail of the building or structure which faces the western limits of the "RH/MU-2" Zone, as identified on Schedule I attached hereto; Notwithstanding clause A above, below grade parking structures shall be permitted beyond the limits of the building envelope identified on Schedule I attached hereto, but no closer than 0.5 metres from the limits of the lands; G The horizontal distance between multiple dwelling- horizontal buildings shall be a minimum of 1.8 metres; Despite the provisions of Section 5,6 of By-law 3036, the requirement for frontage on a public street shall be satisfied by establishing frontage on a common elements condominium street. (iv) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: A There shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor area for all permitted uses listed in Section 5(1) of this By-law, except for multiple dwelling-vertical, multiple dwelling-horizontal, nursing home and retirement home uses. Non-resident parking shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both; 114 -5- For multiple dwelling-vertical, there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents, and 0.3 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors. Parking spaces shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both; C For multiple dwelling-horizontal, there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents, and 0.3 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors. Parking spaces shall be provided' at grade, in a below grade structure, or both. Parking spaces may also be provided in a private garage attached to the dwelling unit it serves; D E For nursing home and retirement home uses, there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 0.2 parking spaces per living unit for residents, and 0.5 parking spaces per living unit for visitors. Parking spaces shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both; All entrances and exits to parking areas and all parking- areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt or concrete, or any combination thereof; At grade parking lots shall be permitted no closer than 3.0 metres from the limits of the "RH/MU~2" Zone identified on Schedule I attached hereto, or any road; (v) SPECIAL REGULATIONS: A For residential uses, the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto, shall be developed at a density, of over 80 units per net hectare and up to and including 180 units per net hectare; B No part of any attached private garage shall protrude beyond the wall containing the main front entrance to the dwelling unit; C The vehicular entrance of a private garage shall be no more than 3.1 metres wide, and shall be set back a minimum 6.0 metres from the nearest traffic aisle; D Despite Section 2.2.1 of By-law 3036, the minimum width of a two-way traffic aisle shall be 6.0 metres; E Covered porches, verandahs and entrance flankage features, the floor of which is not more than 1.5 metres above the grade of the adjacent front, rear, or flankage side yard, may project no more than 1.5 metres beyond the limits of building envelope shown on Schedule I attached hereto; Non-residential uses shall only be permitted within a building containing dwelling units or living units. The non-residential uses shall be limited to the first two storeys of a building, which shall be a minimum 6 storeys in height; G The aggregate gross leasable floor area for all non- residential permitted uses shall not exceed 1,000 square metres; -6- H The maximum gross leasable floor area for each business office, convenience store, day nursery, personal service shop, and professional office shall be 250 square metres; For each multiple dwelling-horizontal unit located adjacent to Valley Farm Road, there shall be provided a minimum one main pedestrian entrance oriented to Valley Farm Road; Clauses 5.9, 5.18, 5.21.2(a), 5.21.2(b), 5.21.2(d), 5.21.2(e), 5.21.2(0, 5.21.2(g), and 5.21.2(k) of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto. 6. BY-LAW 3036 (1) By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. (2) Byqaws 5416/98 and 5710/00 which amended By-law 3036 are hereby revoked. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed on this day of ,2003. 115 Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 116 RH/MU-2 \ PART 40R-12400 BUILD-TO-ZONE BUILDING ENVELOPE SCHEDULE Z TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF 2003 MAYOR CLERK THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING I 1 ? BY-LAW NO. Rl1~ /03 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering. (A 16/02) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit the development of high density residential and mixed uses; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS, AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULE I Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shatl apply to those lands in Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering, designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto. GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved, or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By- law. DEFINITIONS In this By-law, (1) "Build-to-zone" shall mean an area of land in which all or part of a building elevation of one or more buildings is to