HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 46-00 (2)c,�,e� ' 005
REI�vRT TO COUNCIL
FROM: Neil Carrolt DATE: December t I, 2000
Director, Planning & Development
REPORT NUMBER: PD 4G•00
REVISED
SUBJEC7': Review of thc Durham Regional Oflicial Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Council advise the Region of Durham that there is a need to review the
Durham Regional OCficial Plan and suppons the Region continuing wilh this
initiative;
2. That Council endorsc Reporl Number PD 46•00 (Reviscd) and request that the
Region of Durham nddress Ihe issucs rnised in Report Number
PD 46-00 (Rcviscd) in its revicw of lhc Durham Region•rl Officinl Plan; and,
3. That Cauncil dircct the Ciry Clcrk lo fonvard a copy of Report Number
PD 46•00 (Reviscd) lo the Region of Durham.
ORIGIN:
The Regional Planning Committcc, nt its May 23, 2000 mecting, invited public input on the nced
to review thc Durham Rcgional OUicial Plan and directcd that Regional Commissioncr's
Rcport 2000-P�43 and the background paper enlilled "Regional Oflicial Plan Rcview, First
Slcp — Issues", be circulatcd to nrca municipalitics and other inlereslcd stakeholdcrs for review
and comment.
AUTHORITY:
The P/anning Act, R.S.0.1990, chapter P.13
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
No direct costs to thc City are anlicipated as a result of the recommendations contained in this
report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY;
Ou April 15, 2000, Regional Council endorsed n two phased approach to tl�c mvicw of thc
Durham Regional ORciul Plen. As pnrt of tha first phnse, tiic Rcgion of Durhnm is seeking
comments on the nced for a review of its OlTiciul PI¢n, wld.;h was adoplal in 1991. Rcgional
Planning has repoAed on a proposed proccss far lhc rcview, and pmscnled u background rcport
lhat includes a summary of the wrtenl status of thc Officiai Plnn, changcs thnt huve oceurrcd in
tha Region sinco 1991, and an ouqinc of fve specific policy issucs suggcstcd for rcvicw nnd
poasible rovieion to ihe Durhwn Plnn. In uddition, Rcgional Planning Commiuec held a stntutory
meeting to hear commente on thc need to rovicw thc Rcgional Plun.
,,
Qns Report to Council PD 46-00 (Rovised) Date: Dceember S, 2000
Subjcet: Revicw of Durhnm Rcgional Ofliciel Pian Pagc 2
Pickering Planning & Development Department staff have reviewed the background report and
tho Durham RegionuiAfficinl Plan. Staff believe thal review of tho Regional Plan is nceded at
this time to address the five policy issues identified by Regional Pianning, to incorporate
Uansporlation system und policy changes that are thc subject of the ongoing Durham Mobility
Study, to update population and employment Ggures and projections, and to address a number of
other issues,
It is further suggested that the Durham Regional Of6cial Plan be reviewed to either remove
policies that duplicate udopted local official pinn policies or othenvise clarify that some Regional
policies are not to be applied where approved local policies are in place. A general upgrading of
the Durham Regional O�cial Plun is suggesled to present n more progressive image for ihe new
millennium.
StaR'supports the review of lhe following policies as suggcsted by Regional Planning:
• growlh;
• urban fortn;
. commercial structure;
• Oak Ridges Moraine;
. non•furm rural developmcnt; und,
• the transportation policia and system.
Other issues identificd by Pickering staff for review include:
• review and updata of housing policies to rc(lect changcs to Provincial legislatiun and
programs;
• considerotion of removing urb^.n separator designations Gom the major open space
syslem;
• specific dcsignations for a future cxtension of Clemcnts Road in Ajax, Finch Avenuc
west of Altona RoaJ and Townline Road north of Finch, Dixie Road, and lhe Geeway to
frecway conncctor belwecn Highway 407 to Highway 401; and,
• n number of technical issucs listcd in lhe Icchnical appendix (see Appendix n.
In addition, it is suggested that thc study process be altered lo provide local municipalities with
an opporiunity lo provide input to the Jiscussion papers, and with the opportunity to obtain
Council comments on them, prior to their adoption by Rcgional Planning Committec.
