HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 06-04
4.
Citlj o~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Discussion Papers - "Proposed Directions"
Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2
Recommendations:
1.
That the comments in Report PD 06-04 of the Director, Planning & Development
be ENDORSED as the City's comments on the "Proposed Directions" of the
Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2 Discussion Papers.
2.
That the Region of Durham be REQUESTED to address the City's comments in
Report PD 06-04 before initiating amendments to the Regional Official Plan,
including revising the "Proposed Directions":
. to identify a 30-year urban land supply for growth in Durham Region;
. to restructure the Durham Plan as a more strategic policy document that
recognizes the comprehensive area municipal official plans and the increased
planning capabilities at the local level;
. to eliminate the duplication of official plan policies on matters addressed in
area municipal official plans; and
. to differentiate between parts of the Region, including using separate rural
policies for near-urban countryside and agricultural areas well-removed from
urban settlements.
3.
That the Commissioner of Planning be REQUESTED to provide an "early release"
of at least three weeks for the Report to Regional Planning Committee on
"Revised Directions" for the Durham Regional Official Plan Review.
That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-04 to the Region of
Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region.
Executive Summary: In June 2003, the Region's consultation for Phase 2 of the
Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) Review began with the release of four Discussion
Papers. The papers analyze main policy areas identified through Phase 1, including:
the environment; the commercial structure; population and employment growth; urban
land needs; rural/agriculture areas; and the transportation system. Transportation
issues were dealt with through the Region's recent Transportation Master Plan.
Report PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 2
The Discussion Papers are simple to read and most of the "Proposed Directions" are
easy to understand. The Papers present data on many facets of development in the
Region. Regional staff met with City staff on several occasions to discuss the
"Proposed Directions". The efforts of Regional staff to produce the Discussion Papers
is acknowledged, and their willingness to meet is appreciated.
City Planning & Development staff support the intent of the "Proposed Directions":
./ to redefine the Region's role in commercial developments to large centres having
floor areas of greater than 60,000 square metres;
./ to change the time frame of the Regional Official Plan to 2031, forecasting a
population of about 215,000 persons and employment of about 88,000 jobs for
Pickering;
./ to require conservation of the natural environment through sustainable land use
and development practices; and
./ to require conservation of the rural land resource.
However, Planning & Development staff does not support the general approach of the
"Proposed Directions":
x to wait until at least 2007 to address the identified urban land shortage, in
Pickering, and other area municipalities;
x to increase the detail of policies on the natural environment, thereby duplicating
local official plan policies; and
x to add more restrictions to the use of all rural lands throughout the Region,
despite the near-urban countryside having a different context than north Durham.
The cumulative result of the "Proposed Directions", if pursued, would be greater
regional control in local matters. Increased regional involvement is unnecessary given
the sophistication of local official plans and the increased planning capabilities of area
municipalities. Further, the role of local decision-making on planning issues would be
weakened. The "Proposed Directions", if followed, would duplicate local official plan
policies on matters currently and more appropriately addressed in area municipal plans.
Also, the "Proposed Directions" would complicate local planning roles and
responsibilities, and delay the current planning process in Durham.
The "Proposed Directions" do not provide enough urban land for growth in Durham and
Pickering to the year 2031. Also, the urban land analysis did not take account of the
natural heritage system of the Seaton lands as identified by the City's Growth
Management Study. The effect is a significant shortfall of urban land to accommodate
Pickering's 20-year growth targets. This ROP Review needs to establish an urban
boundary with a 30-year land supply (not wait until the ROP Review in 2007 as
suggested), so area municipalities can complete required secondary plan studies in a
timely manner.
It is recommended that the "Proposed Directions" be revised to address the City's
comments in Report PD 06-04, and that a "Revised Directions" report be prepared, prior
to the Region starting amendments to the ROP.
Report PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 3
Financial Implications:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
1.0
Durham ReQional Official Plan Review:
1.1
Regional Council initiated a two-phased approach to reviewing its Official Plan
with the first phase completed in 2001.
On April 5, 2000, Regional Council endorsed a two-phased approach to reviewing
the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP). Part of the first phase involved
releasing a background report, which included a summary and status of the ROP
changes that have occurred in the Region since 1991, and an outline of five policy
areas suggested for review in the ROP. The background report was circulated to
local municipal and other interested stakeholders for review and comment.
On December 18, 2000, City Council endorsed Report PD 46-00 (Revised) and
requested that the Region of Durham address the issues raised in the City's
Report in the review of the ROP. The City supported the review of the policy
areas suggested by the Region and identified other issues for review including:
. the review and update of housing policies to reflect changes to Provincial
legislation and programs;
. consideration of removing urban separator designations from the major open
space system;
. specific designations for a future extension of Clements Road in Ajax,
Finch Avenue west of Altona Road and Townline Road north of Finch,
Dixie Road, and the freeway to freeway connector between Highways 401
and 407; and
. a number of technical issues.
Subsequently, Regional Council considered the results of the consultation
process undertaken for Phase 1 of the Official Plan Review and endorsed the
following policy areas for review:
. environment/open space policy;
. commercial structure;
. population and employment growth;
. urban land requirements;
. rurallagriculture policy; and
. transportation system.
Report PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 4
1.2
Durham's Planning Committee authorized Regional staff to consult on the
"Proposed Directions" of the Phase 2 ROP Review Discussion Papers.
On June 24, 2003, Regional Planning Committee authorized staff to initiate the
consultation process for Phase 2 of the Official Plan Review. Regional staff
released four Discussion Papers with "Proposed Directions", as follows:
. Towards a Sustainable and Healthy Environment
Directions on environmental issues propose significant detail and
restrictions; main topics focus on water resources, natural heritage
features, air quality and the health and sustainability of the Region's
communities.
. Population, Employment and Urban Land
Directions on growth management policies do not address land supply
shortage; main topics include updated population, household, dwelling
unit and employment forecasts to the year 2031, and urban land supply.
. Commercial Policy Review
Directions on retailing and commercial issues relax Regional role in
commercial matters; main topics discussed include the commercial
hierarchy and Central Area definition, floor space allocations, nodes and
corridors, and urban form.
