Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 06-05PICKERiNG REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 06-05 Date: January 11,2005 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004" respecting the Natural Environment, Commercial Policy, and Rural Resources Recommendations: That Report PD 06-05 of the Director, Planning & Development be RECEIVED as the City's comments on the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004" dealing with environment, commercial and rural policy components of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review; That Regional Planning staff INCORPORATE the results of the City's Growth Management Study and related amendment to the Pickering Official Plan (Amendment 13) in the Durham Regional Official Plan in finalizing the "Recommended Directions Report" for Population, Employment and Land Supply; In formulating agricultural designations, that a vibrant and economically productive "countryside" vision is more appropriate for Pickering's rural area than the strict agricultural vision proposed in the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004", and accordingly; a) that the Region ESTABLISH a new designation to permit agricultural and countryside uses (including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism and non-agricultural countryside uses) that would apply to agricultural lands in Pickering and other agricultural areas in the Region that are in similar proximity to urban areas; and, b) in addition to the above-noted agricultural and countryside uses, to also INCLUDE the following: · continue to permit severances for a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment to the DROP; · continue to permit severance of a farm retirement lot; · permit as-of-right stand-alone farm-related commercial uses (such as farm markets, auction barns) and associated lot-creation; · continue to permit consideration of new country residential subdivisions, by amendment to the Regional Official Plan; · continue to permit golf courses by amendment to the Regional or local official plan on agricultural lands of lower agricultural capability or on open space lands; Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: Januaw 11,2005 Page 2 o · continue to permit cemeteries by amendment to the Regional or local official plan; and, · establish provisions to restrict intensive livestock operations from locating in proximity to urban areas. That Pickering Council requests that the Region prepare policy amendments to CLARIFY that the proposed "Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements Table" would be used only: when a regional official plan amendment is required; and, where an area municipal official plan does not provide policy guidance on this matter; That Pickering Council requests the Region to consider and INCORPORATE the detailed comments and suggestions provided in the table in Appendix I to Report PD 06-05; That in light of the incomplete Provincial initiatives relating to the greenbelt, the golden horseshoe growth plan, and the revised provincial policy statement, that Regional staff be requested to DELAY release of certain draft policies until such time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed, thereby allowing the incorporation of any necessary revisions into the draft policy and avoiding the need to recirculate the draft policies; That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-05 to the Region of Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region. Executive Summary: In October 2004, the Region released the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004" dealing with environmental, commercial and rural area components of the Official Plan Review. Revised directions for population, employment and land supply are to be addressed later, once the Provincial growth management directives are confirmed through the "Places to Grow" initiative, to be released in March 2005. In addition, outstanding housing policy issues are to be addressed in a separate Regional Housing Directions Study. In October 2004, the Region also provided a "Regional Staff Response" to comments received from area municipalities and other stakeholders on the four earlier Discussion Papers (see extract for City of Pickering Attachment #1). City of Pickering comments on the Discussion Papers were contained in Report PD 06-04, endorsed by City Council March 1,2004, by Resolution #27/04, Item #2 (see Attachments #2 and #3). The purpose of the "Recommended Directions Report" is to provide a basis for amendments to the Regional Official Plan, anticipated in spring 2005. Detailed comments are set out in Appendix I to PD 06-05: Detailed Staff Comments on Region of Durham Official Plan Review "Recommended Directions Report, October, 2004". Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: January 11,2005 Page 3 As noted earlier, the Region has not yet finalized its recommended directions on population, urban land and employment land policies. The Region has now received Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan for approval and the City's application to amend the Regional Official Plan to implement the local amendment. Therefore, it is recommended that the Region incorporate the results of the City's Growth Management Study and related amendments to the Pickering Official Plan (Amendment 13) in finalizing their Recommended Directions Report on population, urban land and employment policies, and in the implementing amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan. City staff is satisfied that, in general, the recommended directions for commercial policy provide the basis for appropriate amendments to the Regional Official Plan. City staff is satisfied with some of the recommended directions on rural resources but disagrees with a number of the recommended directions including the following: · to delete the current Regional Official Plan policy permitting severances for surplus dwellings from a non-abutting farm, severances of farm retirement lots, country residential subdivisions and cemeteries in the agricultural areas; · to require amendments to the Regional Official Plan for stand-alone farm-related commercial uses and associated lot-creation; and · to merge the Region's two Agricultural Area designations into one land use designation that would permit only agricultural and farm-related uses. Golf course proposals would not be permitted in the newly merged Agricultural Area designation. City staff recommends that a new rural 'countryside' designation be established permitting agriculture, agri-tourism, and non-agriculture countryside uses (spas, rural theaters, etc.)in near-urban areas. Similarly, City staff is satisfied with most of the recommended directions for achieving a sustainable and healthy environment but requests that the direction requiring an Environmental Impact Study (ELS) for development in proximity to natural heritage features be clarified. The ElS table, which establishes distances from natural heritage features that would trigger an ElS, should only be used when regional official plan amendments are necessary and when local official plans have no rural area policies in place. The Regional Official Plan Review is proceeding ahead of the Province's finalization of the Greenbelt Act/Greenbelt Plan, Places to Grow Act~Plan, Ontario Municipal Board Reforms, and revised Provincial Policy Statement. It is recommended that the Region delay drafting official plan amendments that would implement the recommended directions until such time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed. This will allow the Region to incorporate any necessary revisions into the draft amendments and thus avoid the need to recirculate the draft amendments. