Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 16-09 City REPORT TO _ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PI KERIN COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 16-09 Date: April 6, 2009 1 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan Informational Revision 14 City Initiated: Complete Applications and Pre-Submission Consultations City of Pickering Pickering Official Plan Review Recommendation: 1. That Report PD 16-09 of the Director, Planning & Development on Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P, Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan, and Informational Revision 14 City Initiated: Complete Applications and Pre-Submission Consultations be received; 2. (a) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to set out the requirements for complete applications for official plan amendments, zoning amendments, approval of draft plans of subdivision and condominium, and approval of site plans, and to require pre-submission consultation by applicants with City staff as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 16-09, be approved; (b) That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan, to implement the complete application and pre-submission consultation requirements, as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 16-09, be forwarded to Council for enactment; 3. That Council adopt Informational Revision 14 as set out in Appendix II to Report PD 16-09 for inclusion in the Pickering Official Plan; 4. That the Draft By-law to require that applicants consult with City staff prior to submission of applications for official plan amendments, zoning amendments, approval of draft plans of subdivision and condominium, and site plans, as set out in Appendix III to Report PD 16-09, be forwarded to Council for enactment; 5. That Council endorse the responses to comments received respecting the proposed draft official plan amendment contained in Appendix IV - Table 1 - Responses to Comments Received on the Proposed Official Plan Amendment; Report PD 16-09 April 6, 2009 S ct: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Page 2 D 6. That staff: (a) revise planning application forms to include an acknowledgement by applicants of the obligation to pay for peer review of technical studies, should the City so require; and (b) update the City's Tariff of Fees By-law to add peer review costs to the list of charges for planning applications; 7. That Council endorse the Procedures for Pre-Submission Consultation Meetings detailed in Appendix V of Report PD 16-09; and 8. Further, that the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PD 16-09 and Council's resolution on the matter to the Region of Durham, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, the City of Toronto, the Region of York, the Town of Markham, the Township of Uxbridge, the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, the Township of Scugog, the Town of Whitby and the Town of Ajax and to each person or public body that provided written or verbal comments at the Open House, the Public Meeting, the Planning & Development Committee or City Council Meeting. Executive Summary: The Province, through legislation changing the Planning Act in 2007 (Bill 51), provided municipal councils with new authority to set out requirements for complete planning applications and for mandatory consultation before submission of applications for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium. The legislation also enabled municipalities to pass by-laws requiring the pre-submission consultations. The recommended Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan implements the new authority provided by the legislation. The main elements of the amendment are to specify information that must be included with an application to make it a complete application and to require applicants to consult with City staff prior to submission of applications. At the pre-submission consultation meetings, staff will identify the technical studies and information necessary to address the scale and scope of the proposal and require the studies to be submitted with the application in order for the application to be deemed a complete application. The City will not consider an application unless it is complete and the amendments to the Planning Act provide that appeal rights only commence after an application is deemed complete. The recommended amendment identifies a list of thirty-four. possible technical studies that may be required, depending on the scale, location and scope of a given application and provides descriptions of the circumstances and purposes of many of the studies. Report PD 16-09 April 6, 2009 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Page 3 63 This amendment is similar to amendments being undertaken by many other Ontario municipalities to implement the new authority provided by the legislative changes. The intent of the changes is to allow municipalities to mandate full information at the beginning of the processing of applications, rather than having key information submitted later in the process or after an application is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board following completion of municipal council's consideration. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated to adopt this amendment. Sustainability Implications: The proposed amendment requires a sustainable development report to be submitted by applicants. The proposed amendment will require that planning applicants pre-consult with City staff prior to submission of applications and submit all required studies with the initial application. This requirement will allow the City to discuss sustainability objectives with applicants early in the application process thereby improving the opportunity to integrate sustainability elements as part of the initial development design. 1.0 Background: 1.1 This Official Plan amendment is the first part of the Official Plan Review Although the `complete applications and pre-submission consultation' amendment is part of the broader Official Plan Review, it is being processed ahead of Council adoption of the final Official Plan Review workplan and consultation plan. Adoption of the amendment will permit the City to utilize the new powers authorized by Bill 51 sooner. Staff intend to forward a proposed final workplan and consultation plan for the Official Plan Review for the consideration of Council later in 2009. 1.2 Bill 51 empowers the City to specify the contents of complete planning applications and to require applicants to consult so that the City can inform the applicant what items of information must be filed to make the application complete when submitted Prior to passage of Bill 51, Pickering staff and Council had advised the Province of support for measures to require applicants to provide municipalities with more information earlier in the planning approvals process. Through adoption of Amendment 17, Pickering can now implement these new powers provided in Bill 51. Report PD 16-09 April 6, 2009 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Page 4 6 I Following passage of Bill 51 in 2006, Pickering City Council delegated the authority to deem planning applications `complete' to the Director, Planning & Development, by adoption of By-law 6763/07 in May 2007. Bill 51 permits municipalities to identify in the Official Plan, the information required in order to deem applications 'complete' and to refuse to consider applications until they are `complete'. Bill 51 also permits municipalities to require applicants to consult with municipalities prior to submission of applications, which allows municipalities to identify the particular information requirements for each individual application. While Bill 51 requires municipalities to adopt a by-law to require pre-submission consultations, related provisions may also be included in official plans. 1.3 A draft City initiated amendment addressing complete applications and pre-submission consultations was circulated in October 2008 and was explained in Information Report No. 21-08 The draft amendment proposed a number of changes to Section 15 of the Pickering Official Plan to: • require applicants to consult the City prior to submitting applications to allow City and agency staff to identify the studies needed to evaluate the technical merits of an application. Even though the proposed amendment includes a long list of possible technical studies, staff will `scope' which studies (if any) will be needed, depending on the scale and nature of each application and will `scope' the complexity of each required study to the technical issues of concern; • require applications to include not only a complete application form, information listed in the Planning Act and its regulations and application fees, but also a record of the pre-submission consultation, an agreement to pay peer review and outside legal/consulting costs, should the City require such payments, and all studies that are identified as required at the consultation meeting; • require that all required items are completed to the satisfaction of the City before the City can `deem' the application 'complete'; • provide a list of 30 possible technical studies that could be required, across the broad spectrum of possible applications, for official plan amendment, zoning amendment or draft plans of subdivision or condominium; • provide a list of 26 possible technical studies that could be required for site plan applications, depending on the complexity and scale of the individual proposal; and, • provide descriptions, criteria, purpose, and/or issues of concern for many of the listed technical studies that may be required for applications. Report PD 16-09 April 6, 2009 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Page 5 65 Notification (along with a copy of the proposed amendment) was provided for the Open House held on October 21, 2008 and the Public Meeting held on November 3, 2008. Notification was provided by newspaper advertisement and on the City website, in addition to written notification to agencies, municipalities, utilities, resident associations, development companies, First Nations' representatives and other persons and public bodies that requested notification of Official Plan Review matters. 2.0 Revisions are now proposed in response to comments received on the proposed amendment Four people attended the October 28, 2008 Open House, at least six people attended the November 3, 2008 Public Meeting at Planning & Development Committee, and six written comments were received on the proposed amendment. A summary of the written comments received and staff responses is provided in Table 1: Responses to Comments Received on the Proposed Official Plan Amendment, which is attached to Report PD 16-09, as Appendix IV. In addition, the written comments submitted are attached to Report PD 16-09 as Attachments 3 to 8 inclusive. 2.1 Staff Recommend revisions to the proposed amendment to reflect responses to the comments received • Staff agree with the recommendation of the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) that only those technical studies related to a proposal be required and that the scope of the required studies be limited to the scope and complexity of the application; • The Durham Region Planning Department suggested that six additional technical studies be added to the list of potentially required studies. Staff agree with five of these additions. The Region also advised that proposed Amendment 17 is exempt from Regional approval which will render Pickering Council's decision final on the proposed amendment, unless appealed; • Staff agree with the request of Runnymede Development Corporation, Tribute Communities and Mattamy Homes that the City authority to be satisfied with completed studies before an application can be deemed 'complete' be limited to the scope and not the conclusions of such studies. Staff have revised the appropriate sections of the proposed amendment to reflect the changes noted above with which staff agrees. Detailed responses to all comments received are provided in Table 1: Responses to Comments Received On The Proposed Amendment, which is included as Appendix IV to Report PD 16-09. Staff recommend that the responses in Table 1 be endorsed by Council (see Appendix IV) and that Council authorize the revisions noted above by adoption of the Draft By-law to approve Amendment 17, as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 16-09. Report PD 16-09 April 6, 2009 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Page 6 66 3.0 City Staff have reconsidered two policy issues 3.1 A better way of requiring applicants to pay peer review costs is now recommended and a formal requirement to pay legal/consulting costs is no longer proposed The earlier draft proposed amendment included in Information Report No. 21-08 required that an applicant enter into a fees agreement with the City to cover: 1) peer review costs; and, 2) outside legal/consulting costs of the City, where the City appears at the Ontario Municipal Board or a Court in support of an application. Peer Review Costs While staff considers that applicants should be responsible for such costs, a