. Protecting our Rural Resources
Directions on rural and agricultural issues propose more detail and severe
use restrictions; main topics addressed include the agricultural land base,
fragmentation, incompatible uses, rural settlements and non-farm uses.
These four Discussion Papers were focused on the analysis of the policy areas
identified in Phase 1 of the ROP Review. The transportation system was
reviewed as part of the Region's Transportation Master Plan (TMP). On
December 17, 2003, Regional Council adopted the Transportation Master Plan
(TMP) including specific revisions to address the City's concerns.
1.3
Pickering Council received Report PD 29-03 regarding consultation process
underway for Phase 2 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) Review.
On July 4, 2003, Pickering Council considered Report PD 29-03 regarding the
consultation process for Phase 2 of the ROP Review.
Report PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 5
At that time, City staff advised that the "Proposed Directions" included major
changes to the natural environment and other policy areas in the ROP, and that
the rationale for these "Proposed Directions" required clarification and discussion
with Regional staff and other agencies. In addition, the implications of
the "Proposed Directions" on the Pickering Official Plan and the
Growth Management Study were being reviewed.
1.4
As part of the Region's consultation process, a Public Information Session
was held in Pickering to solicit input on the "Proposed Directions" in the
Region's Discussion Papers.
Public Information Sessions were held across the Region (one for each of the
local municipalities) to solicit input on the "Proposed Directions". Four people
attended the Pickering session, held on September 17, 2003, in the Central
Library auditorium. Also, Regional staff met three times with Pickering staff to
discuss issues.
2.0
DISCUSSION:
2.1
Staff supported a ROP Review that would result in a more strategic and
visionary document for growth and development in Durham to 2031. The
"Proposed Directions" do not build upon the important role of local
Councils to make decisions on planning issues.
City staff suggested during Phase 1 of the ROP Review that the new Plan set
long-term strategic directions for Durham, as six of the eight local municipalities
now have comprehensive official plans. By focusing on a streamlined Regional
Plan, area municipal official plans would be able to refine the broad long-term
directions into detailed policies and designations that reflect local conditions.
The consultants retained by the Region to undertake the commercial review also
shared this view. They concluded:
The level of detail for retail commercial planning in the current Plan
continues to reflect the Region's historic role as having the primary
responsibility for planning in the Region. Many aspects of this role
are now capably performed by the area municipalities, often
creating a perceived duplication in the work done at the Region.
The Region's continued role in the development approval process
which includes reviewing and commenting on applications for
developments which are not regional in their scale, role or function
is dated and is not in keeping with the objective of downloading
responsibilities to the area municipalities where there is no clear
regional interest.
Report PO 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 6
Currently, the Region provides only technical comments on local applications
circulated by area municipalities. However, the Region has approval power on
local official plan amendments. The Region should be providing more substantial
comments and analysis on local applications in place of proposing more detail in
their Plan and requiring more uses to be established only by amendment to the
Regional Official Plan. Only fundamental challenges to strategic Regional Plan
matters (such as urban area boundaries) should require a Regional Plan
Amendment. A more strategic Regional Plan would build on the well-developed
local official plans and the increased planning capabilities of area municipalities.
A more strategic Regional Plan could be achieved by removing policies that
duplicate local official plans. Alternately, certain Regional Plan policies could
apply only where no approved local official plan is in place.
2.2
The "Proposed Directions" do not reflect differences within the Region,
resulting in an overly detailed and restrictive policy approach for the
environment and the rural area.
The "Proposed Directions" in the Discussion Papers, if pursued, would duplicate
local official plan policies, complicate municipal planning roles and
responsibilities, and impede the quality and efficiency of the current planning
process in Durham. The value of requiring more amendments to the ROP,
especially where comprehensive local official plans are in place, is questionable.
The "Proposed Directions" would effectively remove much of the responsibility
for local planning issues from local Councils to the Region.
Specifically, the Discussion Paper on "Protecting our Rural Resources" considers
Durham's rural area as homogeneous, rather than recognizing the differences
that are reflected in local official plans. The Region is proposing to collapse the
two existing Agricultural designations, "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" and
"General Agricultural Area", into one designation for agriculture and farm-related
land uses. The rural areas south of the Oak Ridges Moraine have different
characteristics, contexts, and influences than the more "pure" agriculture areas
located north and well east of Pickering. Countryside that is located close to
urban areas is more typically mixed and diverse.
While not abandoning agriculture, a somewhat more relaxed land use approach
should be considered for these near-urban areas. This is consistent with
Pickering's Official Plan policy to foster a healthy and vibrant rural economy.
This could be achieved by permitting a broader range of complementary uses
beyond traditional agriculture including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism,
and non-agricultural countryside uses. It would be appropriate for the
"Proposed Directions" to be revised to establish two different 'rural areas' for
inclusion in the ROP, which better recognizes the diverse rural conditions.
Report PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 7
Also, Regional staff proposes using the policies contained in the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) as the basis for many of the
"Proposed Directions" on the natural environment. Justification for using an
approach based on the ORMCP is required, given that the Oak Ridges Moraine
is so unique and significant. The proposed Direction to establish 'standard'
setbacks from natural heritage features in the rural area is inappropriate.
Setbacks are typically established through detailed environmental reports at the
local level through site-specific review.
City staff agrees with the importance of conserving the environmental system.
However, the detailed policies are more appropriate in local official plans. The
Region should build on those policies, and local decisions, in a collaborative
manner.
The "Proposed Directions" in the rural discussion paper are proposing that all
new golf course proposals and golf course expansions be considered by
amendment to the ROP. The current ROP policy permits the establishment of
golf courses within urban areas, Major Open Space System and Waterfront
designations, subject to an amendment to either the ROP or local official plans.
There is no value to the planning process by duplicating local planning efforts.
The ROP should provide broad strategic directions for golf course proposals and
rely on local official plans to provide detailed implementation policies.