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: Januaw 11,2005 Page 4 Background: 1.0 Durham Reqional Official Plan {DROP) Review: 1.1 Regional staff releases the "Recommended Directions Report dated October 2004" for review and comment. The Regional Report recommends directions for the environment, rural and commercial components of the Regional Official Plan Review, which will form the basis for future amendments to the Regional Official Plan. In response to the submissions that were received, the Region has indicated that a further review of population forecasts and urban lands needs is being undertaken. The Region has indicated that the results of that analysis may be further impacted by the ongoing Provincial Growth Management initiative. Therefore, the recommended directions relating to population, employment and urban land needs will be presented to Regional Planning Committee subsequent to the confirmation of Provincial Growth Management directives at a later date. 2.0 Discussion: 2.1 Staff acknowledges and appreciates that the "Recommended Directions Report" largely respects the earlier City recommendation that the Region pursue more strategic policies that do not unduly duplicate policies in local official plans. The "Recommended Directions Report" continues to propose that Natural Heritage Features be shown on a new Schedule of the DROP. However, the scale of the mapping on the proposed new Regional Official Plan Natural Heritage Schedule allows for detailed mapping to be provided in local official plan schedules. This retains an acceptable level of local municipal control over detailed implementation of natural heritage policies. A number of other directions have been revised to appropriately remove the duplication with local official plan policies. The level of policy duplication had been a matter of concern in the earlier Discussion Papers. 2.2 The "Recommended Directions Report" continues to propose an overly restrictive policy approach for Pickering's rural area, whereas a "Countryside" policy approach would be more appropriate. The recommended directions for "Protecting our Rural Resources" continues to view Durham's rural area as homogeneous, rather than recognizing that 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. Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: Januaw 11,2005 Page 5 Rather than build on the differences, the Region is continuing to propose 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 designations relate purely to soil capability and do not consider social or economic influences on rural land. While not abandoning agriculture, a somewhat more relaxed land use approach should be considered for these near-urban areas. This is consistent with the Pickering's Official Plan policy and the City's Growth Management Study to foster a healthy and vibrant rural economy. In keeping with this approach, a new Countryside Area designation and associated policies is recommended for inclusion in the Regional Official Plan that reflects the distinction between the near-urban countryside and the more pure agricultural areas in north and east Durham Region. The Countryside designation would permit a broader range of complementary uses beyond traditional agriculture including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism, and non-agricultural countryside uses. As well, it is appropriate to restrict the location of intensive agricultural operations adjacent to Pickering's urban areas that are only subject to the minimum distance separation (MDS) formulae. Instead, staff is recommending that the Region provide significant buffers for intensive livestock operations thereby reducing the potential for adverse dust, odour and noise impacts on nearby urban residents. Lot Creation Policies Despite Pickering Council comments in favour of retaining the policy to permit severance of a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment to the DROP, the "Recommended Directions Report" proposes to delete this current provision of the DROP. Further, despite Pickering Council comments to continue the policy that permits consideration of one farm retirement lot from a total farm holding, the "Recommended Directions Report" recommends deletion. Further, despite of Pickering's support for the earlier Regional position to permit 'stand-alone' farm-related commercial uses, including severances, for this purpose on an as-of-right basis, the "Recommended Directions Report" now recommends continuation of the current policy to permit such uses only by amendment to the DROP. Hamlet Growth Policies The "Recommended Directions Report" proposes a new direction to guide the growth of hamlets. The earlier Discussion Paper proposed detailed guidelines for the onerous settlement capacity studies required to justify hamlet growth. The "Recommended Directions Report" now proposes a firm limit of 25 percent to the growth of each hamlet and that hamlet development may proceed within this limit if technical studies (hydrogeological and environmental) conclude that private services will be sustainable. Staff generally supports this approach. Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: January 11, 2005 Page 6 2.3 3.0 Golf Courses The "Recommended Directions Report" proposes to prohibit golf courses on al...JI agricultural lands. While staff agrees that golf courses should not be permitted on prime agricultural lands (class 1, 2 & 3 soils) that are designated Agricultural Area or Major Open Space System in the Regional Official Plan, we propose that golf courses should be permitted on lands with lower capability soils with either designation, by amendment to the local official plan. This approach is consistent with the policies in the Province's Draft Greenbelt Plan for 'Rural Area' lands. Country Residential Subdivisions Despite Pickering Council recommendations to the contrary, the "Recommended Directions Report" continues to recommend the prohibition of any new country residential subdivisions in the rural area. Staff recommends that Pickering Council request the Region to retain the existing policy to permit consideration of new country residential subdivisions by amendment to the Regional Official Plan. Council should request the Region to address the City's comments on the Recommended Directions prior to initiating amendments to the ROP. A copy of staff's detailed comments on the recommended directions is provided for Council's review and endorsement (see Appendix I). Further, as the Table shows, City staff is satisfied with most of the recommended directions. However, staff is recommending a number of minor revisions to the recommended directions and, in some cases, requiring further clarification. It is recommended that Council request the Region to address the City's comments raised in this Report on the Recommended Directions of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review prior to preparing amendments to the ROP. Council should request that Regional staff incorporate policy changes from the various proposed Provincial Government policy initiatives in the proposed amendments to the Durham Region Official Plan before they are circulated for comment. The Greenbelt Act, 2004, the Draft Greenbelt Plan, the Places to Grow Act, Plan and Regulations, Ontario