HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 26, 2004
(I)
(III)
1.
2.
3.
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, July 26,2004
7:30 PM
Chair: Councillor Brenner
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Meeting of June 29, 2004
II
PRESENTATION
The Pickering Old Timers Hockey League will make a pledge of $25,000 to the
Pickering Minor Hockey Association in support of their million dollar commitment
for ice facilities. The Pickering Old Timers Hockey League will present a cheque
of $5,000 as part of that pledge.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 32-04
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 6/03
IBI GROUP ON BEHALF OF 1334281 ONTARIO LIMITED
NORTHWEST CORNER OF WHITES RD AND GRANITE COURT
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 31-04
PLANNING REFORM INITIATIVES
PLANNING ACT REFORM AND IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REFORM: CONSULTATION
DISCUSSION
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 27-04
CHURCH STREET URBANIZATION AND EXTENSION
388270 ONTARIO LIMITED (NOW PANATTONI CANADA INC)
WEST SIDE OF CHURCH STREET, SOUTH OF BAYLY STREET
BY-LAWS TO STOP-UP, CLOSE, CONVEY AND DEDICATE
VARIOUS PORTIONS OF ROAD ALLOWANCES AS PUBLIC
HIGHWAYS
PAGE
1-40
41-147
148-158
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, July 26,2004
7:30 PM
Chair: Councillor Brenner
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(III)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 29-04
DANLU HOLDINGS LIMITED, PLAN 40M-1981
FINAL ASSUMPTION OF PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
159-166
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 22-04
SECTION 357/358 OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT
ADJUSTMENT TO TAXES
167-170
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 22-04
QUOTATION FOR SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF
% TON PICK-UP TRUCK
171-177
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 24-04
FORMAL QUOTATIONS
QUARTERLY REPORT FOR INFORMATION
178-182
PROCLAMATIONS:
183-185
"FALLS PREVENTION WEEK OCTOBER 17-23, 2004"
"SAFE HO~REN WEEK OCTOBt=R 4-10. 2004"
OTHER BUSINESS
(IV) ADJOURNMENT
J
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
1.
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/03, be APPROVED as set out in
the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to. Report PD 32-04, to amend the
existing zoning on the subject property to permit a retail food store and a variety
of office and commercial uses, submitted by IBI Group on behalf of 1334281
Ontario Limited, on lands being Part of Street Parcel of 40M-1334, now Part 1, 2,
and 3, 40R-18421, City of Pickering.
2.
That in accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act and notwithstanding
that the rezoning proposed in the public meeting notice, public meeting report
and the public meeting differs to some degree from that presented in the report of
the Director, Planning & Development, dated July 9, 2004, Report PD 32-04,
such differences are not substantial enough to require further notice and another
public meeting.
3.
That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 6/03, as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 32-04 be
FORWARDED to City Council for enactment.
2
C¿ú¡ o~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 32-04
Date: July 9,2004
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/03
IBI Group on behalf of 1334281 Ontario Limited
Northwest corner of Whites Road and Granite Court
(Part of Street Parcel of 40M-1334, now Part 1,2, and 3 40R-18421)
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1.
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/03, be APPROVED as set out in
the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Report PD 32-04, to amend the existing
zoning on the subject property to permit a retail food store and a variety of office and
commercial uses, submitted by IBI Group on behalf of 1334281 Ontario Limited, on
lands being Part of Street Parcel of 40M-1334, now Part 1, 2, and 3 40R-18421 ,
City of Pickering.
2.
That in accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act and notwithstanding
that the rezoning proposed in the public meeting notice, public meeting report
and at the public meeting differs to some degree from that presented in the report
of the Director, Planning & Development, dated July 9, 2004, Report PD 32-04,
such differences are not substantial enough to require further notice and another
public meeting.
3.
That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 6/03, as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 32-04 be FORWARDED
to City Council for enactment.
Executive Summary: The applicant requests a change to the zoning by-law to
permit a retail food store with an outdoor seasonal garden centre. The property is
located at the north-west corner of Whites Road and Granite Court (see Location Map,
Attachment #1). The applicant proposes a single tenant retail food store containing
approximately 2,800 square metres of floor space (see Applicant's Submitted Plan,
Attachment #2).
Report PD 32-04
Date: July 9, 2004
Page 2
3
Subject Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/03
The Planning & Development Department has no objection to the application subject to
certain conditions, as the application is consistent with the intent of the Official Plan and
may be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The proposed by-law contains a
'(H)' - Holding Symbol that would not allow any development of the site to occur until
such time as the required improvements to the abutting roads have been initiated.
It is also being recommended that additional commercial and office uses be included in
the zoning by-law, in accordance with the Official Plan.
Financial Implications:
proposed development.
No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
Background:
1.0
Introduction
IBI Group on behalf of the owners (1334281 Ontario Limited), have requested a
zoning change to permit a retail food store with an outdoor seasonal garden
centre. The current proposal is a significant revision from the original
development proposal which was an Official Plan amendment and an
amendment to the zoning by-law to permit two connected apartment buildings
containing a total of 145 dwelling units. The applicant has withdrawn their
application to amend the Official Plan and is now only pursuing their application
to amend the zoning by-law in order to permit a retail food store with an
associated seasonal outdoor garden centre. Since the revision to the application
was considered significant, a second formal public Information Meeting was held
on the revised application.
Comments Received
2.0
2.1
Comments on Original Proposal and Prior to Second Public Meeting
A significant number of public comments were expressed on the original
residential proposal. These comments expressed numerous concerns with traffic,
density, compatibility, building massing and appropriateness of the land use.
A working group of neighbourhood residents were formed and met with City staff
and the applicant. The first meeting dealt with the original proposal while the
second meeting dealt with the revised proposal. At the second meeting, concern
continued to be expressed about traffic, noise and appropriateness of the land use.
4
Report PD 32-04
Date: July 9, 2004
Subject Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/03
Page 3
2.2
2.3
2.4
At the January 15, 2004 Information Meeting
Numerous residents appeared at the meeting to voice their opposition to the
proposed food store development and to raise concerns related to traffic, noise,
viability of a food store, wrong use for the property and compatibility with the
neighbourhood (see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes,
Attachments #3 and #4).
Written Public Submissions on the Revised Application
Area residents of the neighbourhood have expressed objection or concern with
the applications. The issues identified in the correspondence are:
. The existing traffic in the area is already at capacity and no more
development should occur until road improvements are completed.
. The subject property is a gateway to the neighbourhood and a more
prominent use/building should be on the subject property.
. The proposed development would not be compatible with the existing
neighbourhood.
Comments have also been received in support of the proposed use noting a
food retail store on the subject property would be beneficial (see Attachments
#5 to #10).
Agencies:
Region of Durham
Planning Department
Canadian National
Railway Properties
- conforms with Regional Official Plan;
- municipal water supply and sanitary sewer are
available;
- detailed comments on transportation will be provided
during the site plan review;
- no Provincial interests identified
(see Attachment #11);
- any proposed alterations to the existing drainage
pattern affecting Railway properties must be approved
byCN;
- the City should consider rail noise, vibration and safety
in the design of the development;
- the owner must install and maintain a 1.8 metre high
chain link fence along the mutual property line
(see Attachment #12);
No other agency that provided any comments has any objection to the subject
applications. Certain technical issues and requirements related to the proposed
use of the site can be addressed during the site plan process, if this application is
approved.
Report PD 32-04
Date: July 9,2004
5
Subject Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/03
Page 4
2.5
City Departments:
Development Control
- has provided detailed comments on the application
noting that certain technical matters will have to be
addressed during the detailed design if this
application is approved (see Attachment #13).