Regional staff has indicated that many of the "Proposed Directions" are primarily
for the benefit of the Townships of Brock and Uxbridge where there is no local
official plan coverage for the rural areas. The Region should consider a two-tier
planning document that prescribes broader strategic policies for local
municipalities with comprehensive official plans and more detailed policies for
the municipalities without rural official plan coverage. This is in keeping with the
current ROP where some policies are not to be applied where local official plan
policies are in place. It is unnecessary and confusing to include detailed policies
and maps on the same topic in both regional and local official plans.
2.3
This Official Plan Review needs to address Pickering's urban land needs in
light of the area of natural heritage features on the Seaton lands.
The "Population, Employment and Urban Land" Discussion Paper identifies most
of Seaton, with the exception of the areas designated Open Space System in the
current Pickering Official Plan (POP), as being developable (see Attachment #1
- Regional Official Plan Designations with POP Open Space Overlay). The
Discussion Paper includes a summary of land surplus or deficit for the period
from 2001 to 2031 for Pickering. The Region estimates a shortfall of urban land
for Pickering of 112 hectares at 2026.
Report PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 8
A more recent analysis of the Seaton lands, as part of the City's on-going
Growth Management Study (GMS), has found that a significant portion of the
Living Area and Employment Area in the Regional Map is part of a natural
heritage system (see Attachment #2 - Region Designations with Pickering
Growth Management Study Natural Heritage Overlay). Further, the Main Central
Area in the Regional Map is located within the Urfe Environmental Sensitive Area
(ESA), a large core environmental area. It is estimated that approximately
330 hectares of Living Area and 500 hectares of Employment Area would be lost
to this expanded natural heritage system.
The Discussion Paper assumes 50% of the land designated Living Area remains
to be developed as residential. The other 50% is used for roads, schools, parks,
commercial, and stormwater management facilities. By contrast, the City's
Growth Management Study assumes only 35% of the Living Area for residential
development. There is a concern that the assumption in the Discussion Paper
over estimates the number of houses that can be built on the land designated
Living Area.
With updated information on the Seaton lands, and different assumptions about
lands required for other community services and facilities, the urban land
shortfall for Pickering occurs sooner than 2021. Pickering's 20-year growth targets
cannot be accommodated within its current urban area boundary.
2.4
The "Proposed Directions" do not provide sufficient lands for growth in
Durham and Pickering. The shortfall of urban land needs to be addressed
now instead of reviewing adjustments to the urban area boundaries as part
of the next comprehensive 5-year ROP Review in 2007.
Despite significant growth in Durham Region projected by 2021 and 2031, the
"Population, Employment and Urban Land" Discussion Paper is proposing to
maintain the current urban boundaries, and to give consideration to adjustments
to the urban area boundaries as part of the next comprehensive 5-year
Regional Official Plan Review in 2007.
According to the Paper, there is no basis for changing Durham's urban area
boundary and there is no need to require additional lands until 2026. However, as
discussed in section 2.3 of this Report, the analysis of Pickering's land inventory
based on new information identifies a land shortfall in less than 20 years.
The Provincial Policy Statement establishes a 30-year time frame for regional
official plans in the Greater Toronto Area. The Policy Statement also provides
local municipalities the opportunity to designate sufficient land for urban uses
and for an appropriate range and mix of housing, to accommodate growth up to
a 30-year planning horizon.
Report PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 9
Pickering has insufficient urban land for a 20-year planning horizon (the year
2021). The urban land shortage is more severe for the 30-year planning horizon
(the year 2031). The Region needs to establish an urban boundary framework
for the next 30-years, which would enable local municipalities to undertake their
planning reviews. Waiting until the next review in 2007 (considering that the
current ROP Review has taken over three years so far) could mean that local
municipalities are not in a position to have approved secondary plans for nearly
10 years from now.
Regional staff has indicated that if Pickering's 20-year growth forecast cannot be
accommodated within its current urban area boundary, any remaining share
could be transferred to Oshawa and Clarington. Any transfer of Pickering's
share elsewhere potentially impacts the City's long-term finances, derived in part
from growth and development, to support community infrastructure and services.
The shortfall of urban land should be addressed in this comprehensive review.
2.5
Council should request Regional staff to revise the "Proposed Directions"
in light of the City's comments on the Discussion Papers, prior to initiating
amendments to the ROP.
A copy of staff's detailed comments on the "Proposed Directions", as set out in
the Discussion Papers, is provided for Council's review and endorsement
(see Attachment #3). Clarification, duplication, and deficiencies relating to the
"Proposed Directions" have been noted. The "Proposed Directions" relating to
the commercial policy review are appropriate.
Further, the issues previously endorsed by City Council in Report PD 46-00
(Revised) on Phase 1 of the Official Plan Review are listed in a chart attached to
this Report (see Attachment #4). As the Chart shows, the Discussion Papers have
not addressed all of the issues raised previously by the City in Report PD 46-00
, (Revised).
It is recommended that Council request Regional staff to address the City's
comments raised in Report PD 06-04 on the Durham Regional Official Plan
Review - Phase 2 and issue a "Revised Directions" paper, prior to preparing
amendments to the ROP.
Attachments:
1.
2.
Map 1 - Regional Official Plan Designations with POP Open Space Overlay
Map 2 - Regional Official Designations with Pickering Growth Management Study
Natural Heritage Overlay
Chart 1 - Staff Comments on "Proposed Directions" in Discussion Papers
Chart 2 - Staff Comments on Phase 1 of the ROP Review
3.
4.
Report PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Page 10
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
Grant McGregor, MCI ,RPP
Principal Planner - Policy
cat~ ~
Manager, Policy
Neil Carro M PP
Director, Planning & Development
GM:ld
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Division Head, Corporate Projects and Policy
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
" ,-
PICKERING", SEATON AkEA ANAIJlySI8
ii, I! I'
J I '1
~ ~~..~~~~-, II !I I,
Regional Official Plan
Designations
with II
Pickering Official Plan I,
Open Space Overlay II
! I
II I
BROUGHAM Ij
I~ -~ .
¡:,
8'
's!
::0
,0
~
¡i
:1
I'
I'
Concession Rd4_ll
--~
---
,- ",
LEGEND
Living Area
- Main Central Area
- Employment Area
~~~it&~ Major Open Space
~ Hamlets
=~~=>~ Major Roads
20 Sideline
22 Sideline
26 Sideline
28 Sideline
North Rd
~
r-;¡
;;..