Municipal Board Reform, Planning Act Reform and a revised Provincial Policy Statement (under the Planning Act) may each include new directions to govern municipal official plan policy not anticipated by the recommended directions of the Regional Official Plan Review. While not proposing that the Region defer further consideration of all aspects of the DROP Review until details of the emerging policies are available such as the commercial review, it is recommended that the Region delay drafting official plan amendments until such time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed. Proposed amendments on rural, environmental and urban policies would be affected. Delaying release of these key draft amendments would avoid the need to recirculate multiple revisions to the policy. Report PD 06-05 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: January 11,2005 Page 7 APPENDIX Detailed Comments on the Region of Durham "Recommended Directions Report" dated October 2004 Official Plan Review Attachments: 1. Regional Staff Response to Pickering Comments Provided in Report PD 06-04 2. Text of Report PD 06-04 3. City Council Resolution #27/04, Item #2 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Steve Gaunt, MClP, RPP Senior Planner Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy N~'il (~a~'r~:~4Cl~, RPP Director, F~mSing & Development SG:Id Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Division He~ Projects and Policy pR~cCkOe~ nm e n d~ff~ r t h ~ ~tion of [T_,homas J~C/hief/~drCnistrative Officer APPENDIX I TO REPORT PD 06-05 DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS ON REGION OF DURHAM OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW "RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS REPORT OCTOBER 2004" Region of Durham Official Plan Review Recommended Directions Towards a sustainable and healthy environment Protecting Watershed Planning Water Resources That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. Staff supports the clearly support the preparation and recommended direction to not require a implementation of watershed plans watershed plans as a prerequisite to as an effective land use planning development. However, previous comment tool in the protection of the recommending that the Region should also Region's natural resources, consider existing and future watershed plans Watershed plans shall be prepared in reviewing development proposals or in accordance with currently infrastructure projects was not incorporated. accepted practices. It is recommended that additional wording be That the ROP be amended to included as follows: acknowledge that the municipalities will work with the "That the ROP be amended to conservation authorities to ensure acknowledge that the municipalities will that the appropriate policies to work with the conservation authorities to implement specific watershed ensure that the appropriate policies to plans are incorporated into the implement specific watershed plans are respective official plans, incorporated into the respective official plans, and that the Region consider watershed plans and local implementation strategies in their review of development proposals and infrastructure projects." Water Quantity Protection That the ROP be amended to Requires clarification. require that applications for development (excepting wetland The types of development applications that restoration projects and domestic requires a study should be specified (e.g. LD, usage and livestock operations) C orA, OPA, and ZBL). As well, the issue of that require a Permit to Take peer reviews and any required monitoring Water, or that have the potential to imposed, as a condition of approval impact water quantity, be previously raised by Pickering, has not been accompanied by a study verifying satisfactorily addressed by Regional staff. that there is sufficient water supply to support the proposed use and, on a cumulative basis, confirm that there are no impacts on surrounding water users and the natural environment. Page 1 pa~e~ Protecting That the ROP be amended to Agree. However, need toreviewRegiona/ Water include policies that promote and po/icy in order to determine how it would be Resources support water conservation, implemented at the local level. (continued) Infiltration (recharge) That the ROP be amended to Agree. However, need to review Regional require development in the rural po/icy in order to determine how it would be area to maintain and where implemented at the local level. possible enhance infiltration and recharge functions. Within urban areas, the policy should seek to minimize hard surfaces through the review of development applications and the use of alternative municipal standards where practical. Aquifer Vulnerability Areas That the ROP be amended to: Partially Agree. However, it appears that ali · add a figure in the form of a map development proposals abutting or in that illustrates high aquifer proximity to a high vulnerability area would vulnerability areas; be required to carry out a hydrogeological · require that area municipalities study. The sca/e/type of development incorporate high aquifer applications that would be required to vulnerability area mapping into undertake these studies in the rural and their respective official plan, and urban areas requires clarification. Also, it is that the mapping be refined unclear as to why applications for through the preparation of more development in high aquifer areas within detailed studies such as urban areas require a contaminant watershed studies; management p/an while app//cat/ons within · require applications for the rural areas do not. development abutting or in proximity to a high aquifer vulnerability area to carry out a hydrogeological investigation verifying the degree of vulnerability of the site; · require applications for development in high aquifer vulnerability areas within urban areas, be accompanied by a contaminant management plan that defines the approach to the mitigation of impacts; · restrict land uses in high aquifer vulnerability areas within the rural area that have the potential to contaminate groundwater unless it can be verified through an appropriate study that the site is not considered to be a high aquifer vulnerability area; and Page 2 Protecting · encourage existing land uses Water that have the potential to Resources contaminate groundwater in (continued) these areas to develop best management practices such as: safe storing/handling waste; restriction on volumes of chemicals/material stored on site; routine inspections; - spill contingencies; and - road salt management plans. Abandoned Wells That the DROP be amended to Agree. However, the policy should require include a policy that abandoned the landowner to be responsible for wells and boreholes be properly decommissioning abandoned wells and decommissioned, boreholes. Groundwater Discharge Area That the ROP be amended to add a Agree. However, the scale/type of general policy requiringdevelopment development applications that would be applications in areas where subject to this policy requires clarification. groundwater discharge could be significantly impacted, to demonstrate that alteration to groundwater flows will be minimized. Regional Wellhead Protection Areas That the ROP be amended to: There are no Regional wells in Pickering. · illustrate the capture zones and associated time of travel zones for the wellhead protection areas on an appropriate map; · prohibit the following uses with respect to land in