BACKGROUND:
1.0 Overvtew
l.l Need For A Review
The current Durham Regionel Official Plan, which replaced the 1976 Plun, was adoptcd by
Regional Councit in 1991 and approved by the Minister of Municipal Aff'nirs nnd Housing in
1993. The Plunning Act requires municipalitics that hava ndopted official plons, "not less
frequently then cvery five years, to hold a special meeting of Council, open to the public, to
dclertnine the need for revision of the Ofiicial Plan".
On April 15, 2000, Rcgional Cauncil endorscd a two phased npproach ro thc rcvie�v of the
: Durham Plen. Subsequently, on May 23, 2000, Regional Planning Committec rcccived
Commissioner's Rcpart No, 2000-P-43 (see Cammissivncr's Report, Attnchment #1) mid tho
buckground peper "Regionul Officinl Plnn Rcview, Firsl Stcp — Issucs" (see First Stcp Rcport,
Allachmont H2), invited public input on the necd to review tho Durham R�gionel Officiel Plan
(DROP), and direcled that tha reports ho circulatcd to erea municipalitics and odier inlercstcct .
;i
Beport to Council PD 46•00 (Rcvised) Dnte: Decembor S, 2000 Q�"�
Subject; Review of Durham Regional O�cial Plan Pagc 3
atakeholders for reviow end commrnL In addition, a swtutory public meeting to heaz views on
ihe nced for n roview was authorized.
1.2 Pronosed Process For A Review
Regional Planning Report No, 2000•P-03 outlined the proposed method for rcview of thc
Durham Regionol OfTicial Plnn (DROP).
Phase 1:
Phase 1 of the review, intended to idenlify issues for Ihe review, is currently undenvay. Slcps
within Phase I include the following:
• lhe "First Slep" background report;
• the statutory and other public meetings; and,
• a second repod intended to fortn u basis for discussion on the need to review the Regional
Plan, to nnalyte comments received, and to recommend a course of action and work
program for the review.
The Rcgion held the statutory public meeting in June of this year, and over the summcr, held
other public mcetings and reccivcd commcnts on thc need for a review. Curtcnlly, Ihc Rcgion is
reviewing the comments lhat wcro rcceived. Their report on ihe nced to revicw the Durham
Plan, ulong with the analysis of ihe comments rcceivcd, is intcnded to procecd to
Regional Planning Committee in January of 2001. Pickcring's contments contained in
Report PD 46-00 ure inlendcd to providc input lo that report.
Phasc 2:
Phnse 2 of the Plan Revicw program is lo includc a num6cr of discussion papers on significant
issues and to rccommcnd amendmcnts to thc Rcgional Oflicial Plan for the consideration of the
Regional Planning Committec and Regional Council.
1.3 'fhe Region's Proposcd Iss�es For Rcvicw
The "011icial Plun Revicw - �irst Step - Issucs" backgraund report brie(ly discusscs recent
changes to the population, housing, employmcnt, cconomy and n�riculture in thc Region of
Durham and the other Regions in the Greater Toronto Arca (GTA). The report then summurizes
thc struclure und policies of the current Regional Plan, the unresolved issues (deferrals) and
mttendments mada since the 1991 DROP was ndopted, idenlifics othcr Regional initiatives that
will impact on the review of the Plan, and presents five issues as possible arcas for rcview. Thc
five issues identificd for review include:
. growth;
• urban farm;
• commcrcial swcturo;
• the Oak Ridges moraina; and,
• non-fazm rural development.
2.0 Commenls On The Prooased Revlew Of The Durham Realonn) Ofticlal Plan
2,1 GenemlComments
Staffa comments are besed on n revicw of Regianal Rcport No. 2000•P-43 and thc "First Stcps'
background report, thc existing policics of thc Durham Regional OtTicial Plan, and provious
commenta provided by the City on particulnr issues cithcr a[fecting lunds within the Ciry of
Pickering or that othenvise involve planning pollcy issues having nn effect on Pickering.