be located; (2) "Business Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which the management or direction of a business, a public or private agency, a brokerage or a labour or fraternal organization is carried on and which may include a telegraph office, a data processing establishment, a newspaper publishing office, the premises of a real estate or insurance agent, or a radio or television broadcasting station and related studios or theatres, but shall not include a retail store; (3) "Convenience Store" shall mean a retail store in which food, drugs, periodicals or similar items of day-to-day household necessities are kept for retail sale primarily to residents of, or persons employed in, the immediate neighbourhood; (4) "Day Nursery" shall mean lands and premises duly licensed pursuant to the provisions of The Day Nurseries Act, or any successor thereto, and for the use as a facility for the daytime care of children; (5) "Dwelling" shall mean a building or part of a building containing one or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer; 118 (6) (7) (6) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) -2- "Dwellinq Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities; "Floor Space Index" shall mean the ratio of the aggregate of the floor areas of the specified use or uses established or to be established in a zone (excluding any building or part of a building below grade), to the area of that zone; "Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey; "Gross Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic, or a cellar; "Gross Leasable Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys above or below established grade, designed for owner or tenant occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding storage areas below established grade; "Living Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a living area, and containing sanitary facilities; "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; "Multiple Dwellinq-Horizontal" shall mean a building containing three or more dwelling units attached horizontally, not vertically, by an above- grade wall or walls; "Multiple Dwellin.q-Vertical" shall mean a building containing three or more dwelling units attached horizontally and vertically by an above-grade wall or walls, or an above-grade floor or floors, or both; "Nursinq Home" shall mean a building or part of a building where people are lodged, fed, cared and provided for, and may be aided in any or all daily activities, and may include the provision of nursing services, medical care or treatment, and ancillary administrative offices, which is operated by a private, public, religious, cultural or charitable organization, and which is duly licensed pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario; "Personal Service Shop" shall mean an establishment in which a personal service is performed and which may include a barber shop, a beauty salon, a shoe repair shop, a tailor or dressmaking shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include a body-rub padour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; "Private Garage" shall mean an enclosed or partially enclosed structure for the storage of one or more vehicles, in which structure no business or service is conducted for profit or otherwise; "Professional Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; -3- (19) "Retirement Home" shall mean a residence providing accommodation primarily for retired persons or couples where each private bedroom or living unit has separate entrance form a common hall, where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided and common lounges, recreation rooms, medical care facilities and ancillary administrative offices may also be provided; (20) "Storey" shall mean that portion of a building other than a basement, cellar or attic, included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor, roof deck or ridge next above it; (21) "Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon. PROVISIONS (1) Uses Permitted ("RH/MU-2" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (i) business office; (ii) convenience store; (iii) day nursery; (iv) multiple dwelling-horizontal; (v) multiple dwelling-vertical; (vi) nursing home; (vii) personal service shop; (viii)professional office; (ix) retirement home; (2) Zone Requirements ("RH/MU-2" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (i) FLOOR SPACE INDEX: (maximum) (ii) BUILDING HEIGHT: A B 3.0; For Multiple Dwelling Vertical uses; Minimum 3 Storeys and 10 metres; Maximum 16 Storeys and 45 metres; For Multiple Dwelling Horizontal uses; Minimum 3 Storeys and 8.5 metres; Maximum 6 Storeys and 16 metres; 119 120 C -4- For Nursing Home and Retirement Home uses; Minimum 3 Storeys and 9 metres; Maximum 8 Storeys and 24 metres; (iii) BUILDING LOCATION AND SETBACKS: A Buildings and structures shall be located entirely within the building envelope shown on Schedule I attached hereto; B Any multiple dwelling-vertical, nursing home, and\or retirement home use shall only occur within "hatched" area, as illustrated on Schedule 1 attached hereto; C No building, part of a building, or structure shall be erected within the "hatched" area of the "RH/MU-2" Zone, unless a minimum of 70% of