requirement for an agreement for every planning application, when few applications require peer reviews, would unnecessarily burden applicants and create additional workload for City staff. Although it is anticipated that very few technical studies will need to be peer reviewed, peer reviews will be required for some technical studies, such as retail market impact analysis. Before concluding that a peer review must be done, the applicant's experts will be given the opportunity to correct obvious information gaps or missing analysis identified by staff. Peer reviews may be required when: 1) the City does not have qualified in-house expert staff; 2) the City does not have sufficient qualified in-house expert staff resources to provide timely evaluation of technical studies, or, 3) City expert staff disagree with the applicant's expert's findings and a third-party expert opinion is needed from another qualified professional before staff can prepare a recommendation to Council. Accordingly, applicants should be required to sign an acknowledgement, on the planning application forms submitted as part of a 'complete' application, of the responsibility to pay such costs, should they be required. For applications that require peer review, recommendation reports from the Planning & Development Department would be prepared only after the City selects the peer review expert, the applicant pays and the peer review is completed. Legal/Consulting Costs Currently, when a planning application that is supported by City Council is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board or referred to a Court, the City Solicitor obtains instructions from City Council respecting the position to be taken at the Board or Court. In order to maintain Council's flexibility to tailor its instructions to the City Solicitor to the unique circumstances of individual appeals/court applications, it is now recommended that the City not introduce a new policy requiring applicants to pay the costs of obtaining outside legal or related consulting services. Report PD 16-09 April 6, 2009 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Page 7 67 This approach still retains the ability for City Council/the City Solicitor to retain outside legal or consulting services at the applicant's expense if both the City and the applicant agree. It is recommended that Council authorize staff to revise planning application forms to include an acknowledgement of the applicant's obligation to pay peer review costs of technical studies, where required. In addition, it is recommended that Council authorize an update of the City's Tarrif of Fees By-law to authorize charging applicants for required peer reviews. Appropriate policy revisions to implement an applicant responsibility for peer review and to delete references to legal/consulting costs are included in sections 15.3 and 15.4 of proposed Amendment 17 in Appendix I. It is recommended that Council adopt this policy change by enacting the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 17, as set out in Appendix I. 3.2 Payment of required Agency Fees should also be ensured before the City deems applications `complete' Full evaluation of many applications, particularly large scale development proposals, often requires extensive technical review by key agencies such as the Conservation Authorities or the Region of Durham. In many such cases, neither the City nor the public will be able to reach meaningful conclusions on some of the fundamental issues raised by such applications until the agency input is available. These agencies charge fees to conduct their reviews. The pre- submission consultation meeting will allow identification of issues of concern and required technical studies by such agencies. In order for the City to be sure that it can fully evaluate the merits of applications, it should have assurance that proper agency input will be provided. Without payment of agency fees at the time applications are submitted, the City cannot obtain such assurance. Accordingly, the City should require proof of payment of agency fees as a material part of a 'complete' application, whenever such fees would be required. The amendments to the Planning Act now allow a municipality to require an application to include any other information or material that the council considers it may need if such information or materials are identified in official plan provisions. If required, such information and materials must also be made available to the public. Report PD 16-09 April 6, 2009 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Page 8 8 Since a main purpose of the legislative revisions is to have pertinent information available to council and such agency review is often a critical element to evaluate the merits of an application, the City should not deem an application `complete' until fees charged by agencies are paid. Staff has included revisions to section 15.3 of proposed Amendment 17 to require that agency fees for review of applications and pertinent technical studies be submitted prior to deeming an application `complete'. It is recommended that Council adopt the agency fee requirement by enacting the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 17, as set out in Appendix I. 4.0 Consistent Procedures should be adopted for the Required Pre-Submission Consultation Meetings Section 15.2 of proposed Amendment 17 would require applicants "to pre- consult with the municipality prior to submitting "an application for planning approval. The "meeting will be held with the applicant, City staff and any other government or public authority the City determines appropriate". At the meeting, required studies would be identified and terms of reference or guidelines for the required studies would be set out. Section 15.3 requires that a record of the pre- submission consultation be provided as one part of a `complete' application. 4.1 Proposed Procedures for Pre-Submission Consultation Meetings In order to fulfill the proposed requirements and provide consistent administration of the pre-submission consultation meetings, the following procedures are proposed: • The purpose of the meetings is for staff to advise a prospective applicant what information and studies will be required at the time an application is submitted to comprise a 'complete' application; • The proponent will be advised that if confidentiality is requested, staff shall keep the proposal confidential; • Planning & Development staff will arrange the meetings at no charge to the prospective applicant; • Staff will request a preliminary summary, concept or sketch of the proposal ahead of the pre-submission consultation; • Staff may waive the requirement for a pre-submission meeting for low impact proposals; • Staff will invite appropriate City and outside agency staff, circulate preliminary proposal and invite applicant to a Civic Complex meeting; • Invited City staff may include Planning, Development Control, Building, Fire Services, Municipal Property & Engineering and Office of Sustainability staff; • Invited outside agency staff may include Conservation Authority, Region of Durham, Provincial Ministries, utilities, railways and similar agencies staff; Report PD 16-09 April 6, 2009 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Page 9 69 • The list of studies/information required and the terms of reference/guidelines of each required item will be scoped/limited to the scale and complexity of each proposal at the meeting, if possible, or subsequent to the meeting; • Where known, the applicant will be advised if studies will require peer review; • Planning & Development staff will provide a record of the conclusions of the meeting shortly after the meeting, with a copy to participants; and, • If necessary, more than one pre-submission consultation meeting may be required. 4.2 Staff Recommend that Council Endorse the Procedures for Pre-Submission Consultation Meetings It is recommended that Council endorse the proposed procedures for pre- submission consultation meetings as set out in Appendix V of Report PD 16-09. 5.0 Some staff preparation is necessary to Implement Amendment 17 Training of Planning & Development and other City staff and education of planning applicants about the new requirements will be necessary. In addition, terms of reference or guidelines will be prepared to detail the contents required for each of the required technical studies Staff will monitor the resource requirements to administer the pre-submission consultation meetings over a period of time in order to determine whether increases to planning application fees may be warranted to cover increased service levels. Appendices I Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan for Complete Applications and Pre-Submission Consultations II Proposed Informational Revision 14 to the City of Pickering Official Plan for Complete Applications and Pre-Submission Consultations III Draft By-Law to Require Pre-Submission Consultation for Planning Applications IV Comments and Responses on Proposed Official Plan Amendment V Procedures for Pre-Submission Consultation Meetings Attachments: 1. Text of Information Report No. 21-08 2. Minutes from Public Meeting 3. Comment Received from David Gray Eagle Sandford 4. Comment Received from Caroline Huston 5. Comment Received from Region of Durham 6. Comment Received from Chris Barnett for Tribute & Runnymede 7. Comment Received from Chris Barnett for Mattamy 8. Comment Received from BILD Report PD 16-09 April 6, 2009 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 08-002/P Page 10 i i rZ n Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: r Steve Gaunt Neil Carroll Principal Planner, Policy Director, Planning & Development Catherine Rose Manager, Policy SG:ld Copy: (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council -:1~4"V/< C"Y I Thomas J. ui n, RD CMM III Chief Administrative Officer 71 APPENDIX I TO REPORT PD 16-09 DRAFT BY-LAW TO ADOPT AMENDMENT 17 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 17 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 08-002/P) WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHEREAS on February 23, 2000 Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHERERAS the Region has advised that Amendment 17 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Amendment 17 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted; 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans for Amendment 17. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of 2009. 10 At David Ryan, Ma Debi A. Wilcox, City Clerk 7 Exhibit "A" to By-law AMENDMENT 17 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 4 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan PURPOSE: The purpose of this Amendment is to change policies of the Pickering Official Plan to set out the requirements for complete applications and for mandatory consultation before submission of applications for Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law amendments, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium, in accordance with Sections 22(5), 34(10.2), and 51(18) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13. The amendment also sets out requirements for complete applications and mandatory pre-submission consultations for site plan applications. LOCATION: This amendment applies to all lands within the City of Pickering. BASIS: On January 1, 2007, the Planning Act was amended by Bill 51, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 to provide a number of additional planning and development control tools for municipalities. Among these is the ability of a municipality to require studies to be submitted at the time of application and to refuse consideration of an application if these studies are not submitted; in other words, if the application is not `complete'. However, in order to avail itself of these powers, the municipality must include provisions in the Official Plan relating to the requirements of a 'complete application'. These provisions are to document the information or material that the municipality considers it may need in order to review the full range of matters relevant to an application. This complete application provision applies to Official Plan Amendments, Zoning by-law amendments, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium. This amendment also requires a complete application provision for site plan applications. In addition, Bill 51 introduced provisions permitting a municipal council, by by-law, to require applicants to consult with the municipality prior to submission of a planning application. Concurrent with adoption of this Amendment, City Council will pass such a by-law, and this Amendment proposes to add a policy to the Official Plan to provide for mandatory pre-submission consultation for planning applications for Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law amendments, plans of subdivision, plans of condominium and site plan approvals. 