Reporl to Council PD 46-00 (Revised) Date: Dcccmber 5, 2000
��a Subjxt• Review of Durhem Ragional Officiat Plnn Page 4
A roview of the Durham Regional Otficial Plen is needed at this limc. Neazly icn ycars have
passed since Regional Council adopted the current Ofticial Plan and some dramatic changcs
have occurred in the Region that should ba reflected in changes to tho Official Plan. Population,
employment, housing and economic growth has produced a need to cxumine transportation,
agricultural and environmental systems and other policies lo ensure thcy still guide dcvelopment
properly Cor the future.
In general, there is u considerable amount of duplication of Durham Regional Official Plan
policies with locnl municipal Official Plans. Whcn the Region of Durham adopted ils first
official plan, some area municipalities within the Region did nol have their own olficial plans or
those plans were not comprehensiva. Now, almost all local municipalities have adopted
sophisticated local pinns. The older locnl plans mny not have contained policies to ensurc
appropriate proteclion Cor the nual nreas, and thus, relied on the Rcgional Plan. The Region has
approved new loca�. plans nnd remains the autliority for local o�cial plan approval. It is
suggesled lhat the Region streamline its Plan to become more strategic. This could bc
accomplishcd by ravi;:w of its policies eilher removing those that have been efTectively dcalt
with by local policics, or by clarifying that certain sections only apply in lhe absence of local
policies. Unnecessary policy duplication makcs it confusing for property owncrs, developers and
govemment ofTicials to dclertninc how the different policics affect lheir interests.
A further genernl obscrvalion is lhat lhe Durham Regional Oflicial Plan deserves a gcneral
polishing to rcflect n marc progressivc image for the new millcnnium. Principles to guidc such a
rcfinement should includc un editing to improvc the clarity of ineaning of some of Uie policies,
un upgrading of print•s►ylc, graphics anJ fortnal, prcscntation oCa clear philosophy for thc intent
of thc Plnn and to finc•tunc, strcamlinc, and removc duplicalion in policics.
The proposcd proccss for rcvicw oC thc Durham Rcgional Oflicial Plan is supporlcd as a sound
basis to rcvicw thc policics of thc O�cial Plan gcncrally, although greatcr clarity is requircd in
Phase 2, Spccifically, a local municipal role in preparing nud reviewing the discussion papers is
lucking. Local municipalities should bc alTorded an opportunity to providc input to the
discussion papers bcforc thcir rccommcndations ure adopted as positions of thc Regional
Planning Departmenl. Both n municipal slakcholders mecting should be convened lo providc
input to drnR discussion papers and Ihc discussion papers should 6e circulated for comment of
local Councils before Regional Plann!ng Commillee or Regional Cauncil adopt
recommcndutions that may be contained in the discussion papers. We request thal Qie Region
umend its process accordingly.
Commenls on the policy issues lhat should be revieµ�ed aze presentcd first under thc headings of
the issucs identified for review in tha Region's background �eport, then under issues identified
for review by Pickering in thc same order as thc sections used in thc Durham Regional Ofticial
Plan, nnd lastly under technicnl issues suggested by Pickering in Appendix I to this report.
2.2 The Region's Sue¢ested issues
2.2.1 Growth
On tha growth issue, the bnckground report notes thet since population and employment tnrgets
for 2021 provided in tha 1991 Durharn Plan now appear overly ambitious, these targets and the
urban land designated to support them should be re-evnluated, Pickering ugms that changcd
populetion und employment growth forecasts mcrit a revicw of growth policics.
In order to respond to thc slowcr population and employment growth, howcvcr, it may bc morc
uppropriate to extend the time frnme within which it is projccted to nchievc thc specificd Icvcls
of growth in the Of[iciel Plan rnther than dropping the terget numbcrs and rcdcsignating urbon
land for non-urban purposcs because of tho slowcr growth retes, Providcd urban scrviccs ond
required capital improvements are implemented incrcmentnlly aa development occurs on urban
landa, this ehould not result in inefticient or prcmaturo dcvclopmcnt of Durhem's urbnn arcns.