the length of the build-to-zone within the "hatched" area, as illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto, contains a building or part of a building; D No building, part of a building, or structure shall be erected outside of the "hatched" area of the "RH/MU-2" Zone, unless a minimum of 70% of the length of the build-to-zone, as illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto, contains a building or part of a building; E For multiple dwelling-vertical buildings located within the "hatched" area of the "RH/MU-2" Zone, and within the build-to-zone, any portion of a building or structure in excess of 13.0 metres in height, shall be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from the main wall of the building or structure which faces the western limits of the "RH/MU-2" Zone, as identified on Schedule I attached hereto; F Notwithstanding clause A above, below grade parking structures shall be permitted beyond the limits of the building envelope identified on Schedule I attached hereto, but no closer than 0.5 metres from the limits of the lands; G The horizontal distance between multiple dwelling- horizontal buildings shall be a minimum of 1.8 metres; H Despite the provisions of Section 5.6 of By-law 3036, the requirement for frontage on a public street shall be satisfied by establishing frontage on a common elements condominium street. (iv) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: A There shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor area for all permitted uses listed in Section 5(1) of this By-law, except for multiple dwelling-vertical, multiple dwelling-horizontal, nursing home and retirement home uses. Non-resident parking shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both; (v) -5- B C For multiple dwelling-vertical, there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents, and 0.3 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors. Parking spaces shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both; For multiple dwelling-horizontal, there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents, and 0.3 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors. Parking spaces shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both. Parking spaces may also be provided in a private garage attached to the dwelling unit it serves; For nursing home and retirement home uses, there shall be provided and maintained a minimum of 0.2 parking spaces per living unit for residents, and 0.5 parking spaces per living unit for visitors. Parking spaces shall be provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both; Ail entrances and exits to parking areas and all parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt or concrete, or any combination thereof; At grade parking lots shall be permitted no closer than 3.0 metres from the limits of the "RH/MU-2" Zone identified on Schedule I attached hereto, or any road; SPECIAL REGULATIONS: A For residential uses, the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto, shall be developed at a density of over 80 units per net hectare and up to and including 180 units per net hectare; B No part of any attached private garage shall protrude beyond the wall containing the main front entrance to the dwelling unit; C The vehicular entrance of a private garage shall be no more than 3.1 metres wide, and shall be set back a minimum 6.0 metres from the nearest traffic aisle; D Despite Section 2.2.1 of By-law 3036, the minimum width of a two-way traffic aisle shall be 6.0 metres; E Covered porches, verandahs and entrance flankage features, the floor of which is not more than 1.5 metres above the grade of the adjacent front, rear, or flankage side yard, may project no more than 1.5 metres beyond the limits of building envelope shown on Schedule I attached hereto; F Non-residential uses shall only be permitted within a building containing dwelling units or living units. The non-residential uses shall be limited to the first two storeys of a building, which shall be a minimum 6 storeys in height; G The aggregate gross leasable floor area for all non- residential permitted uses shall not exceed 1,000 square metres; 121 -6- H The maximum gross leasable floor area for each business office, convenience store, day nursery, personal service shop, and professional office shall be 250 square metres; For each multiple dwelling-horizontal unit located adjacent to Valley Farm Road, there shall be provided a minimum one main pedestrian entrance oriented to Valley Farm Road; Clauses 5.9, 5.18, 5.21.2(a), 5.21.2(b), 5.21.2(d), 5.21.2(e), 5.21.2(f), 5.21.2(g), and 5.21.2(k) of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to lands designated "RH/MU-2" on Schedule I attached hereto. BY-LAW 3036 (1) (2) By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. By-laws 5416/98 and 5710/00 which amended By-law 3036 are hereby revoked. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed on this 7th day of April ,2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk RH/MU-2 \ PART 1 40R-12400 BUILD-TO-ZONE BUILDING ENVELOPE SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW 6119/03 PASSED THIS. 7th DAY OF April 2003 MAYOR CLERK 123 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6120/(13 Being a by-law to amend by-law 2632/88 WHEREAS, pursuant to section 27(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law provide for the erection of stop signs at the intersections on highways under its jurisdiction. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Stop signs shall be erected at the intersection of highways set out in Column I of Schedule A attached hereto, facing the traffic bound in the directions set out in Column II of the Schedule. Schedule A to By-law 2632/88, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following items: Column I Column II Intersections Facinq Traffic Duncannon Drive and Grafton Crescent Eastbound on Graf[on Crescent Heska Road and Davidson Road Northbound and Southbound on Heska Road Norfolk Square, Norfolk Square and Norfolk Square W'estbound on Norfolk Square Sultana Square, Sultana Square and Sultana Square Eastbound on Sultana Square Squires Beach Road and Clements Road Northbound and Southbound on Squires Beach Road Pine Grove Avenue and Hogarth Street / Valleyridge Crescent Northbound and Southbound on Pine Grove Avenue Windgrove Square and Windgrove Square Eastbound on Windgrove Square Theoden Court and Hollyhedge Drive Southbound on Theoden Court BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of April 2003. Wayne Arthum, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk x o I "x S~P SIGN AVENUE FINCH / OPE~TIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRAF lC REPO MUNIOIPAL P'OPER~ & F RT Pk0T ~ATE: LOCATION OF PROPOSED STOP SIGNS :4000, FEB 2412003 , PROPOSED .... ~ STOP SIGN ,~ H ~ ~YWO0 D AVEN U OPE~TIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNiC,PAE PROPER~ &~ TRAFFIC REPORT ENGINEE~ING DIVISION ..... ~,,~: LOCATION OF PROPOSED STOP SIGNS ~:~ooo ~ ~oo3 COURTO ST CHIRON C RT. CRESCENT AMBE'RLE,4 PRES~ YTERIIN CHURCH I_AN HIGHBUSH PUBLIC SCHOOL OPERA. TIONS & EMERGENCY .,.~,,c,,.,L PRO,.E,,~. & TRAFFIC REPORT ENGINEERING DIVISION .... o,,'~: LOCATION OF PROPOSED STOP SIGNS 1:4000 FEB 24/2003 PICKF, RING ~ COURTO PROPOSED ARCADIA SQ UAR', F" CHIRON H/GHi~USH PUBLIC SCHOOL CRT. A/~Z~ERL EA PRESS YTERIAN CHURCH ~' .... LAN E SQUARE..,/) ,,4 FLAV£LLE CO~ r ...,c,.....o.~ TRAFFIC REPORT ENGINEERING DIVISION ~ .~o, ~*,~: LOCATION OF PROPOSED STOP SIGNS :4000 FEB 24/2003 STROUDS PROPOSED ADDITIONAL STOP SIGN L OC, A TiONS (ALL-WA Y) OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION SCALE: I PLOT DATE: 1:4000 i FEB 24/2003 129 DRIVE SiLiCON DRIVE '~ LLIV~ Er-ITS ROAD TRAFFIC REPORT LOCATION OF PROPOSED STOP SIGNS Cirri ,'4- ~ 130 iPLE'? STREET > SHET CI~ESCENT (_3 / WHITE PiNE WATERFORD ~ / ............ , E~iSTING S7'OP SIGNS ~, CRE%CENT WEST ~AN= ~ ' ~ // '~ONITORED FOR z POSSIBLE F~'URE ~ .; ,.e~rv~ , REMOVAL [ /' STOP SIGN .. ~.,,, N. ~. L OCA TiONS RIVERS DRIVE ~ < MUNICIPAL PROPER~ & ENGINEERING DIVISION sc*~: 1:4000i! ,,o, ~*,t: FEB 24,2003~1 LOCATION OF PROPOSED STOP SIGNS f~ PI ER G / I ~ . ~ ~i ~PEBBLESTONE~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ CA THOL/C SEPARATE 1 ~,,,~j ~ FINCH , 1~ GLO',DCEST~R OPE~TIONS & EMERGENCY j SERVICES DEPARTMENT , TRAF lC REPORT MUNICIPAL PROPER~ & F ~=~: i ,,o~ o.~: LOCATION OF PROPOSED STOP SIGNS ~:~ooo ~ ~oo3 I PIinG 'kd~c~,oo~ / N_ / r~ ,-h, '--., \\ "'"'------~-~ ~ q/ i ALPINE LA~ ~ /~~} /~/ ~ ~E~, OPE~TIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT TRAFFI PORT MUNICIPAL PROPER= & CRE ENGINEERING DIVISION ,,o~ ~,,~. LOCATION OF PROPOSED STOP SIGNS ~:~ooo , ,.~,~oo3 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6121/03 Being a by-law to exempt Lots 1 and 2, Plan 40M-2086, Pickering, from part lot control. WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of section 50 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, the Council of a municipality may by by-law provide that section 50(5) of the Act does not apply to certain lands within a plan of subdivision designated in the by-law; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Section 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, does not apply to the lands described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Plan 40M-2086, Pickering. This by-law shall remain in force and effect for a period of one year from the date of the passing of this by-law and shall expire on April 7, 2004. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of April, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk .t34 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM March 12, 2003 To: Bruce Taylor City Clerk From: Denise Bye Coordinator, Property & Development Services Subject: Part. Lot Control By-Law Bopa Developments Inc. Lots 1 and 2, Plan 40M-2086 File: PLC.230 The above-mentioned lands are being developed in accordance with the appropriate Subdivision Agreement and Zoning By-Law in such a manner to allow more than one dwelling unit to be constructed on each of the lots referred to. Attached hereto is a location map and a draft by-law, enactment of which will exempt these lands from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act, thus permitting transfers of those units into separate ownership. This by-law is in the form usually used in such cases and is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for April 7, 2003. Denise