1 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Pickering Official Plan be amended by: (NEW TEXT SHOWN AS UNDERLINED TEXT, DELETED TEXT SHOWN AS STRIKEOUT TEXT, RETAINED TEXT SHOWN AS UNCHANGED TEXT) Chapter Fifteen - Development Review 1. Amending policy section 15.2 as follows: • Deleting policy section 15.2 in its entirety "15.2 City Couneil the proponents o appropriate inventory, impaet and reports asseeiated with ene or more shadowing, -a! hazards aft-d _f • Adding the following new policy section 15.2: "15.2 City Council shall require applicants to consult with the municipality prior to submitting an application for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium or site plan approval. The pre-submission consultation meeting will be held with the applicant, City staff and any other government agency or public authority that the City determines appropriate. At the pre-submission consultation meeting; (a) the list of required studies set out in sections 15.5A or 15.5B will be scoped to only require studies related to the application. The City, in consultation with applicable agencies, may also prepare terms of reference /guidelines for any of the required studies which would set out the required study information, analysis and recommendations necessary to address the scope and complexity of the application; and (b) additional studies may be determined necessary for submission with the application based on the nature of the application." 2 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan Y6 2. Amending policy section 15.3 as follows: • Deleting existing policy section 15.3: "15.3 City Cotmed the proponents o development and devel ' fteeordaftee with, one or more short or long term , p1m, environmental construction fnanagemen • Adding the following new policy section 15.3: "15.3 City Council shall not accept an application for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium, or site plan approval until the following has been submitted to the City: (a) a complete application form, including an acknowledgement by the applicant of the obligation to pay required peer review costs, as referred to in Section 15.4; (b) any information or materials prescribed by statute and regulation; (c) a record of pre-submission consultation; (d) the prescribed application fee(s); (e) payment, or proof of payment of application review fees charged by commenting agencies; (f) all required studies set out in Section 15.5 for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision and draft plan of condominium application; and (g) all required studies set out in Section 15.6 for a site plan application." 3. Moving existing policy section 15.4, in its entirety, to appear as new policy section 15.5C. Adding new policy section 15.4, as follows: • Adding the following new policy section 15.4: 3 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan 7 ,7 "15.4 City Council shall require all of the matters set out in Sections 15.3.15.5A, and/or 15.5B to be completed to the satisfaction of the Citv respecting the scope and complexity appropriate to the application prior to the City deeming the application complete. Once an application is deemed complete, the City may retain a qualified consultant to conduct a peer review of any of the studies required in sections 15.5A and/or 15.5B at the applicant's expense as acknowledged on the application form and as provided for in Section 15.3 (a); and 4. Deleting policy section 15.5, in its entirety and replacing it with a new policy section renumbered as policy section 15.5A. Introducing a new policy section 15.56. Renumbering existing policy section 15.4 as new policy section 15.5C, as follows: • Deleting existing section 15.5, as follows: "15.5 When eonsidering appheations to amend this Plan, in addition to other development review City Couneil shall consider the , shall, A-ve-va-1-1 h--P-n-efit to the eemmunity of the (a) require all appheations to be aeeompanied by a Planning Analysis evaluating the proposal against the relevant goalsi objeetives, and general purpose and intent of this Platt-, and (b) diseourage amendments that are eontra to the goals, objeetives, and genera Adding the following new policy section 15.5A: "15.5A City Council shall require the following materials and studies prepared by qualified experts, as scoped or expanded as a result of the pre-submission consultation required by section 15.2 to be submitted at the time of application for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of condominium approval: 0) a planning rationale report which considers the overall benefit to the community and evaluates the proposal against the relevant goals, objectives, 4 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan policies and general purpose and intent of this Plan, the Regional Official Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan, where applicable; (ii) a transportation study; (iii) a shadow study; (iv) a wind study; (y) a statement of compliance with heritage conservation designation or conservation district policies- (v J) an archaeology assessment; (vii) a functional servicing study addressing municipal water and wastewater servicing. For smaller site-specific applications, a site servicing study may be required in lieu of a functional servicing study; (viii) a drainage and stormwater management study, including preliminary grading; (ix) a flood plain impact engineering study as referred to in subsection 15.31(fl; (x) an agricultural report as referred to in section 15.6; (xi) a site suitability study as referred to in section 15.7; (xii) an environmental report as referred to in section 15.8; (xiii) a natural heritage evaluation as referred to in subsection 15.9; (xiv) a hydrological evaluation as referred to in subsection 15.9; (xv) a hydrogeology and water budget study; (xvi) a watershed/subwatershed study for major development as determined on a cased case basis; (xvii) an impact study on potential aggregate extraction as referred to in subsection 10.8(b); (xviii) an aggregate extraction assessment study as referred to in subsection 10.8(b) and sections 15.33 and 15.35; (xix) an assessment of lands within 500 metres of a Known Waste Disposal Site as referred to in section 15.12A; (xx) a Phase I environmental site assessment, and a Phase II environmental site assessment and a Record of Site Condition if the Phase I environmental site assessment shows potential for contamination, as referred to in section 15.12B; 5 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan 79 (xxi) a contamination management plan for development in high acquifer vtilnerable areas, (xxii) a containment management plan for development in proximity to a wellhead protection area; (xxiii) a waste disposal community impact study as referred to in section 15.36 (xxiv) a noise study as referred to in subsection 15.13(a); (xxv) a vibration study as referred to in subsection 15.13(c); (xxvi) a dust and/or odour study as referred to in subsection 15.13(b); (xxvii) a lighting study as referred to in section 15.13; (xxviii) a retail impact study as referred to in section 15.14; (xxix) a sustainable development report; (xxx) a rental housing conversion study for the conversion of rental units to condominium tenure; (xxxi) an urban design brief which indicates how relevant development and/or urban design guidelines and related policies of this Plan are proposed to be implemented-, (xxxii) a financial impact study; (xxxiii) an architectural design study; and (xxxiv) a railway corridor safety study." • Adding the new policy section 15.513, as follows: 1115.5B City Council shall require the following materials and studies prepared by qualified experts, as scoped or expanded as a result of the pre-submission consultation provided for by section 15.2 to be submitted at the time of application for site plan approval: (i) a transportation study; (ii) a shadow study; (iii) a wind study; (iv) a statement of compliance with heritage conservation designation or conservation district policies; (v) an archaeology assessment; (vi) a site servicing study addressing municipal water and wastewater servicipZ vii) a drainage and stormwater management study, including preliminagy grading; 6 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan (viii) a floodplain impact engineering study as referred to in subsection 15.31(j), (ix) a grading plan; (x) a landscape plan; (xi) an agricultural report as referred to in section 15.6; (xii) a site suitability study as referred to in section 15.7: (xiii) an environmental report as referred to in Section 15.8; (xiv) a report demonstrating compliance with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; (xv) an assessment of lands within 500 metres of a Known Waste Disposal Site as referred to in section 15.12A• (xvi) a Phase I environmental site assessment, and a Phase 11 environmental site assessment and a Record of Site Condition if the Phase I environmental site assessment shows potential for contamination as referred to in section 15.12B• (xvii) a waste disposal community impact study as referred to in subsection 15.36; (xviii) a noise study as referred to in section 15.13(a): (xix) a vibration study as referred to in section 15.13(c): (xx) a dust and/or odour study as referred to in section 15.13(b): (xxi) a lighting study as referred to in section 15.13 (xxii) a sustainable development report; (xxiii) an urban design brief which indicates how relevant development and/or urban design guidelines and related policies of this Plan are proposed to be implemented; (xxiv) an architectural design study; (xxv) a construction management plan; and (xxvi) a railway corridor safety study." • Amending former policy section 15.4 as policy section 15.5C, as follows: 1115.5C City Council, in considering any supporting report or management plan, City Ceuneil shall consult with the relevant conservation authority, provincial ministry, regional department, and other relevant group or agency on the appropriateness and approval of the report or plan." 7 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan 5. Deleting existing policy section 15.6, in its entirety, and replacing with the following new policy section 15.6 as follows. • Deleting existing policy section 15.6 as follows: "-15.6 in aeeerdance with sections 2.26 and 2.30 of this Plan, City Coune-.1 may permit eertain the rural area and e existing ~ealements, designate new settlements, we this M.-on, when shall require all appheations to be aeeempanied ineluding the Planning Analysis required by „seetion (a) an Agtieultural Report d --10 the City's satisfitetion that the proposed i (i) will not signifieantly adversely affeet the amount or qi (ii) is loeated and/or operated i Distanee Separation Formulae as amended from time to time; and (iii) cannot be aecommodated less signifieant agrieultural lands, in rural settlement, or in the urban and area; (b) aft Environmental Report meeting the the proposed use or settlement, (i) will net adversely affeet the quality, or funetion of natural features and eludin groundwater,-and (H) is energy efficient and envft"nme form, in terms of its water usage and sewage • Adding a new policy section 15.6, as follows: 1115.6 When considering applications for non- agricultural uses on lands designated Agricultural Areas, Open Space System or Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Areas by this Plan, City Council shall require an Agricultural Report prepared by a qualified expert. The Agricultural Report shall demonstrate, to the City's satisfaction, that: 8 1 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan (a) (i) the proposal complies with the minimum distance separation policy; (ii) the proposal minimizes impacts on surrounding agricultural operations and lands to the extent feasible; (iii) the proposal requires additional lands to be designated to accommodate the proposed use; (iv) the proposal is not located on lands which comprise specialty crop areas; (v) there are no reasonable alternatives to accommodate the proposal which avoid agricultural areas; and (vi) there are no reasonable alternative locations to accommodate the proposal in agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands; and (b) for proposal respecting livestock facilities, that the proposal complies with Minimum Distance Separation Formula as addressed in policy 15.39 of this Plan." 6. Amending policy section 15.7, as follows: "15.7 in aeeordance with seetions 2.32 and . Plan, this to the hantlets of Greenwood, Kinsale n Balsam ,:.1_out amendment t the require, Couneil shall ift addition to any othe 7 demonstrating to the satisfaetion of the City in eensultation with other rel 9, that, When considering applications for non- agricultural uses in the Rural Area, City Council shall require a site suitability stuff prepared by qualified experts. The site suitability study shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with other relevant agencies, that: (a) the development will have an adequate supply of potable water and soil conditions are satisfactory for the effective operation of a private waste sewage system on each proposed lot; and (b) there will not be any adverse impacts on the supply of water or the soil and groundwater conditions of adjacent properties." 