~
32 Sideline ~
Z
r-;¡
~
~
York Durham Ln
>-
c: .....!!!
CU c:...
- en CD CD
~II) .SECD ð
CU c: ...
.ë:) .2 .= W ~ &
1E1ã.c:f.)c:"Ocu
oc::!::ii:cu=:!::
- .~ 3: ....0 ::E èñ ¡
CUll) .c::I:
.§~ ~j e
CD 0 e ::J
& C) 1ii
z
ATTACHMENT #- 1- TO
REPORT # PO Olo-DL/
~
xvrv :10 NMO.l
'"'"
"C
IX:
c:
0
'¡¡j
UJ
~
c:
0
U
VIIVH}fWVII :10 NMO.l
GUlli Bu!lG>::J!d we4>f.leV\
0 E
:g .æ
6 ~
(1 (1 U en
~ I!! Q) Q)
« « C) C)
- - .¡g.¡g
I!! I: (1 'I:: 'I:
- Q) I!! ~ ~
¡¡¡ [ « - - .I!I
U 0 C) I!! I!! ..!!1
1:a.I:::J.a E
"Oï:ijE'5m(1(1
JÎIC(ÓD
p~ G!X!O
p~ IJodJ!ej
p~ SGW.fM
(")
"C
a::
I:
0
'¡¡j
g¡
p~ >ueqaso~ S
0
p~ >ueqaso~
Gullap!s V€
Scarborou
Pickering Tline
ATIACHMENT l--1.-ro
REPORT I PO Db -oft-'
Region of Durham
Official Plan Review
Phase 2
Towards a
Sustainable
and Healthy
Environment
Protecting
Water
Resources
Protecting
Water
Resources
It is proposed that policies in the
ROP be enhanced by identifying
the minimum components of a
watershed plan, and requiring
the preparation and
implementation of watershed
plans as a pre-requisite to
development.
It is proposed that ROP policies
be enhan'ced to protect surface
and groundwater quantity by:
. requiring an amendment to
the ROP for any application
made under the Planning Act
that proposes to remove
more than 50,000 LId
groundwater or surface
water, and/or is deemed to
have potential negative
impacts on water quantity;
and
. ensuring that aquifer recharge
areas and infiltration rates are
protected in the consideration
of development applications.
Policies to minimize the
establishment of impervious
surfaces through the
development process should
be considered,
Page 1
Agree with watershed planning. However,
the cost and time required for completing
watershed plans can be prohibitive. The
Region should also be cognizant of
approved sub watershed plans within the
existing, urbanized areas of local
municipalities. These sub watershed plans
provide the basis for reviewing site-specific
development proposals, The Direction
should be flexible to recognize
subwatershed plans or site-specific studies
that meet the intent of watershed planning.
Wording should give guidance, not be
mandatory. There is also no need to include
the minimum components of a watershed
plan in the ROP as watershed standards or
components are continually changing,
It is also recommended that additional
wording be included to require the Region to
use Watershed Plans and their
implementation strategies to guide the
review of development proposals and
infrastructure pro 'ects.
Requires clarification. The Direction
duplicates the provisions of the Ontario
Water Resources Act. Also, the effect of the
proposed direction needs clarification by
using more precise terminology (e.g.: who
and how would an application be deemed to
have potential negative impacts?). The
Region should consider different standards
for development applications within rural and
urban areas.
ATTACHMENT I 3 TO
REPORT # PO C>(crOLl
Protecting
Water
Resources
(continued)
Enhancing
Natural
Heritage
Features
It is proposed that ROP policies
ensure the protection of
groundwater quality by:
. including a constraints map
identifying aquifer vulnerability
areas and policies that restrict
the types of uses that are
permitted, to only those which
do not pose a risk to
groundwater. Proposed
development within or
adjacent to these areas would
be subject to an environmental
impact study which verifies
that there will be no impact;
. including a constraints map
identifying significant
groundwater discharge areas
and policies to ensure that
these areas are protected
through the development
approval processes;
. protecting capture zones for
municipal wells from uses that
have the potential to
contaminate or unnecessarily
deplete the water resource,
This will implement the findings
of the Regional Wellhead
Protection Program; and
. specifically requiring any land
use proposal having the
potential to impact water
quality or quantity to submit a
hydrogeological study at the
time of application,
It is proposed that the Rap
policies be enhanced to protect
the natural heritage features in
the Region by:
. recognizing, in the place of
environmentally sensitive
areas, a Natural Heritage
System for all areas of the
Region, that aligns with the
system already in place for the
Oak Ridges Moraine, To
accomplish this, it is proposed
that Natural Heritage System
mapping and policies be
incor orated into the Plan;
Page 2
Agree with protecting the groundwater
resource. However, the ROP should contain
broad principles for groundwater protection
and leave the detailed policies in local OP's.
Duplfcates Pickering OP, which has an
Informational Map of Known Areas of
Groundwater Recharge and Discharge, This
map could be updated with new information
provided by the Region.
Policies not applicable as there are no
Regional wells in Pickering.
Requires clarification. The sped fie type of
proposals having the 'potential' to impact
requires specification. There is also the need
to clarify both the 'peer review' process for
hydrogeological studies submitted with
development applications and the
responsibility for any associated well
monitoring requirements imposed as a
condition of a roval,
Agree with protecting natural heritage
features. However, requiring the same high
level of protection for all Regional natural
features as for the Oak Ridges Moraine,
which is so significant and sensitive has not
be justified, The Direction duplicates
Pickering OP, which has policies and
schedules pertaining to natural heritage
features.
ATTACHMENT'
REPORT' PO
.3 TO
Db-Dif
Enhancing
Natural
Heritage
Features
(continued)
. including vegetative setbacks
from Natural Heritage
Features in rural areas,
based on standards
established for the Oak
Ridges Moraine, Setbacks
for Natural Heritage Features
in Urban Areas and Hamlets
will be determined through
the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Study;
. encouraging the protection of
linkages and corridors in the
consideration of development
applications, and the
formulation of more detailed
policies in the area municipal
official plans;
.