3.0
Discussion
3.1
Proposed Food Retail Store is an Appropriate Land Use
The proposed food retail store use is considered an appropriate use as it
complies with the uses permitted by the Official Plan. The Pickering Official Plan
designates the subject lands as Mixed Use Area - Local Nodes. Permissible
uses within this designation include, amongst others, a variety of residential uses
including apartment buildings and the retailing of goods and services generally
serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods. Mixed Use Areas are
intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest level of activities in the
City. The Pickering Official Plan establishes a maximum gross leasable floor
space for retailing of goods and services of up to and including 10,000 square
metres for development within a Mixed Use Areas - Local Nodes. The
designation of the subject property contemplates a certain level of activity and
intensity when developed.
The applications comply with the Official Plan and represent appropriate
development for the subject lands.
3.2
Commercial Development is Compatible with Existing Land Uses
When reviewing a development application it must be considered whether the
proposal constitutes appropriate land use and can be considered compatible, or
whether its degree of incompatibility can be appropriately mitigated. Matters to
consider for compatibility include: land use designation; policies and intent of the
Official Plan; urban design; and mitigation of any potential land use conflicts.
As noted, the subject property is appropriately designated for the proposed
development and is considered to meet the spirit and intent of the policies of the
Official Plan. The subject lands are located at a gateway to the West Shore
Neighbourhood between existing residential development and industrial
development. A commercial development provides for a logical transition
between these two land uses.
Report PD 32-04
Date: July 9, 2004
6
Subject Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/03
Page 5
The issue of urban design is an important consideration that must be addressed.
This matter deals with massing and design of the buildings. While detailed
building designs have not been undertaken (which is normal for this stage of the
development process) the applicant has developed some preliminary elevations
and building perspectives. If this application is approved, it will be a requirement
that the buildings facing a public view be designed with a high order of urban
design.
The applicant is proposing a buffer strip surrounding the property and proposing
implementation of an edge management plan that will contribute to the
separation of the different land uses.
The proposed development is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Additional Uses should be Permitted at this Time
3.3
3.4
When considering a rezoning application such as the subject one, it is considered
appropriate to permit additional uses that are contemplated by the Official Plan.
The Pickering Official Plan states that properties designated Mixed Use Area are
intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest levels of activities in the
City. The additional uses being recommended for this site will enhance the
marketability and viability of the property as envisaged by the Official Plan. Uses
that are being recommended include office (both professional and business), day
care facilities, financial institution, commercial-recreational establishment, dry
cleaning depot, personal service shop and retail.
No Development should be Allowed Until Road Improvements have been
completed
The major issue that has been identified for this application is the existing traffic
congestion on Whites Road and the related intersections in the vicinity of the
subject property. Additional traffic generators, as being proposed by the subject
application, should only be permitted if certain road improvements are initiated to
reduce the existing congestion and to accommodate the traffic generated by the
proposed use.
It is the City's understanding that improvements to Whites Road in the vicinity of
the subject property are forecast for 2006 by the Region of Durham. It is being
recommended that the zoning by-law amendment contain an '(H)' - Holding
Symbol that would not allow any development of the site to occur until such time
as the required improvements to the abutting roads have been initiated. The
zoning by-law would stipulate that the only permitted uses on the property would
be the existing permitted uses until the '(H)' - Holding Symbol is removed. The
'(H)' - Holding Symbol would only be removed when the required improvements
to Whites Road have been initiated.
Report PD 32-04
Date: July 9, 2004
Subject Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/03
Page 6
7
3.5
Site Planning
A Site Plan Agreement is required prior to development occurring on the
property. The site plan will address such matters as building design, site access,
building location, landscaping, fencing, construction management, site grading
and site services. The site plan will need to be modified in order to comply with
proposed zoning standards and this may have an impact on the building. The
'(H)' - Holding Symbol in the implementing zoning by-law is also proposed to be
conditional on entering into a site plan agreement with the City.
The proposed seasonal outdoor storage related to the outdoor seasonal garden
centre will also be addressed in the site plan agreement.
3.6
Zoning By-law Performance Standards
The amending zoning by-law will provide a list of permitted uses on the subject
site as well as performance standards that must be met by any form of
development. The uses that are being recommended include the requested food
store with associated outdoor seasonal garden centre along with business offices,
professional offices, day care facility, financial institution, retail store and personal
service establishment.
The performance standards that are being recommended include setbacks from
property lines, parking setbacks from property lines, building height, and parking
requirements.
The proposed draft zoning by-law amendment is provided as Appendix I to this
report.
4.0
Applicant's Comments
The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report.
APPENDIX:
Appendix I: Draft By-law
8
Report PD 32-04
Date: July 9, 2004
Subject Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/03
Page 7
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Revised Development Plan
3. Text of Information Report No. 01-04
4. Minutes from January 15, 2004 Statutory Public Information Meeting
5. Resident Comment - Bernie Ikeda
6. Resident Comment - Dawn Gomersall
7. Resident Comment - Lisa Smith
8. Resident Comment - Don Brooks
9. Resident Comment - Susan Sarrazin
10. Resident Comment - Scott Arbuckle on behalf of So beys Ontario
11. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department
12. Agency Comments - Canadian National Railway Properties
13. City Department Comment - Development Control
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
ROS~P. R~
Principal Planner - Development Review
Df~Vr-
Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
RP:ld
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Cou iI
{
nistrative Officer
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 32-04
DRAFT BY -LAW
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 6/03
9
I:
10
ERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law 2511, to
implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham,
Part of lot 19, Range 3, City of Pickering. (A 06/03)
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
permit a food retail store and other commercial uses on the subject lands, Part of Street
Parcel of 40M-1334, now Part 1, 2, and 3 40R-18421, City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2511 is therefore deemed necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCil OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOllOWS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
SCHEDULE I
Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is
hereby declared to be part of this By-law.
AREA RESTRICTED
The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands being Part of Street Parcel
of 40M-1334, now Part 1, 2, and 3 40R-18421, City of Pickering, designated "lCA-
11" on Schedule I attached hereto.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected,
moved, or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this
By-law.
DEFINITIONS
In this By-law,
(1 )
"Business Office" shall mean any building or part of a building in which
one or more persons are employed in the management, direction or
conducting of an agency, business, brokerage, labour or fraternal
organization but shall not include a retail store;
(2)
"Commercial-Recreational Establishment" shall mean a commercial
establishment in which indoor recreational facilities are provided, and
which may include an athletic or recreational club, but shall not include
any uses permissible within a place of amusement or entertainment;
(3)
"Day Nursery" shall mean lands and premises duly licensed pursuant to
the provisions of The Day Nurseries Act, or any successor thereto, and for
the use as a facility for the daytime care of children;
(4)
"Dry Cleaninq Depot" shall mean a building or part of a building used for
the purpose of receiving articles, goods, or fabrics to be subjected to dry
cleaning and related processes elsewhere, and of distributing articles,
goods or fabrics which have been subjected to such processes;
"Financial Institution" shall mean a building or part of a building in which
money is deposited, kept, lent or exchanged;
(5)
D~~ff:::
- 2-
"Food Retail Store" shall mean a building or part of a building in which
food, produce, and other items or merchandise of day-to-day household
necessity are stored, offered or kept for retail sale to the public;
"Gross Leasable Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of all storeys
above or below established grade, designed for owner or tenant
occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding storage areas below
established grade;
11!