7. Renumbering existing policy section 15.9 as section 15.8 (a) and amending new policy section 15.8 (a) as follows: 15.8 City Council, 9 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan (a) using Appendix II to this Plan as a guide, City Comwil shall for major development, and may for minor development, as determined through a pre-submission consultation in Section 15.2 require the submission and approval of an Environmental Report as part of the consideration of a development application or a public infrastructure project; and," 8. Renumbering policy section 15.8 as section 15.8 (b) and amending as follows: (b) despite seetieft , City Council the Guidelines in Appendix II, may, through the pre-submission consultation in Section 15.2, require the submission and approval of an Environmental Report as part of its consideration of any other development application or public infrastructure project. 9. Adding new policy section 15.9, as follows: "15.9 City Council, for development or site alteration within 120 metres of a key hydrologic feature or within 120 metres of a key natural heritage feature located within the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Plan, shall require a natural heritage evaluation and hydrological evaluation to be prepared by qualified experts. For development adjacent to a key natural heritage feature located outside of the Natural Heritage System but within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plante the policies of section 15.8 (a) shall apply." 10. Amending policy section 15.10 as follows: 15.10 Despite Section 15.9;15.8 (aagricultural uses including the construction of farm related buildings are exempted from the requirements of sections 15.8 b) and 15.9, except for uses adjacent to Known Waste Disposal Sites, and subject to the policies of sections 15.8 (Lb) and 15.12A." 11. Amending line 3 of the first paragraph of policy section 15.11 to remove reference to policy section 15.9, as follows: 15.11 City Council shall require that the Environmental Report submitted in accordance with sections 15.8 and 15.9 include at least the following, 10 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan 84 12. Renumbering subsection (i) of policy 15.11 as new policy section 15.12A, amending policy section 15.12A, as follows: 15.12A for a Report submitted under seetion 15-.9 Qjy Council shall require, for lands on or within 500 metres of a Known Waste Disposal Site, Gity Couneil shall quire an the assessment should of risks from landfill gases and leachate, to the satisfaction of the City, that: "a) be is carried out by a qualified engineer; fii)~b) examines the potential affects of the waste disposal site on the proposed development; and fiii)~c) makes recommendations on the construction and phasing of development to ensure the implementation of the Report's recommendations including monitoring for lands on or within 500 metres of a Known Waste Disposal Site." 13. Renumbering policy section 15.12 as section 15.128, and amending as follows: 45A2 15.12B On lands suspected of being contaminated (for example: sites where filling has occurred; lands used for industrial, transportation or utility purposes; certain commercial properties such as gas stations, auto repair garages and dry cleaning plants), City Council shall, (a) require the proponents of development to complete prior to any approvals for the site ental audit a Phase I environmental site assessment, and a Phase 11 environmental site assessment and a Record of Site Condition if the Phase I environmental site assessment shows potential for contamination, in accordance with provincial guidelines and legislation as may be amended from time to time, to identify any on-site contamination, and following completion of the audit assessment, should contamination be found, require the restoration of the site to a condition suitable for the intended uses, before permitting the establishment of the uses; and 11 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan (b) prohibit residential uses on lands previously used for automobile repairs, for service stations, for fuel storage, or for the disposal of construction waste or debris unless the site is first restored in accordance with provincial guidelines and legislation as may be amended from time to time. 14. Amending policy section 15.13 as follows: 15.13 On lands affeeted b For applications with impacts from noise, vibration, dust, light spillage at3d- or odours, or which may raise safety concerns, City Council, ~aj shall require a the proponent of sensitive land uses to complete a an Heise -ham appropriate study, prepared by a qualified expert, as specified in subsections a), b) and c) below to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with relevant agencies, i€- the proposed development is within 300 metres of railroad right of way, an as follows: " on lands affected by noise, for proposals for new sensitive land uses within 300 metres of a railway right-of-way or adjacent to an arterial road, and for proposals for new land uses (including, but not limited to, commercial and industrial uses) that may introduce new sources of noise adjacent to sensitive land uses, City Council shall require the proponent to complete a noise study, and, (i) shall require appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects from the noise identified by the study, and (ii) shall only permit development if attenuation measures satisfactory to the City are undertaken to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts, which measures may include, but not be limited to berming, fencing and the imposition of building setbacks to be undertaken as a condition of approval. (e) shall require the prepo"ent e development to eomplete an app dust or odottr afiftlysis > > 1 by a qualified eonsultant, to the au~-&eetion of the City in eonsultation with relevant ageneies, where, Nibratien, nor odeur levels c antieipated to be unaeeeptable. 12 8 6 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan for proposals for new sensitive land uses in proximity to sources of dust, light spillage, and/or odours, and for proposals for new land uses that may introduce or increase existing light spillage, dust or odours, City Council shall require the proponent to complete an appropriate dust, light, and/or odour analysis, and (i) shall require appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects from the dust, light, and/or odours identified by the study, and (ii) shall only permit development if attenuation measures satisfactory to the City are undertaken to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts, which measures may include, but are not limited to: buffering or imposition of separation distances between the respective land uses to be undertaken as a condition of approval. (c) shall require the proponent of development to eomplete a vibration tudy, prepared to the satisfaetie Of City in consultation with relevan ) if the proposed development is for proposals that would introduce new sensitive uses on lands within 75 metres of a railway right-of-way, and City Council shall require the proponent of development to complete, (i) a vibration impact study, and shall require appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects from the vibration identified by the study; and (ii) a railway corridor safety study and shall require that all proposed development adjacent to railways provides appropriate health and safety measures such as setbacks, berms and security fencing to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with the appropriate railway. 15. Revising policy section 15.14 as follows: 15.14 Outside of the Downtown Core, City Council, in the review of development proposals for new or expanded gross leasable floor space for the retailing of goods and services, Oa shall for the development of 2,500 square metres or greater of floor space, and 13 Amendment 17 to the Pickering Official Plan may for the development of less than 2,500 square metres of floor space, as determined through a pre-submission consultation in Section 15.2, (i) require a retail impact study, U to justify the proposed floor space for the retailing of goods and services, and ii to demonstrate that such additional floor space will not unduly affect the viability of any lands designated or developed for the retailing of goods and services. Chapter Ten - Resource Management 16. Amending policy section 10.22 as follows: 1110.22 City Council recognizes that people's normal use and enjoyment of property may be affected by unacceptable levels of noise, vibration, dust, and/ er lightspillage, odours or safety concerns in proximity to railway lines; accordingly, Council shall require proponents of affected developments to adequately address noise, vibration, dust, and/ er light, odours or safe concerns, and where necessary, to incorporate into such developments, appropriate mitigation measures as may be specified in a required analysis (see section 15.13)." IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply to this Amendment. Numerous section number cross references will be required with the next consolidation of the Plan. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. 14 APPENDIX II TO REPORT PD 16-09 PROPOSED INFORMATIONAL REVISION 14 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN Informational Revision 14 to the Pickering Official Plan P 9 PURPOSE: The purpose of this Informational Revision is to change CITY POLICY informational text of the Pickering Official Plan in order to clarify the requirements for complete applications and for mandatory pre-consultation before submission of applications for Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law amendments, plans of subdivision, plans of condominium, and site plan applications. LOCATION: Applies City wide. BASIS: In reviewing the CITY POLICY informational text contained in the Official Plan, various housekeeping and technical revisions have been determined to be necessary and appropriate to complement and assist users with understanding the policy changes to the Official Plan regarding the provisions of mandatory pre-consultation for planning applications for Official Plan amendments, Zoning by-law amendments, plans of subdivision, plans of condominium and site plan approvals. ACTUAL The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: REVISION: (NEW TEXT SHOWN AS "UNDERLINED TEXT", DELETED TEXT SHOWN AS "STRIKEOUT RETAINED TEXT SHOWN AS UNCHANGED TEXT) 1. On page 287, in the CITY POLICY informational text at the start of chapter fifteen, Development Review, amending paragraph three by deleting the period after the word "application" and adding the words "to constitute a complete application." to the end of the first sentence, deleting and replacing the remainder of the paragraph so that it reads as follows: 2 "This Chapter also outlines the various reports that are required to be submitted in conjunction with a development application. T4-te analysis; reports tnay be required to address a variety of matters depending o the type of proposal and its laeation. Some "es of reports that ma be requii-ed ifielude ft planning analysis of the benefits and impaets o study; study-, and a tree ift-ventory and preservation study to constitute a complete application. An application would be deemed to be complete when all required information as set out in this Chapter has been submitted to the City. A standard list of required studies is provided for all development applications However, during the pre-submission consultation with the applicant, staff will identify the studies from the standard list that will not be required or may be scoped in extent, or may request additional information depending on the complexity of the application." 2. On page 289, within the CITY POLICY informational text under the heading Supporting Reports, deleting the first two sentences of the first paragraph and replacing it so that it reads as follows: "Depending on the type, 1 location of a develepynent eYa*;~notts- stip e#ing r-ep efts-Fnay-b be r-equir-ed. The pekeies-in this seetien detail both general and speeifie An application is deemed complete when all of the required items and supporting reports provided in sections 15.2 to 15.14 are submitted The policies in this section detail specific requirements for the submission of various supporting reports. Other reports may be required by other sections of this Plan." 3. On page 289, revising the CITY POLICY informational side note for section 15.2 so that it reads as follows: "CITY POLICY l mspaet-Reperts Pre-submission Coiisultation " 4. On page 289, revising the CITY POLICY informational side note for section 15.3 so that it reads as follows: "CITY POLICY Complete A.PPlication" 3 9'1 5. On page 289, moving the existing CITY POLICY informational side note of section 15.4 to a new section 15.5C, and adding a new CITY POLICY informational side note for section 15.4 as follows: "CITY POLICY Peer Review at Applicants ExOense" 6. On page 290, replacing the CITY POLICY informational side note for section 15.5 that is now renumbered as section 15.5A, introducing a new CITY POLICY informational side note for new section 15.56 so that they read as follows: 15.5A "CITY POLICY Rewired Studies or an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium Approval" 15.56 "CITY POLICY Rewired Studies-for Site Plan Approval" 7. On page 291, revising the CITY POLICY informational side note for section 15.6 so that it reads as follows: "CITY POLICY A-gdmltural Areas: Supporting Information to Permit Non Agricultural Uses" 8. On page 291, revising the CITY POLICY informational side note for section 15.7 so that it reads as follows: "CITY POLICY cem~ m," Rural Areas: Supporting Information for ' Non Agricultural Uses" 9. On page 291 & 292, revising the CITY POLICY informational side notes for sections 15.8 and 15.9 so that they read as follows: 15.8 "CITY POLICY Environmental Environmental Reports Required" 15.9 "CITY POLICY Evaluation Reports Required within Natural Heritage System" 4 .9 10. On page 292, revising the CITY POLICY informational side note for section 15.10 so that it reads as follows: "CITY POLICY Environmental Reports: &~eeeption Exem tion for Agricultural User" 11. On page 294, revising the CITY POLICY informational side note for existing and now revised policy section 15.12 that is now renumbered as section 15.126, and adding a new CITY POLICY informational side note for section 15.12A as follows: 15.12A "CITY POLICY Supporting Information for Lands within 500 metres of a Known Waste Disposal Site" 15.126 "CITY POLICY Environmental Site Assessment" 12. On page 294, revising the CITY POLICY informational side note for section 15.13 so that it reads as follows: "CITY POLICY Noise, Vibration, Dust, Li ht Sae and Odour Studies" 13. On page 140, revising the CITY POLICY informational side note for section 10.22 so that it reads as follows: "CITY POLICY Noise, Vibration, Dust, Li ht Sa e and Odour" IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. 