. , . <.�., ., ,,
Roport to Council PD 46•00 (Revised) Date: December 5, 2000 0�9
Subjcet: Raview of Durham Regionnl Official Plen Pagc 5
2.2,2 Urban Form
On the issue of urbnn fortn, the background report suggests thal a bztter undcrstanding of the
reladonship between transporlation and lund use is necessary since increascd densities and morc
mixed•use development ulong arterial roads could better utilize existing lransportation systems.
Yet, intensification, higher densities und mixed use buildings are not occumng to any significant
degree. Pickering agrees that n better understanding of the mazket forces and the building
industry may Iead to improvcd land use (and other) policy and initiatives.
2.23 Commercial Structura
On the issue af commercial sttucture, the background report notes that there has becn a
resducturing of the retnil economy. There is a need to raview the policies of the Durham Plan,
which nre bnsed on an old commcrcial hierarchy model, to cnsure that community needs for
retailing are addressed. Pickering suppods an evpluntion of the commercial slructure policies of
ihe Durham Regional Official Plan. Grcater clarity on lho Regional interest in responding to
retailing trends is requircd. The current level of detail is unnecessnry.
The spccific uilocntions of relail Ooor spacc permitled in the dif%rent central nrca designations
of the Regional Plan nrc too restrictivc to permit oppropriatc response to market dcmands for
relail spuce in a growing urban area. The concept of'centres' in each neighbourhood nppears to
be being repinced, in some inslances, by a morc lincar pattcm.
2.2.4 Oa;. °idges Marainc
On the Oak Ridges Morninc issue, thc background rcpoA proposcs lhat lhe work done lo date to
prcpazc n co-ordinatcd stratcgy by a partncrship of the Regions of Durham, York und Pecl be
integ�ated into thc Of6cial Plan Rcvicw proccss. Pickering ngrces that A revicw of policies to
cnhnncc the prolection of thc important cnvironmcntnl resource of the Oak Ridges Morainc is
timcly both to dcmonstratc tlu canlinucd importnncc of environmcnlal protection und possibly
an input to a new Provincial policy for the Oak Ridges Moraine.
2.2.5 Non-fartn Rural Dcvclopment
On the issue of non•fnrm rurul devclapment, the background report proposes to confirtn curtent
Rcgional policy by evaluating palicics for severances of retircmcnt lots, surplus farm dwellings
nnd non•fartn uses such as golf courses and country residential subdivisions. Pickering supports
u review of these policies and reminds the Region of a rccent Pickering Council resalution on
this malter,
Lt Februury 2000, Pickering Council recommended approval oC the A. Christ upplication
(OPA 99-OO8D) to amend thc Regianal Plan to enable tha severance of 4 dwellings due to the
ncquisition of non-abutting fnmis. Regional Council implemented this recommendation by
adoption of Durham Plan Amendmcnt 64 on Aprit 20, 2000. However, in conjunctian with the
Christ amendment, Pickering Council nlso recommended that the Rcgion review
policy 12.3.12 oFthc Durham Plan to restrict new residential dwellings on retuined fnrm parcels
to prevent incremenlal frogmentation of agriculturul areas (see Resolution kl7/00,
Attachment #3).
2,2.6 Transportation
Thc backgaund study indicates that the Durhnm Mobiliry Study will exuminc transpodation
issues to guide the Region's tronsportation plans nnd investment. The pur�ose of the Mobilily
Study is to roview the tranaportntion system through a series of working pnpers to dcvclop thc
Region's Trnnsportation Master Plan. The results of the Mobiltiy Study should bc tmnslated into
new trenspodation policies nnd designulions for the Regionol Official Plan. In addition,
rosolution of a number of transpodation issucs nnd desig�mtions, which hnve bccn miscd by
Pickering in the past, hnve becn dekrted until the Durham Mobiliry 5tudy is complcted.
Report to Council PD 46•00 (Rcvised)
� 1� Subject:' Review of Durham Regional0[Eicinl Plnn
Datc; December 5, 2000
Page G
In ils adoplion of the Town oF Ajax Ofliciul Plnn, Regional Council deferted the proposed
deletion of the extension of Clements Rond from Wcstney Road in Ajax to ihc Pickering/Ajax
boundnry for considemtion es pari of the Durham Mobiliry Study. Pickering wnsiders that the
Clements Road extension should remain as a future arlerial rond in thc transportation plans of
both lhe Regional Plan und the Ajax Ofticial Plan as an altemative to Bayly Strcet and
Highwuy 401 for easdwest lraffic between Ajax and Pickering.