wellhead protection areas: storage, except by an individual for personal or family use of: · petroleum fuels; · petroleum solvents and chlorinated solvents; · pesticides, herbicides and fungicides; · construction equipment; · inorganic fertilizers; · road salt; Page 3 Protecting · contaminants listed in Water Schedule 3 (Severely Resources Toxic Contaminants) to (continued) Regulation 347 of the Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1990; and · any other use that could adversely affect the quality and quantity of groundwater reaching a well; · prohibit the following uses with respect to land in the zero to two year time of travel zone within every wellhead protection area: storage of animal manure, except by an individual for personal or family use; - animal agriculture, except by an individual for personal or family use; and - storage of agricultural equipment, except by an individual for personal or family use; · require every person who carries on a restricted use listed as owner or operator, prepare and maintain a site management and contingency plan that is aimed at reducing or eliminating the creation of restricted materials and their release into the environment; · require that once a preferred location for a new municipal well has been determined, the ROP should illustrate the capture zones and include policies to protect these zones; and · require area municipal official plans to incorporate wellhead protection areas and associated time of travel zones, as well as policies restricting uses that have the potential to negatively impact groundwater quality and quantity reaching the well. Page 4 Protecting Hydrogeological Studies Water Resources That the Region develop a Agree. However, the development of the (continued) hydrogeological study guideline on hydrogeo/ogical guidelines should a/so be how to hydrogeological studies prepared in consultation with local should be prepared, study municipalities and conservation authorities. components and matters that should be confirmed through the study to ensure adverse impacts are minimized. Enhancing Natural Heritage System Natural Heritage That the ROP be amended to: Agree with recognizing a Natural Heritage Features System consisting of a number of features. · recognize a Natural Heritage Pickering staff agrees with the Region System for the Region, identifying only Provincially and/or regionally consisting of: significant features. significant wetlands; significant areas of natural and scientific interest; fish habitat (including all permanent and intermittent streams); significant habitat of endangered and threatened species; - significant wildlife habitat; - significant valleylands; and - significant woodlands; · delete the environmentally sensitive areas illustrated on Map A and replace it with a separate map illustrating a Natural Heritage System; · require that where environmental features, such as significant wildlife habitat and valleylands have not been identified on the Natural Heritage System mapping, these areas be identified through watershed plans or through the review of development applications in consultation with the appropriate conservation authority; · require area municipal official plans to detail mapping of the natural heritage system and allow for the exact boundaries, or refinements to boundaries, of the Natural Heritage System to be determined through watershed plans or site investigations prepared for development applications. Page 5 Enhancing · in order to provide guidance to Natural how they are identified, the Heritage definitions of the natural Features heritage system components (continued) should be included in an appendix of the ROP; · prohibit development and site alteration within the Natural Heritage System, with the exception of the following permitted uses, provided the environmental integrity is maintained: forest, fish and wildlife management; conservation and flood or erosion control projects; - transportation, infrastructure and utilities; - Iow intensity recreational uses; and - existing agricultural operations; · recognize that, with the exception of provincially significant wetlands or endangered and threatened species, aggregate extraction and agricultural related structures may be permitted in the Natural Heritage System, provided the environmental integrity is maintained; and · require that in the event that portions of the Natural Heritage System are damaged or destroyed, there should be no adjustment to the boundary of these areas, and the Region should require replacement or rehabilitation of the ecological features, functions and/or landforms. Vegetative Setbacks That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. The recommended direction require that in the consideration of should be clarified to indicate that the ElS development located in proximity to Requirement Table, which establishes a Natural Heritage feature, the distances from natural heritage features that ROP require an Environmental would trigger an Environmental Impact Impact Study, which shall, among Study, should only be used when other matters, establish an amendments to the Regional Official Plan undeveloped vegetative setback, are required and when local official plans Proximity shall be defined as have no policies for its rural areas in place. outlined in the table below. Page 6 Enhancing An ElS may be scoped to suit It should be noted that the Pickering Official Natural individual circumstances. Plan a/ready includes a chart outlining the Heritage conditions under which an Environmental Features Report may be requested for development (continued) (see Natural Heritage Features ElS applications not requiring an amendment to Requirements Table in Attachment #1 the Regional Official Plan. to this Appendix) It is recommended that additional wording be added as follows: "That the ROP be amended to require that in the consideration of applications for local official plan, draft plan or zoning amendments within an area municipality whose official plan does not contain rural policies, or applications to amend the Regional Official Plan proposing development located in proximity to a Natural Heritage feature, the ROP require an Environmental Impact Study, which shaft among other matters, establish an undeveloped vegetative setback. Proximity shall be defined as outlined in the table be/ow. An ElS may be scoped to suit individual circumstances." Woodland Target That the ROP be amended to Partially agree with increasing wood/and establish a target for woodland coverage. It is more appropriate for the coverage of 30% of the Region's various watershed plans to establish land area. Studies such as wood/and coverage targets for each Watershed plans may vary the watershed than establishing a genera/target woodland target for a watershed of 30% for the entire Region. that is in keeping with the overall target of 30%. The use of It is recommended that the ROP not indigenous tree species to achieve establish a woodland coverage target of this target is encouraged. 