5 APPENDIX III TO 9 3 REPORT PD 16-09 DRAFT BY-LAW TO REQUIRE PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING 94 BY-LAW NO. L?,q,44,,F7 Being a by-law to require consultation with the City prior to submission of applications for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plans, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium WHEREAS Subsections 22(3.1), 34(10.0.1), 41(3.1) and 51(16.1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13 authorize municipalities to pass by-laws to require land use planning applicants to consult with the municipality before submitting applications for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plans, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium; WHEREAS Council wishes to have applicants discuss planning applications with City staff before the applications are submitted to the City, to ensure that the appropriate studies and other requirements are completed to the satisfaction of the City, prior to final submission; AND WHEREAS Council wishes to provide City staff with an opportunity to determine and provide advice about City submission requirements, and identify to the applicant which agencies and senior levels of government will need to be consulted before an application is deemed complete; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Applicants shall consult with the City's Planning & Development Department prior to submitting requests to amend the City's Official Plan or zoning by-laws, and prior to submitting applications for site plan, plan of subdivision or plan of condominium approval. 2. Planning applications submitted to the City prior to a required consultation meeting will not be accepted as Planning Act applications or processed by the City until after the consultation meeting. 3. If an applicant is proposing to, or is required to, submit more than one application for planning approval in support of a single development proposal, a single meeting with Planning & Development staff can satisfy the requirement to consult. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of , 2009. David Ryan, Mayor Debi A. Wilcox, City Clerk APPENDIX IV TO REPORT PD 16-09 95 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT cn cu -0 Z/~Cl) cu ° o c E ~ 7 6 0 N 7 N a A- N t~ (6 O "j c o V U _(D 0) c c Q O . a. E c ca ca O - cm 4: c N c E- a) N cn U c :3 U Q Q O Co :3 v° °-O U E ~QV v E aE cu 0 4-- a (n o a-V V co U o~~ ~75 aE Q~ ca o- QU) a~ O .o E cn a) o~ a) CU E w a) ~ c~ aai Q-~ vi o-0 a C: M 0 -0 C: cu 'Z, - CL cn r- m -0 c C. ca N cu E° o c c L~ o 2° a~~ E~ c ~'c aNi cm vi-CcncE0-0 E~w m °a~Q.--rn `O-~0 -o c00- a)oma ~cnE0-ruCL :3 inC 5C a) a) W En M c a) c ~•o o M c -0 E 0 3.~ D o a m o M CD CU m E N c -0 -r-= N E Q cc4 ~Q 0~ a) -(Dr -0 o C -.e 0 C 0 ocn(Dc>voic*>,cazca CL E~~cavi~a) a) 0) cu E c: a) (D z E 0) CL z-- c .2 ca o ° ca (1) a) (B cn ~ c U U U) -v a) N Q E ca a) EE -0 u) 0 c~oE~-0 =s .2 ~ 0 CL Cr U) c>3 U o a• o > U ~I~-Ea?Mo m°u m Q°uciQ Qa- Q~ V ^ ^ d N O CL O a) w ° L. a _ _0 o~ o cu.C: NQc° c: 0 a- Lo a) -0 E > a) LZ C: O o ~N LrQO4 ° 'a c 0 N c+ m ap ° C r a> o Q~ ~~a~ 0 v~-0 cn aD > CL c >N o LO U ° avi = O a o, c mV a m = QCU -0 c a) c ~ u Urr O q (D (D m E L) E c: cu CL (0 LO cu O a-0 o o a ULo O c U O L =C3: c cu ( r o6 U) U a) a) a) O a) -1- M a) E p) E L O> m z U L m~r >Za. (U 4.1 Lo . 0 _0 LO (D )-o c: >'O cn V.O 0 err a) c6 O oU) U U) c cn 4- U) O +O+ C p a 0 p_0 N c a) p N .r E rn. cu 0) U p U-0 c r co =3 =3 Q a. 0 U) U) c cn m can cn U) a - C. N N U) d ~ m d L W +O+ d H E i = C~ -a = c U m `0O a) - O 0~ V c O E r N O V 9 7 o ca Ft c 0.- cu C 4- f6 cn U C O O Cf) (1) L70- cn C C _r_ 4 O> N 0 0 C) -C a) C C a) i U cu cu 8 ID -0 cu (D CU q-- M -0 a) CL 75 W U (u cu . 06 a) . O C C_ O • U = N O C 0-1- C (D -0 LO c a) 0 0 cu 4) D ='ov.C ~~vioaLZ'3Va~i~~ ~cQcn O o a c c C Imo- p m M N vi c Q a) o a) C -a j a) O ~ O.- a~ c U O a) a) E a)U-) a)C: w a- a) oo~coi0~a) ~c.ML c a) a) a) -c o c 'O 5 ai C C_ cn ~n c m~e cn c a/•~ ca c O a) N CD 3: 0 p C 0 m m a) U 'Q.. J O L i L 4-- O Q) a L C_ JS -C (n o 0 Q ~ . 4 p Q p U C N. C (C6 N a) fl- CO L CL O a) O v- a) OE O OC U O N> > C a) o m m O-a a) e4`m~ a) L6 m c a) a) acca~c m4- d. tt: aj - N U ..a p > O f0 ~ O ~ U C m cu a) C C_ U) C_ N a) m c o) U C +r a) o N V C o a V a) a) U a) a) O C C Q "O a) a) a -c-0 cn 0 a) U Q(n ~H+).~33mENrcanca0-(n f--Cv 0 ~ N O O CL = _ 3 ~ a E cn a) a) CU CL 0 0 a) m ON =a o~ =a)~ 0c0 > o cn o _ cn CD O E ~ c > 0 O to O o ca) M ~_~a) w 3 U > o a -5 ig ~ a) U x" m N ~L D a) MQ 0-0 O d C a) C a) N (a O y ~'~J_ L " x a) "5 4- U) E a) Rf a) C p a) C CO :3 c0 -a _ a- Y a- -r- a) E C c in a C a) (n -C (D O ` cn C V ~ t C a) 0 0 cn .r te a O cn E c3° OWm.x C_a) C V O ca C_ ~ 3 -o a) c N c 0 q? V E~ C_ c C_ 0 ~ c- cu m 4- -F cn =3 (n ~0.. O C C V O D U cC .c E U (n Q) cn ) a :3 a) a) a`)mo ~COC .~'UL m c N _ ~ • U H M C_ M C~ U C cLf O O C_ U cl N m m d d ~ m 0) a) c F- E f- c E o c C_ J - ~ O O 0 7--a > N ev c o N am mC< c d E cri 0 0 a) U a) O) S -C N O. Rf 'p 5 N L C 3 C 3 O L- a) c6 a) vi O -v c° ate) c O ~ c3o -C `n c E~ C o o- a) 0)(0 m c O M C' m cn L O m N E cn c 0 cn co m m a) Cli U Q'• L 0 E-0 • ` 4O cn L a) +r C0 C U O a) C: ` :3 a) c N M Q d a) O O LL U O C a (0 .O Q a) Q- 0• U w C ~O U 4- CO CO Q, C O m x 0) E L- Q N C a. ' C N U O~ a) 7 V C O U U~ 3 cv d y C>._ U c C R3 V +M O O CD a) C -am (6 O Q 0 M O _C U a) M C~ 'O m a c -a a) "p O Q" m= c o Q' cn 0 Q~ . V a) O Q C E a- -C _ C E m Q N y 'r- CL N• V C LO N O- C N= O C Q a) E O Q ~ to O 0 Q O C 0 ~ N m m -EL Q N a)°0-0 o- E m a) L Q-~3 4-- LE5 Umo~oa~i~ -0 O M -a o~ ° cn c CO O c n U, c ca c C _ C EL L. U N a) c O r- ~ ai .4 CU O (n M + c a) a) a) -o a) 76 ui (Q a) CL a) E c E a)Ma)Eoo rnUa)>.~c>,>,c.~~?oc a) o'cnCV; 0 .2)= cL o n~omacc0) E cm o)wEE =Uc~~O«9cnCL ~F--D _0ma) cacaE0-Em Q Q~c~E 0 CL (n c a) i- a E3cn c U) d 2.2 c6 m O c (n 0 -0 a) CL (0 D-o -ac- o EL C :3 :3 a) a) ch -a Qa)cn a) UED- QE c d~ cn LE a) m a) O C cn > U c a) vo) ca t/ U p 0--D N O 5= C O O C O O - ,a)a 0 Q. ~°Ec`a E 75 L6 -(n 0 U - d: J cn ea C) E O ~ C N ~ O N -La V o a) -v p- cv a) a) -C C= O C C a) O V V "p v) VcA~ ca) p C ~ oV o > U a) c M U) C Q CD co r a) r L ~ d NO N E E E O ca E ~ V i c CL 3 d oCL o c d E 0 U L a) / O cu 0) -O c0 U c a) E C: U) L Y a U) > a- c N U c p O O a fB N E o_ d p y U) 0 L- p 0 C U 'a O' Fu c c °a C: N c o d y p L 3 U rn E L a) c -C L C L a=) ~°-,0-a 0,2 om E cn > y N _0 a Q p c6 c E L -a a) p a- -C FL 3`E ~a)cc E ea ~ o -6 C 4- .w X 0 a) T CD alai M L) ~ a) (D _ y O p Q :-vim cm Q 0cn aXi 0 N C Y) to C'O y O p L y w- -a -p N O a) N O cu a) M C: L. a) O y 'y V 01 U y U) 'C p O cu d o O> y m Q cn Cc r O c4 cn cu -0 3: y ? a) c 0 CU m N Q a p~_ cfl CL r- C: 0 FL a O N :3 '0 co co 0 E = N (ti U c O 4) 4" m -0 U) 0 cu E cu 'E3 0- 0 - m >a) Lm p ~CU L0 cusp- cu = L O a) U) y> v O Q /d = m p O o U) *5 R V a a) > cu a, U- u 0 U) Q O L 0.0 c a) 5sc cn° ~Q-a) -L p wEEO CO -~e O a) Ey O y x- t O cu p O (D U OU Q .O V d c6 7 > Ur-) ~ o~ y Ca m a L E :3 EEo=°E u.cE(~D:: L-c m.2 cum; coU) -0 =E X02 E CL M CL :3 a co 4w V = N _ -C a d N N ~-V c: Lo cY a) OO fl .O p" L" O > O L c c M> L c c 0 cu N c 0 O-0- Q O a) L O 0 0 O cn O d; U .00 V- u) O- c c C.) cn CD !E )~Q 0=ccn ~s -C ECU x N a _ v)Ocu v)cn:z cu u)>3 f-¢Ea) O Q N M t d r L LL O V O V 1 00 _ ~ (1) -a -a 3: 0 =.-L Cu a) (1) fu a) 0 0 0) U ~ - Cu 4- U) 0 +r O -O . N T O V f CU n O U= O- (6 -C (n O C c a Cu U N O)-a CO "O N D= U O> Q R) 30 OU U) 22 V O 0 N O 'E O.. "O U N N • D O U 0 CO N= Y 0 U O cv N U c -C -0 C (6 (D a" (6 Cu a p m O =3 - 'O C 0 L- 0 C: 0 3: C: -0 (n C-5 7o E N -O 0) ~ > -0 (n c "O 0 O N C a) ~ Cu . O N (6 N N U N c o N a ` o O E a O N c = u) aL+ E 0 O 1 E E :3 (n N N a) N N O _A L E cn c 0~ a O Q) O c O > .V O O C O ~C O Q N 0 c Q- O M~ N r U +-r Cu m N L Q O mc N0c~ C N a'' t~ (0 c a Cn E Cu " o CU 0 O Cu 0 3 m o~ a c It Cu c_a E- 0::3 L- -r- OC)) CL C: L) m E ~ c ~ oc a~0y= ca)a Qc 0 (n Cu CU FL Cn U) co t .2 o E -0 a) 24E °'aL(n0 a) a-70aa) CL a) '-o.CCc c'ia`~i4-(D Cu a) a) x 0 0-75 cu 0 QcA.. F- o 0+r 2..E ° W M 0 o M Q Qca4- U 0 O N O N CL Q) a` -0 0 -v.Na CL c E 0 2 a) ca _ O N U) o Q0 O c~ a~ o V 0 a o O 0 -C 11 0- '0 =3 -C 0 0 o :3 W CD N N E O 0~ 4 CO w a) (D "a O E- -a 2D CL -0 m Cn -0 =3 c N a) C: L a) a) Ci E a v EQ = O O O o U) U^ o cu w p) ' Q.. -41 c O c - (!1 N C a" O - O c c - o Q. C U) cv to -a O O -a > N ( N 4- } 4 E ~ ~ 0 U N U _U U) (D C cn 0) 0 E 4- CL -0 :3 a ~ (6 N w mCL :3 -0 w % N O :3 DL m O ^ ^ CL r (V U) d r L O -a C d G N c U) C O F- E E 0 - cc Q M ~ E moLa) O 7-OB E cL E .c o o c o U ~~UI-U c a~ E L6 0 0 a) 101 cu LO c a) E y U C ` O - N CU O a) E Q ~ C _N ~ a) a N ~a o a- a a) O ~ m N O C. O d ~ c ~ 0 0 c E E CD > U CD CL m CU E E m U N E a) U m c~ N ~ N E a~ C E O O p Q. U cu N m ` 0 E E~ E m U o U •L c a) U o U) C d E 6 O U APPENDIX V TO 1 0 2 REPORT PD 16-09 PROCEDURES FOR PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION MEETINGS City of Pickering Procedures for Pre-Submission Consultation Meetings In order to fulfill the proposed requirements and provide consistent administration of the pre-submission consultation meetings, the following procedures are proposed: • The purpose of the meetings is for staff to advise a prospective applicant what information and studies will be required at the time an application is submitted to comprise a `complete' application; • The proponent will be advised that if confidentiality is requested, staff shall keep the proposal confidential; • Planning & Development staff will arrange the meetings at no charge to the prospective applicant; • Staff will request a preliminary summary, concept or sketch of the proposal ahead of the pre-submission consultation; • Staff may waive requirement for pre-submission meeting for low impact proposals; • Staff will invite appropriate City and outside agency staff, circulate preliminary proposal and invite applicant to a Civic Complex meeting; • Invited City staff may include Planning, Development Control, Building, Fire Services, Municipal Property & Engineering and Office of Sustainability staff; • Invited outside agency staff may include Conservation Authority, Region of Durham, Provincial Ministries, utilities, railways and similar agencies staff; • The list of studies/information required and the terms of reference/guidelines of each required item will be scoped/limited to the scale and complexity of each proposal at the meeting, if possible, or subsequent to the meeting; • Where known, the applicant will be advised if studies will require peer review; • Planning & Development staff will provide a record of the conclusions of the meeting shortly after the meeting, with a copy to participants; and, • If necessary, more than one pre-submission consultation meeting may be required. ATTACHMENT#__1__TO REPORT# PD 2 2 1 Q 4 City o~ I KERIN INFORMATION REPORT NO. 21-08 FOR OPEN HOUSE ON October 21, 2008 AND PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF November 3, 2008 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: City Initiated Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 08-002/P Requirements for Complete Applications and Pre-Submission Consultations City of Pickering (Pickering Official Plan Review) 1.0 BACKGROUND • The Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 51) introduced a number of changes to the Planning Act including a number of additional planning and development control tools for municipalities. • One objective of the current Pickering Official Plan Review is to introduce new policies to use the additional planning and development control tools for municipalities made available by Bill 51. Complete Applications: • Among the new powers provided