. establishing a target for
woodland coverage of 30% of
the Region's land area; and
. encouraging the preparation
of area municipal tree
strategies that will advance
the implementation of the
woodlands coverage target.
Page 3
If the Natural Heritage System is to be
mapped in the ROP, there needs to be a
process to evaluate how the proposed
mapping is consistent with the designations
in the Pickering OP, (e.g., that where
similar information is in local plan, local
plan prevai/s). Further, it is unclear as to
whether the Natural Heritage Features are
identified on one map, or a series of
separate maps for each type of heritage
feature,
There is no need to include a Table listing
setbacks from Natural Heritage Features in
the ROP. Setbacks are typically
established either through consultation with
the appropriate conservation authority or
through an environmental report at the
local level.
Agree with protecting linkages and
corridors, However, the Pickering OP
already has policies defining the role of
core areas, corridors, and linkages in the
natural landscape. Regional scale linkages
and corridors are currently shown in the
Pickering OP.
Agree with a woodland coverage target.
However, the rationale for a 30% target has
not been provided. Also, the
implementation methodology is not clear -
wíll the 30% be a mandatory requirement in
each watershed? How wíl/ it be
implemented on individual properties? WíII
it be mandatory in urban areas? How wíl/ it
be monitored/calculated so that it can be
implemented for each development
application?
Agree with
strategies,
encouraging
local
tree
ATTACHMENT 1.3 TO
REPORT I PO Die - ù4
Enhancing
Natural
Heritage
Features
(continued)
Enhancing
Natural
Heritage
Features
Improving the
Region's Air
Quality
Improving the
Region's Air
Quality
Measuring
the Health and
Sustainability
of the Region's
Communities
Environmental
Policy
Considerations
It is proposed that the Region, in
consultation with area
municipalities, stakeholders, and
other agencies involved in land
securement, develop a land
securement strategy to protect
key natural resources within the
Region.
It is also proposed that the ROP
be amended to allow the
consideration of a severance that
facilitates the conveyance of a
natural heritage feature to a public
body or non-profit entity for
conservation purposes, provided
that no more than one lot is
retained b the ori inal owner,
It is proposed that appropriate
amendments to the ROP
addressing air quality be
considered as a result of
initiatives, such as the Regional
Air Quality Working Group and
Transportation Master Plan
currentl underwa .
It is also proposed that the ROP
be amended to acknowledge the
potential implications of climate
change, and indicate an intent to
respond as knowledge and
understanding of what can be
done from a planning perspective,
to miti ate im acts emer es,
It is proposed that the Region
consider initiating a program to
monitor key indicators of the
Region's environmental, social
and economic health as part of
the Community Strategic
Planning Process.
It is proposed that the ROP be
amended to include a provision
outlining the process that must
be satisfied prior to development
proceeding in areas where soil
contamination is known or
suspected.
Page 4
Agree with developing a land securement
strategy. However, the Region needs to
clarify who is responsible for securing
funding, implementing, and monitoring a land
securement strategy. Also, it is not clear if
the Region is proposing to be involved in
securing properties for long-term protection.
Any land securement strategy, if pursued,
must be broadly based and developed in
artnershi with a propriate stakeholders,
Agree with conveying a natural heritage
feature for long-term protection, However,
the Direction is too restrictive. There may
be instances where severing the heritage
feature creates two retained parcels, one
on either side of the feature,
Agree with addressing air quality.
However, further discussion with the
Region is required on the issue of air
quality initiatives and impacts at the local
level.
Agree with addressing climate change,
However, further discussion with the
Region is required on the specific abílíty of
local municipalities to respond to climate
change through land use planning
initiatives.
Agree with monitoring. However, how does
monitoring the key indicators of the
Community Strategic Planning Process
relate to the ROP review? What are the key
indicators and how would they be
monitored? Would local municipalities be
responsible for providing the Region with
data in support of this program?
Agree with the principle. However, the
Direction duplicates the Pickering OP,
which has policies relating to the
development of contaminated sites, There
are also Provincial requirements that have
to be addressed.
ATTACHMENT#- 3 TO
REF OAT # PO ~, -o'¡
Environmental
Policy
Considerations
It is proposed that the ROP be
amended to encourage local
municipalities to incorporate
policies in their official plans
and/or pass by-laws to minimize
Ii ht pollution.
Page 5
Agree with the principle. However, the
Direction duplicates the Pickering OP,
which has policies encouraging the
reduction of light pollution on the nighttime
sky and affecting nearby residents,
ATTACHMENT'
REFiJRT If PO
3 TO
O~-D<f
Population,
Employment
and Urban
Land
Population
and
Employment
Forecasts
It is proposed that the ROP
policies be amended to
incorporate and/or address the
results of the population and
employment growth forecasts as
follows:
. by changing the planning
horizon year in the ROP from
2021 to 2031;
. by replacing the population
targets in the ROP with the
recommended population
forecasts contained in
Table 1;
. by presenting the population
forecasts in five-year
increments to the year 2031,
reflecting growth expectations
based on the best information
currently available;
. by replacing the employment
targets by category in the
ROP with an overall jobs to
population ratio target based
on the employment forecasts;
. by continuing to place strong
emphasis on more effective
means of achieving the jobs
to population target ratio; and
. by regularly monitoring
population forecasts and
recognizing that they are
subject to change within the
planning horizon, particularly
in the longer term.
Page 6
Agree. A 3D-year time frame provides local
municipalities with the opportunity to
designate sufficient land for industrial,
commercial, residential, recreational, open
space and institutional uses to
accommodate growth up to the timeframe of
the ROP.
Agree. Population forecasts for Pickering
consistent with the City's Growth
Management Study. Revisions to Table 1
to reflect new statistical information should
be permitted without an amendment to the
ROP,
Agree,
Agree, Although optimistic in the short
term, the employment to population ratio of
1:2 should be maintained (west Durham is
best positioned to support increased
employment).