Byet DB:bg L:',PLCtsec~230~memos~bruce March 11 03.d~:: Attachment ST L~N TRUNK LINE FINCH AVENUE UBJECT SPARROW City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOTS I AND 2, PLAN 40M-2086 APPLICANT BOPA DEVELOPMENTS INC. DATE MAR. 11, 2003 DRAWN BY JB APPLICATION No. PART LOT CONTROL SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY DB FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-14 PA- NOTICE OF MOTION DATE: APRIL 7, 2003 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR HOLLAND SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR PICKLES WHEREAS the Municipality of the City of Pickering lies entirely within the Region of Durham; and WHEREAS municipal governance of Pickering is shared between the Corporation of the City of Pickering and the Corporation of the Region of Durham; and WHEREAS almost all volunteer, not-for-profit and other local organizations based in Pickering share resources within Durham, not Toronto; and WHEREAS the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario is charged with the responsibility of establishing new ridings on the basis of community of interest while maintaining a riding population that does not significantly deviate from the Provincial quotient as determined by the 2001 census; and WHEREAS the Region of Durham has 506,901 residents as of the 2001 Census and with a Provincial quotient of 107, 642 means five ridings would generate a 5.8% deviation; and WHERAS deviations of up to 8-9% are not at all uncommon in urban Ontario ridings; and I37 WHEREAS the Region of Durham is growing rapidly and will be significantly under- represented by 2014 when the next redistribution will occur if left with only four and one half ridings; and WHEREAS the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario held a public hearing at which various proposals were submitted that allowed for five ridings in Durham and stressed the community of interest that was shared across the Region; and WHEREAS at no time during the public hearings or through the course of any discussion did the concept of splitting Pickering with Toronto ever arise; and WHEREAS the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission of Ontario, through the Chief Electoral Officer, transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons its Report which was tabled in the House of Commons on March 26, 2003 by the Speaker and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; and WHEREAS in its Report, the Boundaries Commission sent most of urban Pickering to Scarborough and the remainder of Pickering to Ajax; and WHEREAS the Corporation of the City of Pickering and its residents do not share a community of interest of any kind with the former City of Scarborough; and WHEREAS Federal and Provincial representation for Pickering will be vastly diminished by having huge constituencies that lie outside of Pickering; and WHEREAS public hearings are concluded and the only method of achieving change is provided for in Section 22 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which allows the filing of objections to the Report with the Clerk of the Committee within 30 days of the Commission's Report being referred to the Standing Committee; and WHEREAS the filing of such objections can only be in the form of a motion signed by not less than 10 members of the House of Commons; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering herby expresses its absolute objection to the recommendation to divide Pickering as proposed in the Report tabled with the Speaker of the House of Commons, and THAT the Clerk of the Corporation of the City of Pickering write the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs advising of the City of Pickering's objections to the Report and that a letter also be sent to all Ontario M.P.'s advising them of Pickering's concerns and requesting that they support a motiOn to object to the changes; and THAT the proposal offered by the vast majority of Durham M.P.'s, M.P.P.'s, Mayors and Councillors be considered as an alternative with the inclusion of the Township of Brock and any minor revisions necessary to mitigate a major deviation from the electoral quotient; and THAT the Township of Brock be requested to write to the Clerk for the Standing Committee and the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario by April 21, 2003 with a full retraction of its Council's earlier comments that it does not share a community of interest with Durham Regions; and THAT the Council of the Township of Brock be further requested to send an endorsement of its inclusion within the Region of Durham for the purposes of establishing electoral boundaries to the same parties outlined in the prior operative clause; and THAT the Council of the Township of Brock be further requested to advise the Corporations of the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham, should it decide to maintain its position, that it does not share a community of interest with Durham Region; and THAT this motion be circulated to the Region of Durham for its endorsement at its meeting of April 16, 2003; and THAT this motion be further circulated to; All area Mayors, M.P.'s and M.P.P.'s CARRIED: MAYOR Btaylor:Notices of Motion:Federal Electoral Boundaries