by Bill 51 is the ability of a municipality to require studies to be submitted at the time that applications are submitted and to refuse consideration of applications if these studies are not submitted: in other words, if applications are not `complete'. This complete application provision applies to official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, consents, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium. However, since the Region of Durham is responsible for consents, policies for consents will not be proposed by the City. • To avail itself of these powers, the City must include in its Official Plan the requirements for 'complete' applications. These provisions should document the information that the City will need to review an application. ATTACHMENU TO Information Report No. 21-08 REPORT# PD 16 U 2 Page 2 QJ • Although not specifically enabled by the Planning Act (Bill 51), other municipalities have extended provisions for complete applications in their official plans to include site plan applications. Pre-submission Consultations: • The Act also provides a municipality the ability to require applicants to consult with it prior to submitting applications for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plan approval, consents, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium. • In order to require such pre-consultation, a municipality must pass a by-law to do so. The Act does not require a municipality to include such provisions in its Official Plan, nor does the Act prevent such provisions. Official Plan Review: • The Official Plan Review draft workplan sets out a three-year study process to amend the Pickering Official Plan through a series of seven amendments. The first amendment listed in that workplan will implement Bill 51 and the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2005). • Staff now proposes to take earlier advantage of those Bill 51 powers for complete applications and mandatory pre-submission consultations by proceeding with an amendment for this purpose first. The amendment to implement the remainder of the new powers introduced by Bill 51 and requirements of the PPS, 2005 will be forwarded using the Council approved consultation process for the rest of the Official Plan Review once Council has approved the revised workplan and consultation program. • Staff is currently reconsidering aspects of the consultation and visioning aspects of the Official Plan Review program, prior to forwarding a revised workplan for Council approval. • Since this amendment is part of the Official Plan Review, the Planning Act requires that an Open House be held in addition to the requirement for a Public Meeting. It also requires that notification of these consultation meetings include the proposed amendment to the official plan. • Accordingly, an Open House is scheduled to be held October 21, 2008, commencing at 7:30 pm, a Public Meeting is scheduled for November 3, 2008, commencing at 7:30 pm, and a copy of the proposed draft Official Plan Amendment has been included in the notices mailed to everyone who requested to be advised of Official Plan Review meetings. Information Report No. 21-08 ATTACHMENT# TO Page 3 ii- n6 REPORT# PO ft 2.0 OFFICIAL PLANS AND ZONING BY-LAW 2.1 Durham Regional Official Plan • Although the Region of Durham adopted Amendment #114 (ROPA #114) as a major part of its recent Official Plan Review, the Regional Official Plan does not provide policy directives for lower-tier municipalities to implement complete application' requirements in their Official Plan, or require `pre-submission consultations'. • The Region has recently adopted its own official plan amendment and by-law to require planning applications submitted to the Region (i.e.: Regional official plan amendments, consents, etc.) to be complete and to require mandatory pre-submission consultations before applications for Regional approval are submitted. 2.2 Pickering Official Plan • Although the current City of Pickering Official Plan provides criteria for specific studies required to be provided during the consideration of different types of planning applications, it does not specify that such studies must be submitted at the time that the applications are submitted to the City. It also does not currently require a pre-submission consultation for planning applications. • Chapter 15 of the current Pickering Official Plan lists various studies that are required and, in many cases, the specific study requirements. • In some cases these study requirements need to be revised to conform with the Greenbelt Plan or ROPA #114. For instance, ROPA #114 applies stricter permissions regarding uses in Prime Agricultural Areas. These restrictions affect issues that should be addressed in required studies that support applications in Agricultural Areas in the City of Pickering. 2.3 Pickering Zoning By-laws • The subject Amendment will not have any implications for the Zoning By-law. 2.4 Other Pickering By-laws • The City adopted By-law No. 6763/07 in May, 2007 to delegate to the Director, Planning & Development, the authority to deem applications for approval under the Planning Act as 'complete'. • A draft by-law to require applicants to consult with the municipality prior to submission of planning applications is attached to this Information Report as Attachment #3. Staff will recommend that Pickering City Council adopt such a by-law to come into effect at the same time as the proposed official plan amendment to require complete applications and mandatory pre-consultation prior to submission of planning applications. Information Report No. 21-08 ATTACHMENTS®TO Page 4 1 REPORT# PD_ ~ ~ O ~ 3.0 DISCUSSION 3.1 Advantages of New Policy Directions Complete Application • Requiring specific studies to be submitted as part of a development application is a tool to strengthen implementation of Provincial policies and municipal priorities. • Including such provisions in the Official Plan will offer greater certainty for the applicants. • It will also allow City staff to have adequate information and time to comprehensively assess the merits of an application. • Requiring studies to be submitted early in the process also contributes to greater transparency and accessibility to information for stakeholders, as all documents submitted to the municipality will be available to the public. • It also front-loads the planning process in that necessary information is provided up-front, leading more certainty during the process. • An application would be deemed to be complete when all required information has been submitted to the City. • The time periods in which an applicant can appeal to the OMB would not begin to run until the application is deemed complete by the municipality. • However, an applicant can bring a motion to the OMB to dispute whether a notice from the municipality that an application is not complete or whether a notice has not been received within 30 days of submission of an application is reasonable. • In addition, new provisions in the Planning Act restrict evidence before the OMB to only the information and material that was previously provided to the municipality with the application. This places the onus on applicants to ensure that municipalities have all relevant material and expert reports in support of development applications when submitted. If new information is still introduced at the OMB, the Board must refer the application back to the municipal Council to reconsider the application. Pre-submission Consultation • Requiring consultation with City staff prior to submission of a planning application will require earlier engagement with City staff and with agency staff such as Conservation Authority, the Region of Durham or other interested agencies, thus allowing staff more time to understand the possible impact of a proposed development on a range of possible public policy concerns. • It offers an opportunity for City and agency staff and other stakeholders to identify concerns and issues earlier in the process. • It also provides City staff with flexibility to scope or add to the standard list of required studies for a complete application depending on the complexity of the application and to scale the extent of required studies to the anticipated impacts of each particular application. ATTACHmm TO Inform attio~n Report No. 21-08 REPORT# PD _v Page 5 3.2 Review of Approaches of Other Municipalities • As Attachment #1 (Table 1 - Complete Applications and Pre-Consultation Provisions of other municipalities) illustrates, there are a number of interesting similarities amongst the approaches of other municipalities to complete application requirements. • Most municipalities have chosen to include pre-submission meeting requirements in their official plans even though it is not required by the Planning Act. In many cases they have linked that requirement with the complete application requirements. • As well, many municipalities have used the pre-submission requirements to both scope the list of required studies as well as add to the list of studies. This approach has a great deal of merit, as the scale, impacts and complexity of each application varies and as such the number and type of studies will vary as well. • In terms of the studies required as part of a complete application, most municipalities list those studies in their Official Plan, while a few include them in separate schedules or appendices. • There are generally two different approaches to the list of studies themselves: one is to use a standard list of studies for all applications and rely on the scoping provisions to tailor the study requirements; and the other is to have separate lists for each type of application. Staff recommends the former approach for Pickering. • Not discussed in Table #1, but a requirement of many of the municipal official plan amendments is the requirement that applicants agree to pay for peer reviews of the applicant studies and legal support of an applicant's case at court or the OMB. This is becoming a standard practice throughout Ontario, and there is merit in clarifying the intent of the City of Pickering in this regard in the Official Plan. 3.3 The Proposed Pickering Official Plan Amendment • The proposed amendment is attached to the written notices of the Open House and Statutory Public Meeting sent to City Councillors and staff, agencies and utilities and anyone who requested notice of any Official Plan Review matters. The proposed amendment, including informational revisions and policy changes to the Pickering Official Plan is attached to Information Report No. 21-08 as Attachment #2. • The purpose, location and basis of the proposed Amendment and Informational Revision explain that changes are proposed in order to implement new powers provided by Bill 51 to require that planning applications be complete when submitted and include all required information and studies as determined at a mandatory pre-submission consultation meeting with City staff and interested agencies. This applies to applications to amend the official plan or zoning by-law and for plans of subdivision and condominium and site plan approval. This provides a standard list for all applications to be scoped at the pre-submission consultation meeting. ATTACHMENT 0 Information Report No. 21-08 REPORT# PD /6,-0 Page 6 109 • Items 1 and 2 of the proposed amendment include revisions to several informational paragraphs that precede the policy sections. Informational side notes are proposed to be amended for most of the policy sections. • Although the Planning Act does not require a municipality to include provisions to require a pre-submission consultation in the Official Plan, a number of municipalities have done so, largely to make it clear to applicants of the municipalities requirements. Including it in the Official Plan also gives the municipality the ability to scope the studies that are required under the complete application provision. This has been added as section 15.2 as shown in Attachment #2 (also see Attachment #3 for the draft by-law to require pre-submission consultations). • Item 3 requires that applicants pre-consult with City staff to establish which studies must be submitted with their planning applications and that additional studies may also be required later, during the processing of applications. • Item 4 lists the types of information that must be submitted with the application, including a completed application form, record of the pre-submission consultation meeting, all required fees, a peer review and legal fees agreement and all required studies. • Item 5 specifies that, applications will be deemed complete once all required items are submitted to the satisfaction of the City. • Item 6 lists up to 30 possible types of studies that may be required to accompany applications, with the studies required for each specific application determined and scoped in the mandatory pre-submission consultation meeting with staff. • Some existing policy sections that address agricultural reports and rural servicing studies refer to applications for settlement expansions (Sections 15.6 and 15.7) that are no longer permitted by the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Other sections