Agree. Policies that are supportive of local
efforts to strength the economic health of
municipalities is appropriate. The ROP
should reference the Regional Economic
Development Strategy developed in
partnership with local municipalities,
Agree. Monitoring and updating population
forecasts would assist local municipalities
in preparing capital budgets, land use
needs and infrastructure planning. There
needs to be more coordination of regular
population updates between the Region
and local municipalities so that numbers
and assum lions are consistent.
ATTACHMENT '~TO
REPORT I PO 010-0'-/
It is proposed that the ROP
policies be amended to
incorporate and/or address the
results of the urban land needs
analysis as follows:
. by maintaining the current
Urban boundaries to provide
the opportunity for a number
of ongoing initiatives,
including Highway 407,
Seaton, Pickering Airport
and Smart Growth, that will
have a significant impact on
Regional growth, to evolve;
.
by recognizing that
adjustments to the urban
area boundaries may be
considered as part of the
next comprehensive 5-year
review; and
. by proposing no expansions
to designated Employment
Areas.
Page 7
Disagree. The Region's urban land needs
analysis should take account of the City's
Growth Management Study natural
heritage analysis for the Seaton lands,
Land supply shortage in Pickering is more
severe than presented.
Disagree, Pickering's current urban area is
insufficient to accommodate its population
and employment growth to 2026, This
ROP Review should complete the
boundary review to provide a 3D-year land
supply.
Disagree, Current employment lands
designated in Pickering along the Brock
Road corridor are restricted from
development given the recent review of
those lands and their high environmental
sensitivity. More employment land is
re uired.
Commercial
Policy Review
ATTACHMENT' <3"" TO
REPORT I PO Db -Oi.l
The Region's
Interest in
Planning for
Future
Commercial
Development
Requirements
for Market
Studies
Commercial
Hierarchy and
Central Area
Definitions
It is proposed that the ROP
policies be amended to:
. provide a more general
framework that sets out
procedural requirements,
goals and objectives for
area municipalities to
plan commercial areas;
and
. establish criteria, which
defines Regional interest
as a commercial
proposal of 600,000
square feet or larger, on
an individual or
cumulative basis.
It is proposed that the ROP
policies be amended to:
. remove the requirements
for a retail impact study
for commercial proposal
over 2,500 square metres
(26,910 square feet);
and
. require a retail impact
study for applications,
which would result in
the creation of a new
regional 'centre', or the
expansion of an existing
regional 'centre', and
which meet the
established criteria for
Regional involvement
(600,000 square feet or
larger).
It is proposed that the ROP
be amended to establish
the intended role, scale
and form of Central Areas.
The policies should
establish principles to
guide local municipalities in
preparing secondary plans
or approving development
ro osals in these areas.
Page 8
Agree. A more general commercial
framework in the ROP is appropriate, No
need for a dupHcate layer of commercial
policies in the ROP,
Agree. A definition for regional involvement
in the planning process for regional 'centres'
is appropriate,
Agree. The removal of the retail impact study
requirement for commercial proposals is
appropriate, The Region need not be
involved in small-scale commercial
development proposals that are clearly not
regional in role or function. .
Agree, Requiring retail impact studies for
regional centers of 60,000 square metres or
greater is appropriate. However, minor
expansions to existing regional 'centres'
should be exempt from the requirements for
a retail impact study.
Agree, More general principles relating to
the role, scale and form of Central Areas in
the ROP is appropriate, The Pickering OP
contains policies/directions for development
in Central Areas.
ATTACHMENT'.3 TO
REFOAl /I PO 010 -04
Floor Space
Allocations
for Central
Areas
Nodes and
Corridors
Nodes and
Corridors
Urban Form
Magnitude of
Retail Growth
It is proposed that the
policies, which establish
floor space allocations in
Central Areas as a method
of directing commercial
growth within the Region,
be modified to describe the
Central Areas in terms of
their relative scale.
It is proposed that the ROP
policies be amended to
incorporate a more flexible
approach to the use of
arterial roads for
commercial purposes,
within a concept of nodes
and corridors that would
establish main arterials,
such as Highway 2,
Taunton Road and certain
north-south roads such as
Simcoe and Brock Street,
as corridors for commercial
use,
It is also proposed that the
policies be strengthened to
promote higher density,
mixed uses along arterial
roads, and that more
flexibility be provided for
commercial uses to locate
at the periphery of
designated Employment
Areas.
It is proposed that the
Region establish design
criteria for Regional arterial
roads.
It is proposed that the ROP
policies be amended to
establish design criteria to
guide future site designations
for commercial centers
(Central Areas)
Page 9
Agree. The removal of the retail floor space
allocations in the ROP as a means. of
directing and controlling commercial growth
is appropriate.
Agree. The use of regional road frontages
for a broader range and size of commercial
uses is appropriate. The Pickering OP
adequately protects for mixed use corridor
development.
Agree. The use of regional road frontage for
a mixture of high intensity uses including
retail is also appropriate, As well,
commercial development at the periphery of
employment lands is appropriate,
Agree. However, the design criteria study
must be undertaken in full consultation with
local municipalities. The design criteria must
also support local official plans and be
responsive to a wide variety of local
conditions. The Pickering OP has detailed
design policies in the form of Development
Guidelines for Pickering's south urban area.
General criteria to guide future site
designations for commercial centers should
relate solely to regional 'centers' of
60,000 square metres or more. Criteria for
smaller scale retail centres that are currently
permitted in the Living Area designation
should not be in the ROP. Similarly, as site
planning is a local matter, specific design
criteria should onl be in local OP's.
ATTACHMENT I 3 TO
REFORT # PO Ov-, - 04
Protecting our
Rural Resources
Rural
Consent
Policies
Rural
Consent
Policies
Rural
Consent
Policies
Rural
Consent
Policies
Rural
Consent
Policies
It is proposed that the
policy, which provides for
the consideration of the
severance of a surplus
dwelling from a non abutting
farm by amendment, be
deleted.
It is proposed that the
policy that permits the
consideration of one farm
retirement lot from the total
farm holding be deleted.
