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