need to be brought into conformity with the Greenbelt Plan, Provincial policy and Regional policy in terms of their wording and scope. Items 7 and 8 of the proposed amendment address these conformity issues. • Item 7 provides the criteria/objectives for required agricultural reports; while Item 8 provides the objectives required for site suitability studies required for proposals for non-agricultural uses in rural areas. • The Greenbelt Plan provides a minimum distance for development or site alteration adjacent to key hydrologic and key natural heritage features that are located within the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Plan. In such instances, a natural heritage evaluation and hydrological evaluation is required. Policy change is required to add these studies in addition to an Environmental Report. Items 9 to 13 of the proposed amendment addresses these conformity issues. • Items 9, 10 and 11 explain the criteria for environmental reports while Item 12 introduces requirements for natural heritage and hydrological evaluations for features within Natural Heritage System lands designated in the Greenbelt Plan. Item 13 provides a minor exception for farm related buildings. Information Report No. 21-08 ATTACHMENT#_~_TO Pa e 7 IEPORT# PD. 9 • Item 14 continues existing required elements to be addressed in an environmental report. • Item 15 revises technical wording for studies that would assess the impact of lands close to known waste disposal sites. • Item 16 introduces minor technical revisions to current provisions for environmental site assessments of lands suspected of being contaminated. • Items 17 and 18 revise wording to add light and safety studies to current requirements for impact studies whenever noise, vibration, dust and odour are generated or new or expanded uses are proposed within the impact areas of such nuisances. Item 19 proposes the inclusion, in an earlier section of the official plan, of light, as a matter that can impact the enjoyment of people's properties. • Finally, Item 20 clarifies that the need for retail impact studies will also be determined through the pre-submission consultation meeting with City staff. 3.4 Other Implications • The City should prepare standard terms of reference for studies not currently addressed in the Official Plan. Such terms of reference lead to products that meet the requirements of City and agency staff and address an appropriate level of technical analysis. This can lead to more responsive applications and quicker application review times. • It is also recommended that the City prepare a standard fees agreement to require that the costs of any necessary peer reviews of required studies or legal and related consulting costs for City support of an application at a court or the Ontario Municipal Board are paid by the applicant. • The peer review cost agreement may be triggered for many of the studies that may be submitted since the City does not have the expertise to review studies such as environmental, hydrogeology and some other types of studies. Outside consulting assistance may be required to review such studies. The application fees however are not sufficient to cover the costs of retaining outside consulting assistance. • Requiring an applicant to enter into a fees agreement to cover peer review costs as part of the complete application requirements provides the City with resources necessary to undertake a thorough and complete review of each and ever application. • Staff will consider whether a fee should be charged for the pre-submission consultation meetings and protocol established for scheduling and other administrative aspects of such meetings. 4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 4.1 Resident Comments None received to date; Information Report No. 21-08 ATTACHMENT# _ ~ TO Page 8 REPORT# PD..~. S5 111 4.2 Agency Comments None received to date; 4.3 City Department Comments None received to date; 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 5.1 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority • Region of Durham approval of this City initiated amendment will be required, as this is part of an official plan review. 5.2 General • Written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; • Oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; • All comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; • If you wish to reserve the option to appeal the decision on this Amendment, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; • If you wish to be notified of Council's adoption of any official plan amendment, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 6.0 OTHER INFORMATION 6.1 Attachments 1. Table 1: Complete Applications and Pre-submission Consultation approaches of other municipalities 2. Draft Informational Revision and Official Plan Amendment 3. Draft By-law to require pre-consultation ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner - Policy Manager, Policy SG:jf Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development 1 1 ATTACHMENT# TO Excerpt from L,ty o~ REPORT# PD Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, November 3, 2008 7:30 pm - Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Littley (II) PART `A' - INFORMATION REPORTS 1. City Initiated Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 08-002/P Requirements for Complete Applications and Pre-Submission Consultations City of Pickering (Pickering Official Plan Review) A public information meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above noted application. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Development Review gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Meeting under the Planning Act. She also noted that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City before by-laws are passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Ontario Municipal Board, and may not be entitled to be added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Steve Gaunt, Principal Planner, Policy, gave an overview of the City initiated amendment to the Pickering Official Plan. No members from the public spoke in opposition or support to OPA 08-002/P. 1 ATTACHMENT#. -TO Gaunt, Steve REPORT# PO 0 9 113 From: greyeagleO [greyeagleO@sympatico.ca] Sent: October 14, 2008 8:35 PM To: Gaunt, Steve Subject: Seaton Attn Steve Gaunt Steve I recently received your Notice of Open House On Tuesday October 21 regarding the Pickering Official Plan Amendment. Why would I attend the meeting as there has been no real consultation process and to be quite frank with you your City Council couldn't plan a party never mind a subdivision. All I have received from your Mayor and certain Councillors is slander and deformation of my true character when in the beginning it was myself that came to Pickering to educate the ignorant and stand up for Mother Earth and First Nations history and culture. Steve greed is a really sick disease and I will not be a part of your seriously flawed attempt at destroying Seaton forever. May the great spirit have mercy on your sad souls. David Grey Eagle Sanford greyeagle(a-sympatico.ca I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter We are a community of 5.5 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 52 of my spam emails to date. The Professional version does not have this message 1 ATTACHMENT#TO 3EPORW PD 114 To: Steve Gaunt, Principal Planner, Planning Dept., City of Pickering Debi Wilcox, City Clerk, City of Pickering From: Carolyn Huston, 898 Antonio Street, Pickering L1 W 1T3 Email: carolyn.huston@,sMMpatico.ca Phone: 905-837-9426 Re: Draft Amendment and Informational Revision to the City of Pickering Official Plan Date: October 291h, 2008 Dear Mr. Gaunt and Ms Wilcox I wish to make the following comments and additions to the above document. 1. In. keeping with the City's policy of transparency and accountability as well as with a code of ethics, the introduction of third party, independent qualified experts should be considered. 2. The step outlined above would resolve the perception, fairly or unfairly held in some instances, that the City's Planning Department is nothing more than a `rubber stamp' mechanism for developers. 3. It would also resolve the belief held by many members of the community that the City, in allowing developers to use their own experts, has given developers an exceptional amount of power over the views and wishes of the general public. In effect, the City has allowed the fox to be in charge of the chicken coop. 4. These third party, independent qualified experts could be chosen through tender and/or lists developed by the Planning Department, in conjunction with established, professional associations for engineers, conservationists, etc. 5. To maintain integrity and fairness, parametres could be set limiting time lines and costs so developers do not feel that they are being gouged or their projects are experiencing undue delay. 6. In addition, all costs associated with these third party independent qualified experts are to be paid for by the developer. This way, the City and the taxpayer, are not responsible for these fees. If developers disagree with the independent qualified expert's opinion, then the developers can always go to the OMB. ATTACH MENT#_ 2- _.___TO 9EPORT# PD & - a 15 The following are my specific suggestions and additions (changes are in bold face): 15.2 The pre-submission consultation meeting and any other government agency or public authority or community association that the City determines appropriate. 15.4 and d) aforementioned qualified consultant, peer reviewer and appropriate professionals as outlined in a), b) and c), respectively, shall not be employed by or under contract with the applicant and shall also be independent of the City's Planning Department and all other City employees. 15.6 When considering, City Council shall require an Agricultural Report prepared by a qualified expert not employed by or under contract with the applicant and independent of the City's Planning Department. 15.7 When considering the approval of non-agricultural uses in the Rural Area, City Council shall require a site suitability study prepared by qualified experts not employed by or under contract with the applicant and independent of the City's Planning Department. 15.8 require the submission and approval of an Environmental Report prepared by qualified experts independent of both the applicant and the City's staff members, 15.9 shall require a natural heritage evaluation and hydrological evaluation to be prepared by qualified experts independent of both the applicant and the City's staff members. 15.12A (a) is carried out by a qualified engineer not employed by or under contract with the applicant and independent of the City's Planning Department and/or engineers on staff; 15.13 On lands affected by noise City Council shall require an appropriate study to be prepared by a qualified expert not employed by or under contract with the applicant and independent of the City's Planning Department and/or engineers or other experts on staff. ,ATTACHMENT# -To 1EPQRT# PO 116 15.13 © (iii) both the vibration study and the railway corridor safety study be prepared by qualified experts not employed by or under"contract with the applicant and independent of the City's Planning Department and/or engineers or other experts on staff. 15.14 Outside of the Downtown Core, City Council require a retail impact study prepared by qualified experts not employed by or under contract with the applicant and independent of the City's Planning Department and/or other experts on staff. ATTACHMENT# S TO ~tEPORT# PD ~ ;1 November 20, 2008 Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planning and Development Department City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering ON Mr. Gaunt: The Regional Municipality Re: City Initiated Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan - of Durham Requirements for Complete Applications and Pre-Submission Planning Department Consultations (Pickering Official Plan Review), File: OPA 08-002/P 605 ROSSLAND ROAD E The purpose of the official plan amendment application is to implement policies 4T" FLOOR for complete applications and mandatory pre-consultation in accordance with the PO BOX 623 Planning Act and Bill 51. The remainder of Bill 51 will be implemented through a WHITBY ON L1 N 6A3 CANADA future amendment as part of the Pickering Official Plan Review. 