30% for the entire Region and, instead require watershed plans to establish appropriate targets for each watershed. Corridors and Linkages That the Major Open Space Agree with protecting linkages and corridors System designation be examined at the Regional sca/e. However, need to to confirm that all corridors and review Regional policy in order to determine linkages that should be recognized how it would be implemented at the local at the Regional scale are level. appropriately designated. Further, that the existing policies of the ROP be strengthened to encourage 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. Page 7 paper Enhancing Urban Tree Strategy Natural Heritage That the ROP be amended to Agree. Features encourage the preparation of area (continued) municipal tree strategies that will advance the implementation of the woodlands coverage target. Land Securement Strategy That the ROP be amended to: Agree. The recommended direction expands on the previous proposed direction · require an indication of the in terms of the Region's role in land Region's support for the use of securement and the tools that may be used land securement tools such as in securing lands. Pickering had previously acquisition, stewardship and requested that up to two severances be conservation easements as a considered for the severance of land for means of enhancing the natural heritage conservation purposes Region's natural environment, where acquisition is sought by municipalities, Securement efforts should focus conservation authorities or non-profit on areas identified as part of the entities. natural heritage system, including the targeted areas; It is recommended that: · require the following factors to be considered when determining "...Two severances may be permitted for Regional involvement in land this purpose where it adjusts a property securement efforts, but not boundary or creates a lot, provided that the severed parcel is rezoned to permit only limited to: natural heritage conservation uses." damaged or degraded lands; nature and immediacy of threats to the land; proximity to existing property in public ownership; and the overall cost of purchase and long term management of the lands; and permit the acquisition of land in appropriate locations by municipalities, conservation authorities or non-profit entities for natural heritage conservation purposes. A severance may be permitted for this purpose where it adjusts a property boundary or creates a lot, provided that the severed parcel is rezoned to permit only natural heritage conservation uses. Trails That the ROP be amended to Agree. It should be noted that Pickering indicate that the Region will work staff is participating in the Regional Trail with the area municipalities and Coordinating Committee for the purpose of other stakeholders to develop a developing a Regional Trail network. Regional Trail Network. Page 8 ;;Areas Enhancing Lake Iroquois Shoreline Natural Heritage That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. This is a new direction Features identify the Lake Iroquois Shoreline recommended by Regional staff. However, (continued) on the Natural Heritage Schedule, need to review Regional po/icy in order to and general policies be added to determine how it would be implemented at maintain and enhance the the local level. It should be noted that the significant landforms and Pickering Official Plan recognizes the former environmental integrity of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline by both policy and lands, designation. Improving Air Air Quality Quality That appropriate amendments to Agree. the ROP addressing air quality be implemented through the Transportation Master Plan. 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 mitigate impacts emerges; · require that in the planning and development of the Region, consideration be given to improving air quality; · indicate the Region's intent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants generated by its own activities and functions; and · include a policy supporting alternative renewable, green energy sources. Measuring the Health and Sustainability Health and Sustainability That the ROP be amended to: Agree. of the Region's Communities · add a new goal to encourage community planning and design that enhances public health and safety; and · encourage the inclusion of policies in the area municipal official plans that promote healthy and safe living environments. Page 9 ; Recommended:Directions S~ff ~o e i ~aper Areas Environmental Contaminated Sites Policy Considerations That the P, OP be amended to: Agree. · encourage area municipalities to include provisions in their Official Plan to outline the process that must be satisfied prior to development proceeding in areas where soil contamination is known or suspected; and · include a general policy that prior to considering an approval for development, proponents shall ensure that contaminated sites are cleaned up such that there will be no adverse effect, in accordance with provincial guidelines. It is also recommended that the P,OP include a provision that the P,egion support the remediation of contaminated sites through various programs and initiatives Light Pollution That the P, OP be amended to Agree. encourage local municipalities to incorporate policies in their official plans and to adopt lighting standards to minimize light pollution. Page 10 Commercial Policy Review Planning for Commercial Planning Future Commercial That the ROP be amended to Agree. A more general commercial Development establish criteria to define Regional framework in the ROP is appropriate. interest in commercial planning as However, the policy should be clarified to follows: indicate that the Region's interest in commercial planning should be focused on · any commercial proposal of proposals that would have the potential to 56,000 m2 or larger, on an negatively impact the planned function of individual or cumulative basis; Main Central Areas/Regional Centres · any commercial proposal instead of all CentralAreas. requiring a market population of 75,000 or more; and It is recommended that the wording in the · any commercial proposal that third point be revised as follows: would have the potential to negatively impact the planned "any commercial proposal that would have function ofCentralAreas, the potential to negatively impact the planned function of Regional Centres." Commercial Central Hierarchy Hierarchy and Central Area That the ROP be amended to Agree. More general principles relating to require that Sub-Central Areas will the role, scale and form of Central Areas in be designated in area municipal the ROPisappropriate. official plans similar to Community and Local Central Areas (policy 9.3.1). Floor Space Floor Space Allocations Allocations for Central Areas That the ROP be amended to Agree. The removal of the retail floor space delete the policy allocating allocations in the ROP as a means of floorspace to Central Areas (policy directing and controlling commercial growth 9.3.3). is appropriate. Requirements Market Studies for Market Studies It is recommended that the ROP be Agree. The removal of the retail impact amended to: study requirement is appropriate. However, minor expansions to existing regional · require a retail impact study for 'centres' should be exempt from the applications which would result in requirements for a retail impact study. the expansion of an existing Central Area that would be of "Regional Interest" (policy 9.3.6); · delete the policies directing area municipal councils to require retail impact studies (policies 9.3.7 and 9.3.8); and · add a new policy to require a retail impact study for any retail commercial development proposal that is of "Regional Interest". Page 11 Nodes and Centres and Corridors Corridors That the ROP be amended to: · provide a clear policy framework Agree. However, the po/icy framework at for "Centres and Corridors", the Regional/eve/should provide direction to including policies to establish local