(8)
"Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used
or intended to be used as the site of a building, or group of
buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory
buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area,
regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot
or block on a registered plan of subdivision;
"Lot CoveraQe- shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all
buildings on the lot;
"Lot Frontaoe" shall mean the width of a lot between the side lot
lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from
the front lot line;
(a)
(b)
(c)
(9)
"Personal Service Shop" shall mean an establishment in which a personal
service is performed and which may include a barber shop, a beauty
salon, a shoe repair shop, a tailor or dressmaking shop or a photographic
studio, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in section
224(9)(b) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended from
time-to-time, or any successor thereto;
(10)
"Professional Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which
medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation
given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a
chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician, but shall not
include a body-rub parlour as defined by the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c.M. 45, as amended from time-to-time, or any successor thereto;
(11) "Retail Store" shall mean a building or part of abuilding in which goods,
wares, merchandise, substances, articles or things are stored, kept and
offered for retail sale to the public;
(12)
(a)
"Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and
located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open,
uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except for such
accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically
permitted thereon;
"Front Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a
lot between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest wall of the
nearest main building or structure on the lot;
(b)
(c)
"Front Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of
a front yard of a lot between the front lot line and the nearest wall of
the nearest main building or structure on the lot;
"Rear Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a
lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot
line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of
the nearest main building or structure on the lot;
(d)
(e)
"Rear Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of
a rear yard of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where
there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and
the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot;
"Side Yard" shall mean a yard of a lot extending from the front yard
to the rear yard, and from the side lot line to the nearest wall of the
nearest main building or structure on the lot;
(f)
12
D~~f1
5.
PROVISIONS
(1 )
- 3-
(g)
"Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a
side yard of a lot between the side lot line and the nearest wall of
the nearest main building or structure on the lot;
"Flankaae Side Yard" shall mean a side yard immediately adjoining
a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a
street;
"Flankaae Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal
dimension of a flankage side yard of a lot between the lot line
adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of
which is a street, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building
or structure on the lot; and
(h)
(i)
U)
"Interior Side Yard" shall mean a side yard other than a flankage
side yard.
Uses Permitted ("LCA-11" Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated IIMC-18" on Schedule I
attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure
for any purpose except the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
business office;
commercial-recreational establishment;
day care facility;
dry cleaning depot;
financial institution;
food retail store;
personal service shop;
professional office;
retail store;
(2)
Zone Reauirements IILCA-11" Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated "MC-18" on Schedule I
attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter or use any building except in
accordance with the following provisions:
(a)
(b)
FRONT YARD DEPTH REQUIREMENTS
(minimum):
4.0 metres
INTERIOR SIDE YARD WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
(minimum):
1.0 metres
(c) FLANKAGE SIDE YARD WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
(minimum): 4.0 metres
(d) REAR YARD DEPTH REQUIREMENTS
(minimum): 1.0 metres
(e) BUILDING SIZE
(maximum gross leasable floor area, all buildings on
the lands) 2,800 square metres
O~~f1
(3)
6.
BY-LAW 2511
- 4-
(f)
PARKING REQUIREMENTS (minimum):
,A For the purpose of this clause "parking space" shall mean a
usable and accessible area of not less than 2.6 metres in
width and not less than 5.3 metres in length, for the
temporary parking of a vehicle, but shall not include any
portion of a parking aisle or driveway;
13
B
All parking areas and driving aisles shall be set back a
minimum of 3.0 metres from any road allowance;
C
For all uses, there shall be provided and maintained on the
lands a minimum of 5.5 parking spaces for every 100 square
metres of gross leasable floor area or part thereof;
D
Notwithstanding section 5.21.2 (g) of By-law 2511, all
parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt or
concrete, or any combination thereof;
(g)
BUILDING HEIGHT
(maximum):
15 metres
(h)
SPECIAL REGULA TlaNS:
(i) Despite any provision of By-law 2511, as amended, an
outdoor garden centre having a maximum area of 400
square metres is permitted in association with a food store
from April 151 to June 30th of every calendar year, while
providing a minimum of 140 parking spaces on the subject
property.
(a)
Uses Permitted ("(H)" Holding Symbol)
Despite the provisions of Section (1) of this By-law, while the II(H)"
Holding Symbol is in place preceding the "LCA-11" Zone
designation as outlined on Schedule I attached hereto, no person
shall use any lands for any purpose other than those uses
permitted in Section 9.1 of By-law 2511, as amended.
(b)
Removal of the "(H)II Holdinq Symbol
Prior to an amendment to remove the "(H)" Holding Symbol
preceding the IILCA-11" Zone, on the area so zoned, the owner shall:
(i)
provide proof to the City of Pickering that the road works for
Whites Road and Granite Court that abut the subject
property, including road widening and reconstruction have
been initiated by the Region of Durham; and,
(ii)
enter into an appropriate agreement with the City and
receive site plan approval to address, such matters as, site
function (access/egress, traffic aisles, parking locations), site
improvements (landscaping, paved surfaces, road
improvements), and building placement.
By-law 2511 is hereby amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the
provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached
hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law
shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511.
14
7.
EFFECTIVE DATE
- 5-
This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Act.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this
,2004.
day of
David Ryan. Mayor f~
o~~
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0::'
;¿
u'
/
/ /
/ /
/
/
/
E
'"
f!i
'"
ž
~
~
~
'ß
~
(H) LCA-11
5J.8m
JJ.1m
GRANITE COURT
I
I
I
I
0::'
:z:'
u"
I
I
I
I
I
f,
/
\ I /
\ I /
\ I /
SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW
PASSED THIS
DAY OF 2004
D8~f1
MAYOR
CLERK
15
\
I \ \ \
I \ \ \
IV--
.J---
~O~p.
O¥-.~
ü~\'\j€.
l'
N
ATTACHME~TI----L-TO
REPORT # PD~2--04
16
0
«
0
a:::
DRIVE
(f)
w
!::::
I
3::
Planning & Development Department
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PLAN 40M-1334, PT BAYLY STREET, RP 40R-18421, PARTS 1,2,3
OWNER 1334281 ONTARIO LTD. DATE APR. 23, 2003 DRAWN BY JB
FILE No. OPA 03-001 P; A 006/03
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
PN-2
PA-
l'
SCALE 1 :5000
CHECKED BY RP
ATTACHMENT
REPORT # PO
TO
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN
133421 ONTARIO LTD.
A 006/03
17
i
¡¡
§
~
<è~
~
'"
«
a
w
13
II)
a
~
-0
CIJ
0
c:::
en
:ê
J::
3:
~,
~ i
~
22 å
~
ã
in
i
ÆH:!
.ri
,¡.
a::
-
(
l'
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY TH£ CITY OF PICK£RING
PlANNING &c OEVF:lOPM£NT D£PARTM£N~
INFORMATION &c SUPPORT S£lMCES.
D£C£MB£R I, 2003.
ATTACHMENT '"33 TO
REPORT # PO 2-0L .
18
CitJ¡ c~
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 01-04
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
January 15, 2004
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13
SUBJECT:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/03(R)
IBI Group on behalf of 1334281 Ontario Limited
Northwest corner of Whites Road and Granite Court
(Part of Street Parcel of 40M-1334, now Part 1, 2, and 3 40R-18421)
City of Pickering
1.0
PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
- the applicant has amended their application and have submitted a revised
development proposal for the subject lands;
- the subject lands are located on the west side of Whites Road, north of
Granite Court;
- a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1);
- the subject site is triangular in shape, currently vacant; that was previously
owned by the Region of Durham as a potential extension of Bayly Street that
was deemed surplus by the Region and sold;
- as the subject lands were previously reserved as a road right-of-way the site
is vacant and flat with a similar elevation as Whites Road, although the
western edge of the property does fall away to the abutting rail line;
- the property has frontage on both Whites Road and Granite Court;
Bayly Street terminates at Whites Road in a "T" intersection at the northern
portion of the subject lands;
- the subject site is a transitional piece of property in terms of surrounding land
use;
- surrounding land uses are;
north - Whites Road Highway 401 interchange;
south - on the opposite side of Granite Court are residential dwellings
constructed on reversed lots that front an internal street;
east - on the opposite side of Whites Road, is a commercial plaza with
a gas station and residential dwellings constructed on reserve
lots that front an internal street;
west - CN/GO rail line and industrial uses west of the rail line.