It is proposed that the ROP
be amended to enhance
the criteria related to the
consideration of farm-
related industrial uses to
ensure that severances for
these uses do not create
non-viable agricultural
parcels. It is also proposed
that the ROP be amended
to indicate that further
detail on the types of uses
that may be considered,
and the criteria, may be
provided in area municipal
official lans.
It is proposed that the ROP
be amended to permit
"stand alone" farm-related
commercial uses in a
manner similar to farm-
related industrial uses
It is proposed that the ROP
be enhanced to clarify the
intent and nature of
accessory farm uses,
addressing such matters
as scale and number, and
potential impacts on
surrounding uses. It is
also proposed that the
area municipalities be
encouraged to include
detailed policies in their
official plans to address
this issue.
Page 10
Disagree. There is no need to change the
current ROP policy.
There is no need to change the current
ROP, as the policy is already restrictive, The
policy only permits one retirement lot from
farmer's total farm-related land holdings. If
problems are encountered with current
policy, need to examine the criteria for
retirement lots.
Agree with intent of Direction to allow
severance. However, the Rap should
provide general policies enabling consents
with local OP's providing the detailed policies
for farm-related industrial uses. There is no
need for the Region to prescribe detailed
criteria in the ROP.
Agree with intent of Direction to allow
severance. However, the ROP should
provide general policies enabling consents
with local OP's providing the detailed policies
for "stand alone" farm-related commercial
uses.
Agree with intent of Direction to allow
accessory farm uses. However, the Rap
should provide general policies on accessory
farm uses with local OP's providing the
detailed policies.
ATTACHMENT' 3 TO
REPORT # PO 0<0 -04
Rural
Settlement
Policies
Rural
Settlement
Policies
Rural
Settlement
Policies
Rural
Settlement
Policies
It is proposed that the
Region work with the area
municipalities to develop
detailed guidelines for the
preparation of settlement
capacity studies,
It is also proposed that the
Hamlet policies be clarified
to more closely reflect the
form, type and limited
scale of development
planned for Hamlets,
It is proposed that the
policies that provide for the
consideration of new
Country Residential
Subdivisions be deleted.
It is proposed that the ROP
be amended to remove
policies that permit the
identification of new
clusters. Policies to permit
lot creation within existing
clusters should be
retained,
It is proposed that the ROP
policy which permits rural
residential infilling within
concentrations of 4 hectare
10 acre lots be deleted,
Page 11
The problem is not how to meet the
requirements of a settlement capacity study
but rather the study is complex, onerous,
and prohibitively expensive to complete.
There needs to be flexibility in its application
respecting major and minor development
within hamlets. The requirements for a
settlement capacity study needs to be
defined with respect to the scale of the
project and local conditions. A different
approach to hamlet development is required.
The Region's Direction to develop more
detailed guidelines for settlement capacity
studies does not address the issue.
Agree with intent of Direction to provide more
details in an official plan on hamlet
development. However, the ROP should
provide general policies for hamlet
development and rely on local OP's to
provide the detailed policies. The details for
one hamlet, as identified through a local
study, may differ from another hamlet. There
is no need for the Region to prescribe
detailed olic in the ROP.
Disagree. There is no need to change the
current ROP policy as it permits country
residential subdivisions subject to meeting
certain requirements including a municipal
wide analysis demonstrating the need and
amount for such development, A portion of
Pickering's rural population is to be
accommodated in new country residential
subdivisions, if approved by Council,
Disagree.
Disagree.
ATTACHMENT I 3" TO
REFúAT I PO Db 'D~
It is proposed that the ROP
be amended to permit
limited new Rural
Employment Areas in the
Townships of Brock,
Uxbridge and Scugog,
subject to the preparation
of a comprehensive
industrial study for the
municipality. To provide
guidance, the ROP should
also be amended to add
specific study requirements
that must be followed to
establish the need and
location of new Rural
Em 10 ment Areas,
To address these issues, it
is proposed that the ROP
be amended to:
. prohibit golf courses in
Agricultural Areas;
. specifically require the
submission of a
Hydrogeological Study
that assesses the
impacts on water quality
and quantity;
. require the submission
of a Best Management
Practices report that
addresses design,
construction and
operational considerations,
including traffic;
. require area municipal
official plans to limit the
scale of clubhouses and
other associated uses in
rural areas to ensure
such uses will be
secondary to the
primary use of the golf
course;
Rural
Settlement
Policies
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
Page 12
No comment.
Disagree, The exclusion of golf courses from
all agricultural areas including lands of lower
agricultural capability will result in redirecting
golf course proposals to lands within the
open space system of both rural and urban
areas.
Further, there is greater potential to disrupt
the ecological and hydrological features and
functions that support open space areas.
The current ROP policy works well, which
permits the establishment of golf courses
within UI'ban areas, Major Open Space
System and Waterfront designations, subject
to an amendment to either the ROP or local
official plans. Instead of duplicating policies,
the ROP should provide broad strategic
directions for golf course proposals and rely
on ¡acal OP's to provide detailed
implementation policies.
ATTACHMENT' 3 TO
REFORT # PO Ole:> - 04
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
(continued)
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
. require all proposed
new golf courses and
golf course expansions
in the Region be
considered by amendment
to the ROP;
. require the submission
of technical studies in
support of golf course
proposals in conjunction
with the ROP
amendment application;
and
. require a program to
monitor before, during
and after construction
conditions to ensure
environmental and other
technical standards are
met.
It is proposed that the
policies, as they pertain to
designating Regional
Nodes in urban areas, be
removed; and further, that
no new Regional Nodes be
considered in the rural
area, The grandfathering
of existing rural Nodes
should be considered.
It is proposed that the ROP
policies be updated and/or
enhanced:
. to reflect new (current)
geological, socia-cultural
and environmental
constraint information
and license status of
aggregate resource
extraction areas (Map
'A', Map 'C' and
Schedule 4);
. to require an assessment
of operational aspects of
pits and quarries, such
as exhaust emissions
and lighting impacts, and
that the Plan require that
mitigation measures be
provided for all potential
impacts of the operation,
at the time aggregate
related amendment
applications are being
considered;
Page 13
Support Direction, However, the mechanism,
justification, and responsibility for monitoring
must be first determined.