municipalities to provide detail policies Regional corridors as areas of and designations promoting these areas for intensive mixed-use mixed-use development. development and to encourage similar direction for local corridors; · amend the Regional Structure Map 'A' to designate "Regional Corridors"; and · delete policies related to Special Purpose Commercial uses. Commercial Pending the completion of No comment. Uses in Employment Lands Study. Employment Areas Urban Form Pending completion of Arterial No comment. Road Corridor Design Guidelines Study Retail Growth Retail Growth and Location of New That Policy 9.3.6 be further Agree. Commercial amended to: Areas · delete the requirement for the Region to require the preparation of a retail impact study for the designation of a new "Centre", unless it is determined to be of "Regional Interest"; · specify that area municipalities shall be responsible for designating new "Local Centres", having regard to Policy 9.3.2; and · require that the designation of any new Regional Centres shall be by amendment to the ROP. Page 12 Protecting Our Rural Resources Rural Consent Surplus Farm Dwellings (Non- Disagree. There is no need to change the Policies Abutting Farms) current ROP po/icy. That the ROP be amended by It is recommended that the Region retain deleting policy 12.3.12, which policy 12.3.12 that permits consideration provides for the consideration of of the severance of a surplus dwelling the severance of a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment. from a non-abutting farm by amendment. Retirement lots That the ROP be amended to Disagree. There is no need to change the delete policy 12.3.13, which current ROP, as the po/icy is a/ready permits the consideration of one restrictive. farm retirement lot from the total farm holding. It is recommended that the Region retain policy 12.3.13 that permits consideration of one farm retirement lot from the total farm holding. Farm-related Industrial Uses Agree. That the ROP continue to provide the current general framework for the consideration of farm-related industrial uses in Agricultural Areas and the Major Open Space system, but be amended to: · provide policies to guide the consideration of lot creation for such uses; and · require area municipalities to provide details in their respective official plans. Farm-related Commercial Uses Disagree. The ROP should provide genera/ policies for these uses and local OP's provide That the original proposed direction the detailed policies for "stand a/one" farm- to permit "stand-alone" farm- related commercial uses. Amendments to related commercial uses in the local OP's are the most appropriate Agricultural Areas and Major Open mechanism to evaluate these uses as Space System, as-of-right, not be opposed to amending the ROP. )ursued. It is recommended that: "That the ROP be amended to indicate that "stand-alone" farm-related commercial uses in the Agricultural Areas and Major Open Space System may be considered by amendment to the ROP or an area municipal official plan where appropriate policies are in place." Page 13 Rural Consent Lot Line Adjustments Policies (continued) That the ROP be amended to Agree. clarify policy 12.3.15, wh ich provides for the consideration of severances for minor lot line adjustments. Rural Hamlets Settlement Partially agree. The recommended direction Policies That the ROP be amended to: to limit the scale of ham/et growth to 25% of existing development is reasonable and · clarify the policies to reflect the would be consistent with the Oak Rides form, type and limited scale of Moraine Conservation P/an and draft development intended for Greenbelt Plan relating to ham/et growth. Hamlets; However, it should be recognized that, sim#ar · incorporate policies that to the ORM Conservation Plan and Draft establish a firm limit to Hamlet Greenbelt Plan, the size limit for any development of 25% of existing particular hamlet could be reviewed when development or the current future comprehensive reviews of the Regional development potential identified Official Plan are undertaken. in area municipal planning documents, whichever is greater; and · clarify that Hamlet development may only proceed if required technical studies conclude that development on private individual services will be sustainable. Country Residential Subdivisions Disagree. There is no need to change the That the ROP be amended to: current ROP policy as it permits country residential subdivisions subject to meeting · delete the polices that provide stringent criteria. for the consideration of new. Country Residential It is recommended that the Region retain Subdivisions; and the current policy that permits · add policies to clarify that no consideration of country residential new Country Residential subdivision proposals by amendment to Subdivisions will be permitted to the ROP. locate in the rural area. Rural Clusters Residential Infllling That the ROP be amended by No comment. deleting those pads of policy 13.3.14 that permit the identification of new clusters. The remainder of policy 13.3.14, which )ermits lot creation within clusters already identified in planning documents, will be retained. Page 14 Rural 1 O-Acre Lots Residential Infilling That the ROP be amended by No comment. (continued) deleting policy 13.3.16, which provides for the consideration of severances for rural residential infilling within concentrations of 4 hectare (10 acre)lots. Rural Rural Employment Areas Settlement That the ROP be amended: No comment. Policies · to permit limited Rural Employment Areas only in the Townships of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge and the Municipality of Clarington, subject to the preparation of a comprehensive industrial study for the municipality; and · to provide guidance, by adding specific study requirements that must be followed to establish the need and location of new Rural Employment Areas. Rural Golf courses Non-farm Use Policies That the ROP be amended to: Partially agree. Pickering had recommended that golf courses be · prohibit golf courses in ~)rohibited from prime agricultural areas but Agricultural Areas; should be permitted by amendment on/ands · require all proposed new golf of lower agricultural capability. In Pickering, courses and golf course there are limited opportunities for golf expansions in the Region be courses in the urban areas due to land considered by amendment to constraints and in the open space system the ROP or an area municipal due to natural heritage features. The amendment where appropriate Countryside Area designation proposed by policies are in place; Pickering would permit tourism and · require that all amendment recreational uses. Golf course proposals applications for new or would be assessed through the current expanding golf course be official plan amendment process. accompanied by the required technical studies including: It is recommended that: - a hydrogeological study; and - a Best Management "Golf courses may be considered by Practices report that amendment to the Countryside Area addresses design, designation to the ROP or an area construction and operational municipal official plan where appropriate considerations, including ~olicies are in place." traffic; and Page 15 Rural In the event that the Countryside Area Non-farm Use designation is not endorsed by the Regional Policies Planning Committee, it is recommended (continued) that the Region permit the consideration of golf course proposals in the Agricultural Areas and Major Open