Information Report No. 01-04
ATTACHMENT # 3 TO
REPORT # PO 32 - ó4
Page 2
19
2.0
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
- the current proposal is a significant revision from the original development
proposal which was an Official Plan Amendment and an amendment to the
zoning by-law to permit two connected apartment building containing a total of
145 dwelling units;
- the applicant has withdrawn their application to amend the Official Plan and is
now only pursuing their application to amend the zoning by-law in order to
permit a retail food store with an associated seasonal outdoor garden centre;
- the applicant's submitted revised plan is provided for reference
(see Attachment #2);
- the applicant proposes a single tenant food retail store;
- the applicant has also requested that a seasonal garden centre, associated
with the food retail store be a permitted use;
- the retail building is proposed to be sited in the south-west portion of the
property with the service area located along the Granite Court frontage and
the northern portion of the site used for surface parking;
- the buildings front façade and main entrance will be on the north face of the
building;
- the building is proposed to be a single storey;
- the proposed ingress/egress to the site includes: a left out only located at the
northern portion of the site, opposite the Whites Road Bayly Street
intersection; mid-property right-in / right-out along Whites Road; and, a full
turning movement access on Granite Court;
- the site has been designed so that all commercial delivery vehicles will only
be able to enter and exit the site from Whites Road;
- the proposed vehicle access point off of Granite Court is for customers use
only;
2.1
Development Detail
The following is proposed development detail for the revised application:
Durham Region Official Plan
designation
City of Pickering Official Plan
designation
Living Area
Mixed Use Area - Local
Nodes
Zoning
Existing -
Proposed -
R3 (By-law 2511)
Appropriate to permit
proposed development
Vacant land
Food retail store with
associated seasonal garden
centre
Uses
Existing -
Proposed -
20
ATTACHMENT I 3 TO
REPORT II PO .3 2 -01)
Page 3
Information Report No. 01-04
3.0
3.1
3.2
Site area
Building coverage
Gross floor area
Parking spaces provided
Frontage on Whites Road
Frontage On Granite Court
1 .196 ha
23%
2,802 m2
166
119 m
107 m
OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING
Durham Reaional Official Plan
- the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as within a
Living Area;
- the Durham Regional Official Plan states that Living Areas are intended to be
predominantly used for housing purposes while also permitting limited office
and limited retailing of goods and services;
Community and Local Central Areas are also permitted in Living Areas
subject to appropriate provisions and designation in the City of Pickering
Official Plan;
Local Central Areas shall be planned and developed similar to, but generally
in a smaller scale than the Community Central Areas and shall serve the
day-to-day needs of the residents of the surrounding Living Areas;
- the maximum gross leasable floorspace for retailing of goods and services in
Local Central areas shall be 10,000 square metres;
- Whites Road is designated as a Type A Arterial Road and Bayly Street that
comes to a "T" intersection at the northern portion of the subject site is also
designated as a Type A Arterial Road in the Durham Regional Official Plan;
- the applications appears to conform to the designation;
Pickerina Official Plan
- the Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as Mixed Use Area -
Local Nodes;
permissible uses within this designation include, amongst others, a variety of
residential uses including apartment buildings and the retailing of goods and
services generally serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods;
Mixed Use Areas are intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest
level of activities in the City;
- the Pickering Official Plan establishes a maximum gross leasable floorspace
for retailing of goods and services of up to and including 10,000 square
metres for development within an Mixed Use Areas - Local Nodes;
- the Pickering Official Plan establishes a maximum Floorspace Index (FSI),
being the total building floorspace divided by total lot area, of up to and
including 2.0 FSI for development within an Mixed Use Areas - Local Nodes;
- the subject application has a FSI of 0.2;
Information Report No. 01-04
ATTACHMENTI~lP
REPORT # PO - 0
Page 4
211
- the subject property is within the West Shore Neighbourhood of the
Official Plan;
no development guidelines have been prepared for this neighbourhood;
Schedule /I of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation Systems,
designates Whites Road where it abuts the subject lands, and Bayly Street
where it intersects with the subject land as a Type A Arterial Road and
Granite Court as a Collector Road;
Type A Arterial Roads are the highest order of Arterial Roads and are
designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds, have
some access restrictions and generally have a right-of-way width ranging
from 36 to 50 metres;
Collector Roads provide access to individual properties and local roads are
designed to carry greater volumes of traffic than local roads, and generally
have a right-of-way width ranging from 20 to 22 metres;
- the subject applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions
of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications;
3.3
Zonina By-law 3036. as amended
- the subject lands are currently zoned "R3" by Zoning By-law 2511 ;
- the existing zoning permits one detached dwelling on a lot having a minimum
lot frontage of 18 metres;
an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's
proposal;
- the applicant has requested an appropriate zone with appropriate
performance standards that would permit the proposed development.
4.0
RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
4.1
Resident Comments
- this application was subject to a public consultation process for the original
residential development and generated numerous public comments and
objections;
- the formal Statutory Public Meeting on the original proposal was held
May 15, 2003, (see text of Information Report No. 14-03 and Meeting Minutes,
Attachments #3 and #4);
since the first Statutory Public Meeting the City struck and hosted a
neighbourhood working group to consider the proposed development;
- this neighbourhood working group has met twice with the applicant and
discussed the concerns of the neighbours;
- on December 3, 2003, the working group met so that the applicant could
introduce the revised development to the neighbours and listen to initial
comments from the neighbours;
22
ATTACHMENT # 3 TO
REPORT # PO .32. -oq
Page 5
Information Report No. 01-04
4.2
4.3
5.0
initial comments included concerns with traffic, access movements in and out
of the site, construction activity, on-site traffic movements, building
appearance, viability of the proposed use and lack of road improvements in
the area;
no formal written resident comments have been received to date on the
revised application;
Aaency Comments
no comments from any of the circulated agencies have been received to date
on the revised application;
Staff Comments
in reviewing the revised application to date, the following matters have been
identified by staff for further review and consideration:
. ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive
to, surrounding lands;
. the impact the proposed use / site changes may have on the character of
the neighbourhood;
. impact on the streetscape of Whites Road;
. traffic generation, site access and on-site parking;
. building location, massing, height and materials;
. landscaping, fencing, and screening;
. timing of the development, if approved, in relation to improvements to the
abutting roads/intersections;
this Department will conclude its position on the application after it has
received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies
and the public.
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
- 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 the zoning
amendment, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts
any by-law for this proposals;
if you wish to be notified of Council's adoption of any zoning by-law
amendment, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk.
Information Report No. 01-04
J, 11 ACHMENT I 3- TO
REi-'ClRT # PO 32-01/-
Page 6
23
6.0
OTHER INFORMATION
6.1
Information Received
- copies of the applicant's submitted plans are available for viewing at the
offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department;
- the City of Pickering has received the following technical information / reports
on the proposed applications:
. Whites Road / Granite Court Transportation Impact Study, prepared by
IBI Group, dated October 9, 2003;
6.2
Company Principal
- Zoning By-law Amendment application has been submitted by IBI Group on
behalf of 1334281 Ontario Limited;
- the principle of 1334281 Ontario Limited is Steve Margie.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner - Development Review
Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
RP:ld
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
24
ATTACHMENT # .3 TO
REPORT # PO 32 - 04-
APPENDIX NO. I TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 01-04
COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
(1 )
none received to date
COMMENTING AGENCIES
(1 )
none received to date
COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS
(1 )
none received to date
ATTACHMENT # 7' TO
REPORT # PO 32. -tYI
25
Excerpts from
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Thursday, January 15,2004
7:00 P.M.
The Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements
of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and
matters under consideration there at.
(II)
1.
2.
3.
4.
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 06/03
IBI GROUP ON BEHALF OF 1334281 ONTARIO LIMITED
NORTHWEST CORNER OF WHITES ROAD AND GRANITE COURT
(PART OF STREET PARCEL OF 40M-1334, NOW PART 1. 2 AND 3. 40R-18421)
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an overview of
property location, applicant's proposal and City's official plan policies pertaining
to this site, as outlined in Information Report #01-04.
Jasmin Rauh-Munch, 532 Park Crescent, advised that she is a member of the
working group and found that the applicant did listen to the concerns of the
residents. She continues to feel that this corner is suitable to hold a
medical/office building and that any other development would cause further
traffic congestion. The access is limited out of the area and it is the
responsibility of the City, not the developer to rectify this situation by improving
Whites Road. She questioned why the residents did not know of the sale of
this property.
Craig Henry, 1240 Engel Court, stated that the northern part of Whites Road is
considerably different than the south. The south end of Whites Road is not as
wide, has no sidewalks and no ditches. He stated his concern with respect to
the placement of the building on the land, truck access for deliveries, garbage
disposal and the increase in traffic causing further congestion. He suggested
that the building be turned 90° in order that the truck access and garbage
disposal can face the railroad tracks.
Mary Murray, 1311 Gallant Crt., questioned why the Region could not buy back
the land and use it as a merge lane. She questioned the size of the proposed
building and the grocery store to be located there. She stated her concern with
respect to odors, lighting, noisy dumping and deliveries.
- 1 -
26
ATTACHMENT # '-I TO
REPORT # PO .32 - 04
Excerpts from
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Thursday, January 15, 2004
7:00 P.M.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Don Brooks, 696 Atwood Cres., stated his concern with traffic, advising that the
traffic study has a flaw as it assumes that the improvements on Whites Road
have been completed where in truth, the improvements have been delayed for
many years. He commented on the access only off Whites Road, stating that
some residents will attempt to exit from this location also. He suggested that if
Whites Road was widened and a median installed this would not be a
possibility. He advised that he would like to be a participant in the Working
Group.
Lisa Smith, 508 Creekview Circle, advised of her concern with respect to traffic,
construction, noise and the viability of a food store at this location.
Kevin Ashe, 417 Victor Crt., advised that he and Councillor Brenner also have
major concerns with respect to traffic flow. He advised that the status of the
improvements to Whites Road/Granite Court on the Regional Road priority list
is number four.
Heather Pugh, 797 Hillcrest Road, advised of the congestion on Whites Road
and the need for the bridges to be widened. She stated that this is a low end
food store and will become a local hangout. This is not the type of business for
this corner as Whites Road is the gateway to Pickering.
James Claggett, IBI Group, representing the applicant, advised that this site is
subject to a 30 metre setback and although townhouses were considered they
were not feasible due to this setback. He stated that this is a small grocer to
serve this area and that A & P undertook a study to assess the viability and
concluded that this is a viable location and are anticipating a 25 year lease.
Consideration was given to placing the delivery area facing the railroad tracks
but this positioning was not possible due to truck requirements and elevation of
land. He further stated that they would not have a problem with constructing
the median and further advised that the traffic study assumes the completion of
the improvements to Whites Road as they have proposed making the
improvements themselves. He also stating that consideration will be given to
placing the lighting to the back of the building so not to affect the residents. He
was not sure of hours of operation but would check and advise residents at
stakeholders meeting.
- 2-
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
illn
ATTACHMENT' ~ TO
REPORT # PO :~2 -D4-
Excerpts from
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Thursday, January 15, 2004
7:00 P.M.
27
Michelle Fellows, 534 Eyer Drive, stated her concern with increased traffic
along Oklahoma Drive advising of the problems at Eyer and Oklahoma
presently. She requested consideration of four-way traffic lights at this
intersection.
Heather Pugh, 797 Hillcrest Road, stated that it m~y not be feasible to place
townhouses near the railroad tracks but they could be placed along Whites
Road.
Brenda Rappos, 630 Creekview Circle, stated her concern with increased traffic
congestion.
Marion Lundrigan, 1311 Gallant Crt., feels that there are enough grocery stores
in the area and A & P will not survive if the area residents don't want them
there. She stated that this development will cause further traffic congestion.
Jasmin Rauh-Munch, 532 Park Crescent, stressed that a small medical
building/office development would be best for this site. She further stressed the
need to improve Whites Road and install lights on Oklahoma Drive and Eyer
Drive.
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, advised that staff will be
reviewing all comments, will prepare a report for the Executive Committee to
consider and will notify residents when this meeting is to occur, in order that
they may make further comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
- 3-
28
From: Bernie Ikeda [mailto:bikeda@sympatico.ca]
Sent: January 22, 2004 9:06 PM
To: Pym, Ross
Cc: Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Van Staveren, Saida
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/03 (R)
Importance: High
ATTACHMErJT # ___..~TO
REPOR1 # PO 32 - 04
Please see my comments which are attached.
Please inform me specifically how you will address the issues rather than as in the past state that my "comments have
been noted and will be taken into consideration during staff's review of the application".
Thank you.
As indicated in my previous email, my concern is safety of pedestrians and increase in traffic.
Whites Rd is the main access to the Town of Pickering. There are four traffic lights between Oklahoma and Kingston Road, each
within 100 metres apart. There is always traffic congestion during the rush hours.
The proposed Development will attract additional traffic. Food Basic customers who do not live in the area will drive to the
store to buy groceries because of sales or because of their preference for the store. There will be an increase in traffic at
times when there was very little, especially on the weekends. There will no doubt be an increase in traffic along
Oklahoma Drive.
Accessing and exiting the property will add to the congestion during the peak periods when vehicles are:
.
Accessing the property from the west by making a left hand turn into the property along Granite Court
Exiting the property to Granite Court intending to go east by making a left turn on to Granite Court
Accessing into the property from Whites Road from the south by making a left hand turn into the property
Exiting from the property to go north by making a left hand turn or to the south.
.
.
.
Also, there is bound to be accidents as drivers proceeding along Granite Court from the west will not see vehicles leaving
the premises wo intend to make a left turn from the premises onto Granite Court because of the rise in the road as the
vehicle approach the bridge. The same is for drivers making a left onto Granite Court.
The distance from Whites Road to the foot of the bridge on Granite Court is short.
Safety is an issue for students walking to school and for local residents walking in the area. During the day there is the
concern for students in the area who walk to Dunbarton High School and St. Mary's High School. There are students who
walk to Dunbarton High School from the Rosebank area. Elementary students in the area walk to Fairport Beach P.S.
and Frenchman's Bay P .S.. French emersion students are bussed to Frenchman's Bay School using the Whites Road
and Oklahoma Drive route.
From May to September, children and teenagers attend many of the outdoor recreational facilities in the area to
participate in baseball and soccer games. These facilities include Dunsmore Park, Lookout Point Park, Fairport Beach
P.S., Frenchman's Bay P.S., Dunbarton H.S., and St Mary Catholic H.S.. Participants range in age fmo 5 to 19 years of
age. They walk, cycle or drive or are driven by their parents. Also, participants and their parents who live in the area are
going to either these facilities or other facilities outside the affected area to attend games.
No approval for the amendment should be given until Whites Road is expanded and safety and traffic issues are resolved
and it is known that the residential area will not be disrupted by the proposed Development.