On April 10, 2000, Pickering Council requcsted the Region of Durham to redcsignale
F�ch Avenue west of Altona Road, nnd Townline Road south of TauNon Road from
Type'B' arierinl roads to Type 'C' nrtcrial roads in order to shiR theit roles ta a neighbourhood
focus as u result of the Rouge Psuk Neighbourhood Study (sce Council Resolution #58/00,
Attachment #4).
Tha deferrnl of Dixie Road ns n Typc B urteriul road (from Kingston Road north to, and
including, the proposed crossing of West Duffins Creek), should be resolved through the
Durham Mobilily Study nnd implcmented through the review of the Durham Regional0lTicial
Plan. (Horvever, resoluHon of the deferral of that portion of future Dixtc Road north o( t6e
proposed crosslog of West Duffins Creek to Highway 7 sdould be resolve� exped(tiously,
ahead of the Durham M1tobil(ry Study, so that thc Enst Dufftns Arca des(gnal(ons can be
approved.)
Tho locntion of the norlh•south Geewav to Gceway conncctor. betwccn Highwny 401 and
Highway407, is currently dcferted. Its localion should bc confirtned througl� the Region's
officinl plan review since Highwuy 407 is curtently under construction ta Brock Road, and its
easterly cxlension muy be cxpecicd shortly. Pickcring Council, lhrough un carlier tcsolution,
supportcd a connector locntcd cast of Lakc Ridge Road in Whilby.
2.3 Otherlssues Suggested For Review
These issues arc addresscd in lhc same ordcr as thcy appcar in ihc Durham Regional Offcial
Plan.
2.3.1 Environment Policy
The "First Step" background repoA indicates that the Environmentul Impact Sludy Guideline hns
been prepazed to clnrify that cnvironmental impacl studies aze rcquircd for deeclopment
approvals, Policy 2,3.17 of tha Durham Plnn, which requires that the Region conduct such
studies in the evaluation of certain types of devclopment applications, should spccify that thc
Reeion shall conduct the environmentnl impact studies only bc required whcn n
Ragional Official Plan amcndment is necessary.
The envimnmentally sensitive arcas designntions should 6e updated. In addition, Ihe uniqucncss
of the Luke Iroquois Shoreline could nlso bc recognizcd in policy and designated az an
environmentel feawre with npproprinte protections Cor ils associated natural functions.
2.3.2 Housing Policy
Housing policies should be reviewed and updated in response to chnnges to Provincial policies
and programs since the DROP was adopted in 1991. In addition to the items dctailed below,
several housing issues of u technical nature are nddrcssed in thc Appendix to this Rcport.
The recent transfcr of socinl housing rcsponsibilities to the Rcgion suggcsts thut rovicw of relatcd
policies may bc appropriate. Since progrnms and funding for further socinl housing have bccn
tertninated and Regional Housing Stntemcnls were proviously rcquired �ertinlly us a condition of
social hcusing funding in n municipulity, thc Region mey wish to rcviav the nppropriuteness of
tho cuaent policics in subsection 4.2,5, 4,2.6 and 4.2,7, In nddition, sincc lhc Province hus
rcplaced the Lend Use Plnnniug For Housing Policy Statemcnt (LUPHPS) with the t997
Provincial Policy 5tatcmcnt, fudlie� chnngc mny bc wartunted,
Re{wrt ro Council PD 46•00 (Rcvised) Datc: December 5, 2000 Q�_ i
Subjxt: Review of Durham Regional Oflicinl Plnn Page 7
Policy 4.3,5 is supported us n strong policy thut protects rentnl housing from convcrsion to
condominium lenuro as long ns the rental vacancy rate rcmuins below 3%. It continues to bc
npplicable even though the Provincc abnndoned this policy field by its repeal of thc Rental
Housing Protcction Act (RHPA) severnl years ago.