Space System subject to an amendment to the ROP or an area municipal official plan where appropriate policies are in place." · limit the scale of clubhouses and other associated uses in rural Agree. areas to ensure such uses wilJ be secondary to the primary use of the golf course. Regional Nodes That the ROP be amended by: Agree. · deleting the policies and designations as they pertain to Regional Nodes in Urban Areas; · deleting policies pertaining to the consideration and establishment of new Regional Nodes in the rural area; and · adding policies to "grandfather" existing rural Regional Nodes in order to allow for their continued recognition and planning status. Aggregate Resources Areas That the ROP policies be amended: Protection of Significant Aggregate No comment. Resource Potential Areas · to reflect new (current) geological, socio-cultural and environmental constraint information and license status of aggregate resource extraction areas (Map 'A', Map 'C' and Schedule 4);to delete the study requirements contained in policies 19.2.2 and 19.2.4, but retain the policy intent of protecting such features/resources; Page 16 Rural Assessment of Potential Impacts Non-farm Use from A~reqate Operations Policies (continued) * 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, at the time aggregate related amendment applications are being considered, to address the requirements of the ROP; · 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; · to clarify policy 19A.3.9 (b)(v) by indicating that the required assessment of potential impacts on residents in the vicinity of proposed resource extraction areas or aggregate-related industrial uses, should address the considerations and concerns identified in the remainder of policy 19A.3.9: Rehabilitation of Pits and Quarries · revise policy 19A.3.7 to require No comment. that, in addition to the site-by- site rehabilitation programs, specified in the Aggregate Resources Act, that rehabilitation plans, which are submitted in support of ROP amendment applications, be reviewed in conjunction with the Environmental Impact Study in accordance with policy 2.3.17; and · that such rehabilitation plans be considered in conjunction with adjacent and/or groups of operations in an area, in order to provide for a more comprehensive rehabilitation program; Page 17 Rural · to provide that the Region take Non-farm Use the lead role in coordinating Policies cross-jurisdictional matters and (continued) identifying opportunities to provide linkages and corridors with natural heritage features when reviewing rehabilitation plans; · to require that: progressive rehabilitation be undertaken in a timely manner in accordance with the approved site plan; the site be restored to blend in with land form patterns of adjacent land; and rehabilitation sites be restored to either the same soil capability as pre- excavation, or to a vegetative state using native species; · to add a policy to encourage area municipalities to continue to participate in the Management of Abandoned Aggregate Properties (MAAP) Program, to facilitate the rehabilitation of abandoned pits; and, ROP Policy 19A.3.4 and 20.2.6 Conflict · to resolve the policy conflict between Policies 19A.3.4 and 20.2.6 by no longer requiring an amendment in order to make changes to Map 'C'. Peat That the ROP be amended by Agree deleting policies relating to the regulation of peat extraction activities. Gas Stations and/or Gas Bars That the ROP be amended by Agree. deleting policy 16.3.34, which ~ermits the consideration of gas stations/gas bars in the Agricultural Area and Major Open Space System. Page 18 Rural Other Non-Farm, Non-residential Non-farm Use uses Policies (continued) That the ROP be amended by Agree. deleting cultural and health facilities as permitted uses from policy 5.2.1. Such uses would continue to be permitted in Urban Areas and Hamlets. Cemeteries That the ROP be amended to Disagree. Pickering had recommendedthat prohibit the establishment of new the establishment of cemeteries be subject cemeteries in Agricultural Areas. to an amendment to either the ROP or local OP's. It is recommended that the Region retain the current policy that permits consideration of cemeteries subject to the amendment process. Non-Agricultural Uses That the ROP be amended: See comment on One Agricultural Designation below. · to permit non-agricultural uses, such as riding and boarding stable, kennels, allotment gardens and fur and sod farms in the Permanent Agricultural Reserve designation on existing lots; and · to provide for area municipal official plans to contain Iocational criteria for such non-agricultural uses in Agricultural Areas. Major Open Spa~e System That the ROP be amended to Agree. require area municipalities, in their respective Official Plans, to distinguish between recreational uses which are compatible with the character of the open space land in urban, hamlet and rural areas. Page 19 Agricultural One Agricultural Designation Areas That the ROP be amended by: Disagree with the recommended direction to merge the "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" · merging the "Permanent and "Genera/Agricultural Area" designations Agricultural Reserve" and into one designation. "General Agricultural Area" designations on Map 'A' into one Pickering had recommended that the Region land use designation for the consider two types of rural areas - the near- purpose of agriculture and farm- urban countryside with greater diversity of related uses; and uses, and the more pure agricultural area in · revising the text accordingly, north and east Durham. A Countryside designation would permit a wider array of uses such as retail agricultural operations, agri- tourism and non-agricultural countrys/de uses. The Countryside Area designation would be consistent with the Rural Area policies of the draft Greenbelt Plan. These Rural Area policies support a range of recreational, tourism, and resource-based commercial and industrial and would a/so permit a furl range of agricultural, agricultural-related and secondary uses The City's GMS agricultural analysis concluded that to support the principle of a vibrant countryside in Pickering that a broad range of uses beyond traditional agricultural would be appropriate. The recommended direction does not reflect the reality that the near-urban countryside is truly different from the more pure agricultural areas in north and east Durham. Further, the consideration of intensive agricultural operations adjacent to urban areas, subject only to the minimum distance separation (MDS) formulae is wholly inadequate. These operations should be appropriately buffered from the urban areas to reduce the potential for adverse dust, odour and noise impacts on nearby urban residents. It is recommended that a new Countryside Area designation and associated policies be included in the Regional Official Plan that reflects the distinction between the near-urban countryside and the more pure agricultural areas of Durham Region. Further, it is recommended that the Countryside and Agricultural policies include provisions to restrict intensive livestock operations from locating in proximity to existing and future urban areas. Page 20 Areas Agricultural Accessory Farm Uses Areas That the ROP be amended to: Agree. (continued) · provide a general framework to guide the consideration of accessory farm uses; and · direct area municipalities to include detailed policies in their official plans to address accessory farm uses, including scale, number