905-668-7711 Fax: 905-666-6208 The proposed requirements for complete applications applies to Official Plan E-mail: planning@ region.durham.on.ca Amendments, Zoning by-law amendments, plans of subdivision, plans of condominium and site plan applications. This amendment also proposes to add www.region.aurham.on.ca policy to the Official Plan to provide for mandatory pre-consultation for planning A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP applications. Commissioner of Planning Schedule E - Table E8 of the Regional Official Plan outlines the Regional requirements for complete Regional planning applications. Additional requirements for planning applications in the Regional Official Plan that should be part of the Pickering requirements in policy section 15.5A include: 0 contamination management plan for development in high aquifer vulnerable areas; containment management plan for development in proximity to a wellhead protection area; • rental housing conversion study for development that will facilitate the .conversion of rental units to condominium tenure; and • watershed/sub-watershed study for development on a case by case basis as required. Also, proposed policy 15.5A(xix) should include a requirement for a Record of Site Condition for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning by-law amendments, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium. Proposed policy 15.5B(xvi) requires an RSC for site plan applications and similar policy wording should be specified for the other planning applications. Similarly, proposed section 15.12B should reference that a Record of Site Condition be required for development that has undertaken a Phase II environmental site assessment. Proposed policy 15.13 should include sections for a noise and vibration study for development within 1000 metres of a railway yard as required in Schedule E - Table E8 of the Regional Official Plan "Service Excellence for our Communities" 100% Post Consumer ZTACHMENT# TO 3EPORT# PD 11 The remainder of the requirements for complete applications appears appropriate. The proposed mandatory pre-consultation by-law is appropriate. In accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000 this application is exempt from Regional Approval. Please advise the Commissioner of Planning of your Council's decision. If Council adopts the amendment, please forward a record to this Department within 15 days of the date of adoption. The record should include the following: • two (2) copies of the adopted amendment; • a copy of the adopting by-law; and • a copy of the staff report and any relevant materials Please contact Dwayne Campbell, Project Planner in this Department should you have any questions or require additional information regarding this matter. v Kai Yew, MCIP, RPP Manager Current Planning Copy: Regional Works Department - Pete Castellan DEC-11-20013 14:10 DPOI S LLP 41636578E6 7 ATTACHMENT DAY IS '3EPORT# PD /3 -0 19 LEGAL 9 I RS SINCE 1892 1892 LLP FROM THE OFFICE OF Chris Burnett DIRECT LINE 416.365.3502 DIREC-FAX 416.177.7407 E-MAIL obarncttadavis.ca FILE NUMBER 690&6-00001 December 17. 2008 DELIVERED BY FAX Mr. Steve Gaunt Principal Planner - Policy City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON LIV 6.K7 Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: Information Report 21-08 _ Requirements for Complete Applications - Proposed Official Plan Amendment We act on behalf of i;unnymede Development Corporation Limited and.Tribute Communities, and their related entities with respect to land they own in north-east Pickering. We have had the opportunity to review the above referenced report, and reel: one clarification we believe is important in understanding the proposed process with respect to complete applications. As we understand the proposed process, applicants seeking Planning Act approvals will be required to consult with the City prior to the submission of their applications. The pre- submissions consultation will include a review of what studies will be required in order for the City to consider the application to be complete for the purposes of the Planning Act. We believe it is the intent of the City that it be satisfied with the scope of the reports prior to the application being considered complete, and not that it be satisfied with the substantive conclusions contained within the reports. However, the proposed land age of the implementing official plan amendment is not entirely clear. Section 15.4 is proposed to read: "City Council shall require all of the matters set out in Section 15.3, 15.5A, and/or 15.5B to be completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to the City accepting the application as complete." (emphasis added). This language appears to leave open the possibility that the City must be satisfied with the substance of the reports themselves, as opposed to their scope, prior to the application being considered complete. If this is the intention, we take the position that this is contrary to the inttriL of the Bill 51 Planning Act amendments, which are not intended to give municipalities the ability _ Davis u.a, 1 First Canadian place, suite 5600, P,O. Box 367, 100 King Street West, Toronto, ON Canada N15X 1 E2 ~ww,~,davis.ca TORONTO VANCOUVER MONTREAL CALGARY EDMONTON WHITEHORSE TOKYO YELLOWKNIFE DEC-17-2008 14 11 DAVIS LLP 415365716,86 P. 0:3,0 3 A17ACHMENT# TO 12 0 DAVIS I LLP IEPORT# PD /en D Pa<oe 2 of to evaluate the substantive conclusions of reports as part of the detennination as to whether applications are complete. We ask that this point be clarified, and if necessary, the language of section 15.E be amended so there is no ambiguity in this regard. We also note that proposed policy 15.3 (e) states that an application will not be accepted until a fee agreement has been entered into with the City, to cover peer review costs and legal costs if the City appears in stpport of the application at the OMB. Such a requirement falls outside of the intent of the amendments to the Planning Act which allow municipalities to set 'complete application' requirements. These requirements are, we believe; intended to be directed towards ensuring that the municipality has the information it requires, and not to requiring fee agreements to be entered into prier to accepting applications. We therefore request that this requirement for a complete application. he deleted. We also request notice of any decision with respect to this proposed official plan amendment. Yours truly, DAVIS LLP Per: Chris Bamett CMB/cmb TOTAL P.03 JRN-23-2009 16 13 DRU 1 S LLP 416365 ees P. 92.l p3 4TTACHMENT#~TD ?EPDRT# PD ry LEGAL A DAYIC V SINCE 1892DVISORS Lt_P I FROM THE OFFICE OF Chris 3arnett DIRECT LINE 416 365,3502 DIRECT FAX 416.77 7407 6UAIL cbarnet[rdavis, u FILE NUMBER 49147-0001, January 23, 2009 DELIVERED BY FAX Mn Steve Gaunt Principal Planner - Policy City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: Information Report 21-08 Requirements for Complete Applications - Proposed Official Plan Amendment We act on behalf of Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, and its related entities with respect to land it owns in Duffin Heights and Seaton. We are writing on its behalf to comment on the proposed complete application official plan amendment currently being considered by staff.. As we understand the proposed process, applicants seeking Planning Act approvals wil~ be required to consult with the City prior to the submission of their applications. The pre- submissions consultation will include a review of what studies will be required in order for the Citv to consider the application to be complete for the purposes of the Planning Act. We believe it is the intent of the City that it be satisfied with the scope of the reports prior to the application being considered complete, and not that it be satisfied with the substantive conclusions contained within the reports. However, the proposed language of the implementing official plan amendment is not entirely clear. Section 15.4 is proposed to read: "City Council shall require all of the matters set out in Section 15.3, 15.5.x, and/or 15.513 to be completed to the satisfaction of 'the City prior to the City accepting the application as complete." (emphasis added). This language appears to leave open the possibility that the City must be satisfied with the substance of the reports themselves, as opposed to their scope, prior to the application being considered complete. If this is the intention, we take the position that this is contrary to the ini'ent of the Still 51 Planning Act'amendments, which are not intended to give municipalities the ability Davis LLP, 1 First Canadian Place, Suite 6600, P.O, Box 367, 100 King Street West, Toronto, ON Canada N15X I E2 w,mv.davis.ca TORONTO VANCOUVER MONTREAL CALGARY EDMONTON WHITEHORSE YELLOWKNIFQ 7pKYO 3RN-23-2009 16:13 DW IS LLP 4163657866 P.03 03 ATTACHMENT DAYIS "F 3EPORT# Pp 1 2 2_ Page 2 of 2 to evaluate the substantive conciusions of reports as part of the detenraination as to whether applications are complete. We ask that this point be clarified, and if necessary, the language of section 15.4 be antcnd:~d o there is no ambiguity in this regard. We also note that proposed policy 15.3 (e) states that an application will not be accepted until a fce agreement has been entered into with the City, to cover peer review costs and legal costs if the City appears in support of the application at the OhfB. Such a requirement falls outside of the intent of the amendments to the Planning Act which allow municipalities to set 'complete application' requirements. These requirements are, we believe, intended to be directed towards ensuring that the municipality has the information it requires, and not to requiring fee agreements to be entered into prior to accepting applications. We dlerefore request that this requirement for a complete application be deleted. We also request notice of any decision with respect to this proposed official plan amendment. Yours truly, DAVIS P Pe Chris Barnett CIMB/cmb cc: Rodger Miller TOTAL P.03 ATTACHMENT#-L-TO 9EPORT# PD 23 November 5, 2008 r , 011 y Mr. Steve Gaunt, Principal Planner City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 RE: Proposed Official Plan Amendment OPA08-002P to Establish Complete Application Requirements & Pre-Consultation Prior to Submission of Development Applications The Building Industry and Land Development Association is in receipt of the proposed Official Plan Amendment to establish Complete Application and pre-consultation requirements as necessitated by Bill 51, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act. We anticipate that this exercise, as required by Bill 51, is essentially a codification of existing City processes. Therefore, we trust that there will be an intent to maintain a level of flexibility, and to act reasonably when dealing with development application approvals. BILD has been following similar exercises being conducted by other GTA municipalities, and is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposed process for the City of Pickering. BILD recommends the following: Section 15.5A: "City Council shall require the following materials and studies The list of material that the City indicates will be required for a complete application is quite lengthy and inclusive. BILD recommends that a clause be added to this section which recognizes that there will be different requirements for different applications, and which makes reference to studies being required of the applicant if and only when they are related to the project. In keeping with the principle that one size does not fit all, BILD recommends that the wording of this section be revisited to better reflect that not ALL studies are always necessarily required, and that those requested of the applicant shall be relevant to the specific application. Wording could be included in this section so that it reads, "City Council < < delete "shall"> > < <insert > > MAY require the following materials and studies, < <insert> > which should be appropriate and in keeping with the scope and complexity of the application... prepared by...." In keeping with this same principle, BILD also recommends the same wording be included to Section 15.513. 1 2 4 ATTACHMENT# TO 3EPORT# PO I With reference to Section 15.4: "City Council... may require a peer review at the applicant's expense..." This statement that the City may require a peer review of any report or study appears to be excessive. As written, it allows the City to retain outside expertise when the same capabilities may exist in- house. BILD recommends that this clause be narrowed to provide that the City be permitted to hire a peer review limited to technical reports, and/or in circumstances where it does not have sufficient in-house expertise to review a necessary study. In addition, BILD requests that the City reconsider the requirement to have all peer reviews conducted at the applicants expense as this is an additional and unnecessary cost burden. It is hoped that the spirit and intent of Bill 51 requirements are recognized with the proposed OPA. In keeping with the principle that one size does not file all, BILD recommends that the City ensure the wording of the proposed OPA reflects the following: • that the studies requested of the applicant be relevant to the specific application • that the scale and scope of any required report/ technical study is dependent on the scale and scope of the proposal. BILD requests to be kept apprised of any changes to staff's proposed amendments to the complete application and pre-consultation requirements prior to final Council approval. We trust that you will take our comments under advisement and look forward to providing additional input as the City moves forward with the preparation of additional administrative amendments to the planning approvals process as required by Bill 51. Sincerely, Paula J. Tenuta, MCIP, RPP Director, Municipal Government Relations CC. Glen Murphy, Chair, BILD Durham Chapter o» 20