ATTACHMENTI3b TO"
REPORT # PO Z - ()lJ.
Page 1 of 1
29
Pym, Ross
From: Dawn Gomersall [gumby@look.ca]
Sent: December 27,20039:43 AM
To: Pym, Ross
Subject: Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A06/03 (R)
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Pym,
Once again, I am writing to express my concern and objection to the proposed by-law amendment as stated in the
subject line above. The traffic on Whites Road is already too heavy and was never designed for the current
volume. I believe it will be very dangerous having a constant traffic flow of shoppers right at an on/off ramp to and
from the 401. The zoning should be industrial for small businesses that have specific hours (for example, 7:00
am - 5:00 pm) to match peak traffic flow. I for one would seriously contemplate moving from this area should this
type of business (with constant traffic flow) be approved.
Sincerely,
E. Dawn Gomersall
797 Oliva Street
Pickering ON L 1 W 2V9
05/01/2004
30
ATTACHMENT#~ ~ TO"
REPORT # PO :z -04 .
Page 1 of 1
Pym, Ross
From: Taylor, Bruce
Sent: January 6,20043:11 PM
To: Pym, Ross
Subject: FW: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A06/03 (R)
For your info.
-----Original Message-----
From: smith2441 [mailto:smith2441@rogers.com]
Sent: January 6, 2004 3:08 PM
To: Taylor, Bruce
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application AO6/03 (R)
Dear Mr. Taylor,
I am writing to you again (see attached below) to express my continued concern over the proposed zoning
amendment. I attended the meeting in May, and at that time I heard that transportation studies had been done by
the City of Pickering which concluded that the current infrastructure doesn't support existing traffic!! This has
only re-enforced my discomfort with the proposed amendment application. Any type of retail outlet is only going
to increase the amount of traffic and congestion in this area. I am strongly opposed to this amendment
application. I hope that you will consider my views when reviewing this proposal.
Yours truly,
Lisa Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: smith2441
To: clerks@city.pickerinq.on.ca
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 6:12 PM
Subject: Att: Bruce Taylor
RE: Planning Application North West Corner of Whites and Granite OPA 03-001 P, Zoning Amendment A06/03
Dear Mr. Taylor, .
I am writing to you to express my deep concern over this proposed zoning amendment. I am strongly against this
proposed amendment. The proposed changes are significantly different than what the property was originally
zoned for, and as a resident of the area I do not want to see apartment buildings being built here. I feel that the
construction of any apartment buildings will decrease the value of the surrounding property as well as increase
the amount of traffic and congestion in this area. This area is already unable to handle the existing traffic coming
off of the 401 - the proposed zoning amendment would only make a bad situation worse. I hope that you will
consider my views when reviewing this proposed amendment.
Yours truly,
Lisa Smith
508 Creekview Circle
Pickering, Ontario
L 1W 2Z6
06/01/2004
ATTACHMENT' 8 TO,
REPORT /I PO 32 - Dl/.
Page 1 of 1
31\
Pym, Ross
From: Don Brooks [brooks.don@rogers.com]
Sent: January 13, 2004 10:31 PM
To: Pym, Ross
Cc: Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor
Subject: Zoning By-Law Amending Application A 06/03 (R)-Whites Rd/Grante Court
I have read the Transportation Impact Study for the above mentioned site, and believe that the report's optimistic
conclusions are not valid.
The report states that under existing conditions, the roadways and intersections in the area are already operating
at or near capacity. The report acknowledges the Region's planned improvements to the Whites Road and the
Whites Rd/Granite Court/Oklahoma Drive intersection. In fact, the report states that "the planned
improvements....will help to alleviate many of the existing capacity concerns at the study intersections and permit
better access to the subject development".
These improvements have been on the Region's agenda for at least 10 years, and keep getting deferred,
especially with the extension of the 407 and the new 401 interchanges. Presently, they are not projected for
many years.
While noting that the improvements are required just to deal with the existing capacity concerns, the report
assumes that these improvements are completed in the computer analysis of the area traffic. All of the results of
this analysis are based on the assumption that the Region will complete and pay for these works in the near
future. The analysis does not compare apples to apples. The report compares a condition today, with an
improved roadway in future. It incorporates additional load by the site development, but assumes that someone
else pays for the improvements necessary to carry that load.
Given that the Region may not complete the proposed roadworks in the forseeable future, the Traffic Impact
Study should be rejected and re-done, based on the existing conditions only. With additional load, it will likely
show an overcapacity situation.
Otherwise, if the study is to be accepted, the developer must financially guarantee that the improvements planned
by the Region are completed prior to the opening of his site businesses.
Don Brooks
696 Atwood Cres.
Pickering On
L1W3W4
brooks.don@rogers.com
14/0112004
ATTACHMENT # é3 TO
REPORT I PO 32 - Ot.¡
Page 1 of 1
32
Pym, Ross
From: Don Brooks [brooks.don@rogers.com]
Sent: January 11, 2004 3:50 PM
To: Pym, Ross
Subject: Zoning By-law Api # A 06/03 (R)
Property: Northwest corner of Whites Road and Granite Court. Part of Street Parcel 40M-1334, now parts 1,2
and 3 Plan 40R-18421
After reading the Notice of a Public Meeting, and the Information Report, I would make the following comments:
. The proposed right in-right out access on Whites Road must be constructed with a centre median in the
middle of Whites Road to prevent illegal use of the entry. The design currently reflects the sensitivity of the
traffic flow on Whites Rd., but it needs to be properly enforced. Only a median will do so.
. The re-design and development of the roadway from Okalahoma to Bayly has been on the Region's list of
Works projects for many years, but keeps getting delayed. Before a high traffic use such as a grocery
store is approved for the site, it is imperative that the roadway be improved as contemplated in the
Region's agenda. It would be appropriate for the developer to pay for these improvements prior to
completion of the site.
. It is important that the building design and street profile be complimentary to the Whites Road viewplane.
The current design presents the rear shipping, and garbage disposal to the residents in the subdivision to
the south. Care should be taken by way of fences etc. to minimize the visual impact on the
neighbourhood.
By making these comments to the City prior to the adoption of the amending zoning by-law, I wish to preseNe by
right to appeal any such decision.
Don Brooks
696 Atwood Cres
Pickering, Ontario
L 1W 3W4
12/01/2004
ATTACHMENT I q TO .
REPORT I PD~2-0t¡
33
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sarrazin, Susan [susan.sarrazin@citigroup.com]
January 19, 2004 4:35 PM
Pym, Ross
Sarrazin, Susan
File #A 06/03 (R)
Importance:
High
January 19, 2004
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario, Canada
L 1V 6K7
FI LE #A 06/03 @
Attn: MR. ROSS PYM
Thank you for returning my call of Friday, Jan 16 '04.
It is with regret that I was unable to attend the public meeting held on Thursday, Jan 15 '04 at
7:00pm at the Pickering Civic Complex regarding this application (#A 06/03 @).
I am writing to you to express our strong desire that this application for a food retailer at the
designated location (NW corner Whites Road & Granite Court) be granted.
My family & I are new citizens (June 2002) in the city of Pickering and have limited access to
nearby amenities. This new food retail location would be extremely beneficial to us and make our
lives much easier.
Please consider this letter our plea to have this application granted. We look forward to a new
store opening.
Thank you,
MR. & MRS. S. SARRAZIN & FAMILY
685 LAYTON COURT
PICKERING, ON
L 1W 3W5
* Would you kindly arrange to send us all future information regarding this file to the address
provided above or alternatively, to my email address: susan.sarrazin@citiqrouD.com
34
Gl:U!I
PLANNERS
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS Be
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS
. Principals:
. ..JI Puopolo, MA. MOp, RPp,
OALA, President
John'Ariens, BES, MClp, RPP
Ed Gazendam, M, Eng" P. £ng,
Sergio Manchia. BA MClP, RPP
John Perks, BASe., MBA P. £ng.