Support Direction,
Partially agree. Updating Maps and
Schedules with new information appropriate,
An amendment to the ROP for aggregate
related industrial uses should only be
necessary where local OP policies are
absent. The ROP should provide broad
strategic directions for aggregate proposals
and rely on local OP's to provide detailed
implementation policies,
ATTACHMENT #__3 TO
REF íJR1 # PO CY.ér°L..,_._,
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
(continued)
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
. to require that
rehabilitation be
undertaken in a timely
manner, and that the
site be restored to its
pre-excavation landform.
Also, policy should be
added to require that
rehabilitation sites be
restored to either the
same soil capability as
pre-excavation, or to a
vegetative state using
native species;
. to clarify the requirement
for development of an
overall rehabilitation
program to ensure that:
rehabilitation plans are
submitted in conjunction
with ROP amendment
applications; rehabilitation
plans be reviewed in
conjunction with the
submitted EIS in
accordance with policy
2.3.17 of the ROP; and,
that such rehabilitation
plans be considered in
conjunction with adjacent
andlor groups of
operations in an area; and
. to specify that Site
Plans and technical
reports, as required by
the Provincial Standards
established under the
Aggregate Resources
Act and Regulations,
should be submitted,
where appropriate, to
address the requirements
of the ROP.
It is proposed that the ROP
be amended to reflect that
peat extraction activities
are to be regulated through
the new Munici al Act.
It is proposed that the ROP
be amended by deleting the
policy that permits the
consideration of gas
stations andlor gas bars in
the Agricultural Area and
Ma'or 0 en S ace S stem.
Page 14
Disagree. Site planning is
responsibility.
a local
Agree with the principle of regulating peat
extraction activities but question the
appropriateness for a provision in the Rap.
Agree. Pickering OP permits a retail
gasoline outlet within the urban area or
within a rural hamlet only.
ATTACHMENT' 3 TO
REFûRT fI PO ob "o':L__-
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
(continued)
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
Rural
Non-farm Use
Policies
Agricultural
Designations
j:lmcgregorglregionopreviewlProposed Directions Chart(Draft 4f),doc
It is proposed that the ROP
policy, which permits
cultural facilities, health
facilities and community
facilities in the rural area
be deleted,
It is proposed that the ROP
should be revised to
prohibit the establishment
of cemeteries in prime
agricultural areas.
It is proposed that the ROP
be amended to distinguish
between recreational uses,
which are compatible with
the character of the open
space lands in the urban
and rural areas.
It is proposed that the
ROP's two Agricultural
Area designations,
Permanent Agricultural and
General Agricultural, be
merged into one land use
designation for the purpose
of agriculture and farm-
related land uses,
Page 15
Disagree, There is no need to change the
current ROP policy except to require an
amendment to the local official plan for the
establishment of cultural facílíties, health
facílíties and community facílíties in the rural
area, Each application should be
considered on its planning merits.
Disagree. The current ROP policy works
well, which permits the establishment of
cemeteries subject to an amendment to
either the ROP or local OP's. A policy could
be added directing cemeteries to lower class
agricultural land.
Disagree, The types of recreational uses
permitted within open space areas in the
rural and urban areas should be detailed in
local OP's not the Rap,
Disagree. The Region needs to address the
differences in agriculture within Durham's
municipalities especially adjacent to urban
areas. The Region should also consider
amending the Rap policies to enhance
economic opportunities for the agricultural
community by permitting a wider array of
uses such as retail agricultural operations,
agri-tourism and non-agricultural countryside
uses. The Region should recognized two
types of rural areas -- the near-urban
countryside with greater diversity of uses
and a more pure agricultural area in north
and east Durham -- and establish separate
policies for each.
ATTACHMENT # ~ TO
REPORT # PO Db - vi.¡
Region of Durham
Official Plan Review
Phase 1
Environmental Policy
.
Clarify policy 2.3.17 of the Rap to specify that the Region
shall conduct environmental impact studies only when a
Regional Official Plan amendment is necessary.
Update the environmentally sensitive areas designations.
Recognize the lake Iroquois Shoreline in policy and
designation with appropriate protection for its associated
natural functions.
.
.
Economic Development Policy
.
Clarify meaning of "employment related to population".
Housing Policy
.
Update housing polices in response to changes to
Provincial policies and programs since the ROP was
adopted in 1991.
Clarify policy 4.3.3 (b) that the conversion of buildings to
residential use would not be permitted in employment
areas.
Revise policy 4.3.4 to support renovations to existing
rental housing provided the costs are not borne by the
occupants.
Revise policy 4.3.5 (a) to refer to the annual rental
vacancy surveys conducted by CMHC.
.
.
.
Commercial Policy
.
Review commercial policies to ensure that community
needs for retailing are addressed.
Page 1
Not Addressed.
Addressed.
Not Addressed.
Addressed.
Not Addressed.
Not Addressed.
Not Addressed.
Not Addressed.
Addressed.
ATTACHMENT' 4 :TO
REPORT' PO (,Ill] - 04
Employment Areas Policy
.
Review appropriateness of current restrictive list of uses
and adequacy of the amount and location of employment
area lands.
Agricultural Policy
.
Review policy 12.3.12 to restrict new residential dwellings
on retained farmed parcels to prevent incremental
fragmentation of agricultural areas.
Major Open Space System Policy
.
Delete urban separator purpose from the Major Open
Space designation or in the alternative, add an overlay
designation to identify lands with significant natural
feature features and functions.
Major Open Space System Policy
.
Revise policies 14.3.25 and 20.7.12 to specify the
conditions under which severances will be permitted on
major open space lands.
Clarify as to whether a dwelling unit on a vacant property
designated Major Open Space or Agricultural Area is
permitted if the property is not use for agricultural or farm
related uses.
.
Format of the ROP
.
Revise the ROP by creating separate large-scale maps
for each municipality.
Revise the Rap with the addition of an index.
.
J,IREGIONALOPREVIEWIPICKERINGCHART FOR OPR.DOC
Page 2
Addressed.
Addressed.
Addressed.
Not Addressed.
Not Addressed.
Not Addressed.
Not Addressed.