and potential impacts on surrounding uses. Non-Conforming Uses That the ROP be amended by Agree. clarifying the non-conforming use policy 20.4.4 by adding provisions to prohibit lot creation associated with non-conforming uses. Other Rural Basis, Goals and Directions for the Issues Rural Area That the ROP be amended by: Agree. · clarifying the "Basis, Goals and Directions" (Section 1), to recognize the distinction between urban and rural areas; and · adding policy to the "Basis" section, to acknowledge that natural resources are non- renewable and limited. Housing Policies for Rural Area That the ROP be amended by Agree. clarifying the "Housing" policies (Section 4 and policy 3.3.8 d), to recognize the distinction between urban and rural settlement areas. Rural Population Targets That the ROP be amended by: Partially agree. The rural forecast should represent the capacity planned for Durham's · deleting references to rural rural area to 2031. It is appropriate to population "targets" and consider changes at the next comprehens/ve replacing the term with review of the ROP. "forecasts"; · disassociating the rural forecast from the ROP's planning time horizon; and · clarifying that the rural forecast represents the maximum capacity planned for Durham's rural area. Page 21 ~aper Commercial Wind Turbines That the ROP be amended to: Agree. However, including commercial wind turbines under Section 5.2.6 of the ROP that · include commercial wind relates to public electric power facilities is turbines as an electric power questionable. A new policy may be more facility under Section 5.2.6 of appropriate for commercial green energy the ROP; and enterprises. Commercial solar farms, as a · encourage areamunicipalitiesto form of green energy, should also be include policies in their official permitted in any designation. plans, to ensure that commercial wind turbines are located It is recommended that commercial solar appropriately, farms be permitted in any designation. I:\RegionalOPreviewVRecomrnended Directions 2.doc Page 22 Attachment #1 to Appendix I Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements Feature Wetlands (evaluated and unevaluated) Endangered & Threatened Habitat Woodlands ElS Requirement 120m. from edge of feature as determined by CA or MNR 50m. from edge of habitat as determined by CA or MNR 50m. from the edge of the feature Significant Valleylands 50m. from top of bank 50m. from edge of earth science ANSI's 120m for life science Fish Habitat, permanent and intermittent streams Significant Wildlife Habitat Greater of: - hazardous land limit - meander belt limit; - 30m from stable top of bank, or as otherwise determined through an ElS 50m from edge of feature as determined by CA or MNR ~...-, 0 · ___8 0.9 0 t-'- '~ ATTACHMENT #__ / TO REPOR1 ~ PD 6 ~ - (~3"' E Ez AT'I'ACHMEN? t¢~ / .TO REPOR!'# PD ~(~ -~.~"" AT?ACHP,4ENT REPOR1 # PD (g~ Ez =0'60 ~B~o ~ ~ 0 ~ ATTACHMENT#_ / TO REPORI ~ ATTACHMENT #/___~_._TO REPOR1 # PD (S)/-)- 0.5~ _ ..... · -1 0 -~'0 '"" 0 0 ~ '~ R~ CD C~ 0 '- (D -~ ~o 0 r- E . . 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: 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. 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. 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 'ATTACHMENT Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 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": v' to redefine the Region's role in commercial developments to large centres having floor areas of greater than 60,000 square metres; v' to change the time frame of the Regional Official Plan to 203'1, forecasting a population of about 215,000 persons and employment of about 88,000 jobs for Pickering; v' to require conservation of the natural environment through sustainable land use and development practices; and v' 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 ATTACHI~,~E~,tT #. 2 ]'0 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 3 Financial Implications: Not Applicable. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Durham ReRional 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; · rural/agriculture policy; and · transportation system. Report PD 06-04 ATTACHMENT Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: Februaw 5,2004 Page 4 1.2 1.3 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. 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 ATTACHMENT #~=~,~....T0 REPORT # PD Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: Februaw 5,2004 Page 5 1.4 2.0 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. 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. 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 PD 06-04 ~TTACHrvlENT # 2 TO tR£POR7 # PD ~ - 0 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5,2004 Page 6 2.2 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. 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 ,~TI'ACHMENT #~TO Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 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. 2,3 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. 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 Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 8 2.4 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 §00 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. 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 Ai"fACHMENT #. 2. TO Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5,2004 Page 9 2.5 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. 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: 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 Report PD 06-04 ~ ?I'AGHMENT Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: February 5, 2004 Page 10 Prepared By: ORIOINAL SIGNED BY Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner- Policy Approved / Endorsed By: ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Neil Carroll, MClP, RPP Director, Planning & Development ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Catherine Rose Manager, Policy GM:Id 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 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT# '~ TO REPOR'I' # PD ~:~ ~ O ~' Appendix I Executive Committee Report EC 20O4-3 (I) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of February 16, 2004 Special Meeting of February 23, 2004 (111) RESOLUTIONS Resolution #27/04 - Appendix I Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the Report of the Executive Committee dated February 16, 2004, be adopted with the following consideration: Recorded Vote: Yes: Councillors Brenner, Holland, McLean, Pickles and Mayor Ryan No: Councillors Ashe and Johnson CARRIED That the Executive Committee of the City of Pickering having met on February 23, 2004, presents its third report to Council and recommends: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 06-04 DISCUSSION PAPERS- "PROPOSED DIRECTIONS" DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW, PHASE 2 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. 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; REPOR1 ~ PD (::)¢= -C~,.~"'. ...... Excerpts from Council Meeting Minutes Monday, March 1, 2004 7:40 PM to differentiate between parts of the Region, including using separate rural policies for near-urban countryside and agricultural areas well-removed from urban settlements. 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. 4. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-04 to the Region of Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region. -2-