David Sisco, SA MOP, RPP
0 Kitchener
379 Queen St. S.
Kitcheneç Ontario N2G 1 W6
-. IS.: (5 J 9) 745-9455
{: (519) 745-7647
emai/: kitchener@)peil.net
0 Hamilton
360 James St. N.
Suite 200, East Wing
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 1 H5
Toll Free: J -888-719-2793
Bus.: (905) 546-IOJO
Fax: (905) 546-101 J
emai/: hamilton@)peiJ.net
0 Brantford
Bus.: (519) 759-878B
Fax: (519) 759-8796
0 Greater Toronto Area
52 Village Centre Place, Suite 200
Mississauga, Ontario L4Z IV9
Toll Free: 1-877-822-3798
Bus.: (905) 890-3550
Fax: (905) 890-7081
emai/: GTA@)peiJ.net
www.PEIl.NET
ATTACHMENT' 10 TO
REPORT # PO 32 -01./
April 20, 2004
File No.: TP0147
Mr. Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner - Development Review æ ~
City of Pickering u;
Planning & Development Departmß E. eEl V E ~~ ~. ~ O. VJ. n
One The Esplanade \{ 2004 iU
Pickering, Ontario APR 2 8 2004 APR 2 v
L 1V 6K7 NG
CITY OF PICKERING TV OF PIOKER'
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT C\ p\CK!RING, ONTARIO
DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Pym;
RE:
Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application A 06/03
IBI Group on behalf of 1334281 Ontario Limited
Northwest Corner of Whites Road and Granite Court
Further to our discussions regarding the above-noted proposed commercial
development we wish to formally provide the following on behalf of our client,
Sobeys Ontario.
As we discussed, Sobeys operates, under one of its brand banners, a food store
located north of this proposed development. It has been Sobeys experience that
vehicular traffic in the vicinity of Highway 401 and Whites Road, in immediate
proximity to this proposed development has increased at an exponential rate
over the last several years and now results in significant congestion along
Whites Road. As a result, So beys does not feel it prudent or in the interest of
good planning to approve further traffic-generating development such as is
proposed for the subject site in the absence of road improvements which, we
understand, are -scheduled for commencement by the Region in 2006.
We understand that there are some efforts by the proponent to advance this
construction timetable and that the proponent's traffic study is predicated upon
these improvements occurring.
As a result, Sobeys would respectfully request that roadway improvements
concurrent or in advance of the development of the subject site be made a
condition of approval of the zoning bylaw amendment and that same be made a
condition of the site plan agreement pursuant to Section 41 (7) of the Planning
Act.
Thank you for your consideration of our clients concerns. Should you have any
questions regarding the foregoing or require additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
cc.
Ms. J. Shpigel, Development Manager, Sobeys Ontario
(via fax 905. 671.5130)
PLANNING 6. ENGINEERING INITIATIVES LTD.
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning Department
1615 DUNDAS STE.
4TH FLOOR, LANG TOWER
WEST BUILDING
PO BOX 623
WHITBY ON L1N 6A3
CANADA
905-728-7731
Fax: 905-436-6612
mail: planning@
,egion.durham.on.ca
www.region.durham.on.ca
A.L.Georgieff, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner of Planning
"Q
f¡
e Excellence
. Commønities"
...
. ATTACHMENT~JO
REPORT # PO - 0
35
May 12, 2004
RECEIVED
MAY 'I 7 2004
Ross Pym, Principal Planner
Planning & Development Department
One the Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1 V 6K7
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Pym:
Re:
Zoning Amendment Application A 06/03
Applicant: IBI Group on behalf of 1334281 Ontario Limited
Location: Part of Lot 29, Broken Front Concession
Municipality: City of Pickering
We have reviewed this application and the following comments are offered
with respect to the Durham Regional Official Plan, the proposed method of
servicing, and the delegated provincial plan review responsibilities.
The application proposes to permit a retail food store with an associated
seasonal outdoor garden centre. The proposed food store is approximately
2,800 square metres.
. Durham Reaional Official Plan
The subject lands are designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional
Official Plan. Limited retailing of goods and services, in appropriate
locations, as components of mixed-use developments is permitted within
this designation.
Local Central Areas are to be planned and developed similar to, but
generally smaller in scale, than Community Central Areas and are to serve
the day-to-day needs of residents of the surrounding Living Areas. The
maximum gross leasable floorspaceforLocal Central Areas is 10,000
square metres.
Section 9.3.8 of the Regional Plan indicates that prior to the passing of a
zoning by-law, the Council of the area municipality shall require the
preparation of a retail impact study to justify additional floorspace for the
retailing of goods and services. Floorspace additions of less than 2,500
square metres may be excluded from this requirement by the Council of the
area municipality.
Municipal Servicina
Water supply and sanitary sewer service are available to the subject site.
@
100% Post Consumer
ATTACHMENT I ../1 .TO
REPORT' PO ~ .
36
Page 2
Transportation
Transportation comments will be provided through the related site plan
application.
Provincial Plan Review Responsibilities
The application has been screened in accordance with the provincial plan
review responsibilities. No provincial interests appear to be affected by this
proposal.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me.
~:2
,- .
Ray Davies, Planner
Current Operations Branch
cc. Pete Castellan, Durham Region Works Department
R;\rdlzoninglpickering aO6-03.doc
04- 1-15¡14:29 ¡CNRP TORONTO
¡416 217 6774
# 11 1
c:N
ATTACHMENT ,/2 TO
REPORT I PO ~~ 2.. - 0'1
Railway "..tti..
'ropri.. hlrrovia¡ru
37
A~I . C '~nOI
J .!\' ! I) ¿Lr Lj
GIG" Wood.
DewIDpnnt IImnr CeordlllÑl'
c._lIn NltlDnal
277 front SIrI8'I w.t
'1M, I
To..- OnIIIIo
MSY2X7
T."'.: "'11 2'7"'"
'--II: ("1) 21"""
kill: ..."."""'.0
GtOtfWoOdS
Ceordonllllttur-IWYlshln du
dMlo l l8l'118nt
Clnllllln NIeIe",,1
2n, rut front olllft
I'..,.
T,ro'" (0l1li110)
MSV 2X7
T'M,.....: 14111 211.81.,
T6I6co lÌ8ur: "'1} 217-177'
c.urrlot ~~ V E D
CITY OF PICKERING
RECEIVED
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
VIA FAX: 805-420-8685
15 January 2004 p ê ~þ'
Mr. Bruce T~lty Clerk
City ~fJlfct(érlng
ORéÎhe Esplanade
Pickering ON L 1 V 6K7
Your File: A 06/03 (R)
Our File: TZ-4500-~RK'S DIVISION
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Re:
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
Northwest comer of Whites Road and Granite Court
We have reviewed the City's letter received 22 December 2003, regarding the above
noted application, and have the following comments:
,. Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting Railway
property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway and be substantiated by
a drainage report to the satisfaction of the Railway.
2. The ApplicanVOwner must Install and maintain at his own expense, a chain link
fence of minimum 1.83 metre height along the mutual property line.
In addition, rail noise, vibration and safety should be considered in the design of the
development, to the satisfaction of the City.
We request notice of Council's decision.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned at (416) 217-6961.
Yours truly,
Geoff Woods, B.E.S.
Development Review Coordinator
An ACHMENT fI-13..~- TO
REPORT#PD 32.-0~..,.."..