Policy 43.6, which deals with the necessary supporling infonnation for applications for
conversion oC rental unils to condominium, requires umendment or repeul now that the RHPA
has been repealed. No similar policy on conversion of rental units to condominium is contained
in the Tenant Protection Act which replaced the RHPA, parls of the fortner LandlorJ and Tenant
Act and the former Rent Control Act. Since policy 4.3.5 still has force as an oRicial plan policy
to regulate this issue, the Region may wish to revise policy 43.6 to ditecl locnl municipalities in
their implementation of condominium plan approvuls tor existing rental properties, in light of the
agreed-on delegntion of candominium approval to locul municipalities within the Rcgion of
Durhum which is to take effect in 2001.
Policics 4.3.7, which promotes lhe utilization of Federal nnd Provincial programs Cor social
housing for families, scniors and special nceds groups, should bc refocused to urgc thc Fcdcral
und Provincinl govemments lo rc•instate such programs.
It may no longer be necessary for Pnlicy 4.3.8 to upply to tazgets for further social or assisteJ
housing, since the senior govcmments have nbandoncd that program and policy field.
Policy 43.11 (n) shauld bc changcci to rcmove Ihc refercnce lo the fomier LUPHPS and to
rellect the Provinciul Policy Statcmenl provisions that arc now in effcct.
In general, the Regional Plan's housing pollctes should bc strengthened to promotc ev^n
more vlgorously the supply, at e local level, of a range of dousing types, nnd of housing thnt
provldes aftordable owaer�hip. A sustaiaable 6ouslag supply, wh(c6 provtdes choices for
all staga of a resldenl's life cycle, Is crilicnl to t6e Regton.
2.33 F.mployment Arcas
The characteristics of cmploymenl uses arc continuing lo cvolve. The approprialeness of the
currcnl restrictive list of uscs should bc reviewcd. In addition, the udcquacy of thc amount and
location of employmenl area lands should also be rcviewcd.
2.3.4 Major Open Space System
Open Spaca designations that identify lands containing signiftcant ecological fcaturos nnd
functions, as well as lands for urban azea sep:uator purposes are confusing to users.
Consideration should be given to dropping the urban separator purpose from thc major open
space designation, or in the altemative, adding nn overlay designation to identify lands wilh
significant natural features and functions.
3.0 Concluslon
It is time that the Durham Regionul Official Plan undergo a comprehensivc rcview. Rcvicw of
the Durham Plen will allow nn update of statistics and projcctions, nnd u rc-evuluation nnd
amendment, where necessary, of tha policies identified by the Region in the "Ficst Step"
background repoA, transportation policies, and the other issues raised by the City of Pickcring,
other local municipalities and other stnkeholders. ]t provides an opportunity to polish, finc•tunc
and strcamline both the role nnd the fom�at of the Plun. A rcvicw will pcmiit loca� und Rcgional
oflicials and the many other smkeholders to revisit the Durhnm Regionnl0fficial Plnn tcn ycars
aRer its last rovicw.
Pickering requests thut thc maRera miscd in tlicsc commcnts he addrcsscd in th�
Durham Regional Official Plun review. Stnff look fornard to nn oppoKUnity to furthcr discuss
and clerify thcso wmments during the review proccss,
_� _,
�t.
, Repott (o Council PD 46-00 (Rovised) Date: December 5, 2000
��' 2 SubJect; Revicw of Durhum Regional Official Plan Pagc 8
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Regionnl Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2000•P-43
2: Regional Plnnning Hackground Report "O[ticial Plan Revicw — First Step — Issues"
3. Pickering Councii Resolution It17/00 (Christ application)
4. Pickering Council Resolution #58/00 (Finch/1'ownlinc designntion)
prepazed By; Approved / Endorsed by:
� ��� /
Steve Gaunt Neil Carro , cIP, P
Planner 2 Director, ' g& Development
(;������e~�f��
Cntherine L. Rose
Mnnager, Policy
SGICLR/pr
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrativc Officcr
Recommended Cor the considcration of Pickcring
City Council
� ,. . N
�,l e��./3/�0
Th�m J. Qui , Chicf Administ 'vc 0(ficEr
,r
. . . . ,,. ,