38
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
December 11 , 2003
To:
Ross Pym
Principal Planner - Development Review
From:
Robert Starr
Supervisor, Development Control
Subject
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/03
IBI Group on behalf of 1334281 Ontario Limited
Former Part Street Parcel 40M-1334,
Now Part 1,2 & 3 Plan 40R-18421
Whites Road/Granite Court
City of Pickering
We have reviewed the above noted application and provide the following
comments.
General Comments
1. Please provide a Storm Water Management report that addresses Quality
and Quantity controls.
2. Please provide a Servicing Plan for Storm Water identifying all required
external works. A Development Agreement may be required with the City
depending on anticipated works.
3. Please provide a report addressing site soil conditions and details on any
off-site construction.
4. Please provide a Site Grading Plan. Please note that the City and or other
agencies will not permit pre-grading on the site without approvals as
required.
The City has recently passed a Fill/Topsoil By-law that addresses this
issue. A copy is provided which should be forwarded to the Applicant.
ATTACHMENT' /3 TO
Ross Pym - Principal Planner REPORT' PO -32-DII
Development Review
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A06/03
December 11, 2003
39
Page 2
General Comments conI.
5. A development Agreement with the City will be required for all off-site
works.
6. Please provide an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that addresses
maintenance and inspection- during and after construction (P.Eng.). See
attached copy.
7. Please provide a Construction Management Plan that addresses all
phases of construction and development of the site. See attached copy.
8. Regional approval is required for all works on Whites Road
Site Plan
1. The proposed building location appears to be encroaching on CN Rail
lands. A letter of permission from the railway may be required to build
close to the property.
2. Indicate location of Handicap access to the building.
3. Provide details of how the safety fence and concrete curd will be provided
right on the property line without adversely affecting the adjacent property.
4. A sidewalk is required along Whites Road fronting the site and designed to
connect with the existing sidewalk on Whites Road North of the Bayly St.
intersection. As well, a connection with the sidewalk at the Granite Court
intersection will also be required. This will be the applicant's responsibility.
Urbanization of the West side of Whites Road fronting this site is also
recommended and should be a condition of re-zoning.
5. The City will require a 3.0m road widening on Granite Court from the
proposed daylight triangle west for approximately 80m metres.
6. A taper and turn lane will be required on Granite Court for the entrance off
Granite Court to the site.
7. The existing sidewalk on Granite Court is temporary. A permanent
sidewalk will be required from Whites Road to the bridge west of the site.
Partial removal and/or relocation of the guide rail will need to be
addressed. This project is identified as a development charge project and
the City will fund a portion. An agreement with the City will identify cost
sharing details.
40
ATTACHMENT' /,~ TO
Ross Pym - Principal Planner REPORT # PO -~ 2 -Otf -"December 11,2003
Development Review
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A06/03 Page 3
Site Plan cont.
8. Indicate location of existing utilities on Whites Road and Granite Court.
Coordinate any relocation with the appropriate utility.
9. It appears that cars exiting from the Left Out Only exit could conceivably
go straight through to Bayly St. Provisions to prevent this from happening
should be addressed.
10. All Landscaping features shown on the Site Plan should be removed and
provided for on a separate Landscape Plan complete with a Plant List.
11. Landscaping as shown may interfere with the future sidewalk on Whites
Road.
Transportation Impact Study
1. No specific comments.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Robert Starr
Supervisor, Development Control
RS:ph
Attachment
us.. PIon -oed Basics - While, Rd . Gca""" Court
Copy:
Coordinator, Development Approvals
Technician, Development Approvals
41'
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
1.
That Pickering Council RECEIVE and ENDORSE as its comments Report PD
31-04 on the Planning Act Reform, Provincial Policy Statement and Ontario
Municipal Board Discussion Papers, prepared by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, dated June 2004, EBR Registry Numbers: PF04EOO04 and
PF04EO05;
2.
That Pickering Council REQUEST the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
to maintain the existing provincial policies and legislation where identified, and
incorporate Pickering's recommended changes with respect to each of the
planning reform components: the Planning Act / Bill 26, the Strong Communities
(Planning Amendment) Act, 2004; the Provincial Policy Statement; and the
Ontario Municipal Board;
3.
That Pickering Council REQUEST the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
to release a comprehensive package of reforms for further consultation, which
includes the above planning reform initiatives and the results of other provincial
initiatives, including the Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan,
Transportation Strategy and the Greenbelt Task Force, prior to finalizing the
initiatives;
4.
That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 31-04 to the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Region
of Durham.
42
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 31-04
Date: July 12, 2004
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Planning Reform Initiatives
Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools; Provincial Policy
Statement; Ontario Municipal Board Reform: Consultation Discussion
Papers #1, #2 and #3
June 2004
Recommendation:
1.
That Pickering Council RECEIV1E and ENDORSE as its comments Report PD 31-04
on the Planning Act Reform, Provincial Policy Statement and Ontario Municipal
Board Discussion Papers, prepared by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing, dated June 2004, EBR Registry Numbers: PF04EOO04 and PF04EO05;
2.
That Pickering Council REQUEST the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
to maintain the existing provincial policies and legislation where identified, and
incorporate Pickering's recommended changes with respect to each of the
planning reform components: the Planning Act / Bill 26, the Strong Communities
(Planning Amendment) Act, 2004; the Provincial Policy Statement; and the
Ontario Municipal Board;
3.
That Pickering Council REQUEST the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
to release a comprehensive package of reforms for further consultation, which
includes the above planning reform initiatives and the results of other provincial
initiatives, including the Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan,
Transportation Strategy and the Greenbelt Task Force, prior to finalizing the
initiatives;
4.
That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 31-04 to the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Region
of Durham.
Executive Summary: The Province is currently consulting on the following three
Discussion Papers released in June 2004, on Planning Reform initiatives:
#1 - Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools
#2 - Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies
#3 - Ontario Municipal Board Reform
Report PD 31-04
July 12, 2004
Subject Planning Reform Initiatives
Page 2
43
Comments are required by August 31,2004. Due to the short comment period and the
timing of summer meetings, no opportunity for discussion at a Management Forum was
available.
General comments have been made supporting five key issues of municipal
importance: consulting on and releasing a long-term vision for growth in the
Golden Horseshoe as part of a package of reforms in the near future; permitting
reasonable and responsible expansions to urban area boundaries; supporting the
municipal role in application review and decision making; enabling sustainable
development; and adding tools to assist with intensification and redevelopment. Other
general comments are made on strengthening the Planning Act, strengthening the
Provincial Policy Statement, and clarifying the role of the Ontario Municipal Board.
Detailed comments are also provided in separate Appendices for each Discussion
Paper.
It is recommended that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing consider, and where
appropriate incorporate, Pickering's comments. Further, the Ministry should integrate the
results of the other initiatives, including the Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan,
Transportation Strategy and the Greenbelt Task Force, with these planning reform
initiatives, and release a comprehensive package of proposals for consultation, prior to
finalizing the initiatives.
Financial Implications:
Not Applicable.
Background:
1.0
Introduction
The Province is undertaking a review of planning and development in Ontario.
The review includes preparation of provincial, or area wide plans, such as a
Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan, Infrastructure Priority Plan,
Transportation Strategy, Greenbelt Plan, a Rural Plan, and source water
protection. The review also affects legislation -- such as the Planning Act; policy
-- such as the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS); and other mechanisms -- such
as the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
During the last few years, Council and staff have provided comments on several
planning reform initiatives as follows: in 2001, the City commented on a revised
Provincial Policy Statement; in 2003, Council endorsed the results of the
GTA Task Force on OMB reform; in early 2004, staff commented on Bills 26 and
27; and, in June 2004, Council commented on the Greenbelt Task Force
Discussion Paper.
44
Report PD 31-04
July 12, 2004
Subject Planning Reform Initiatives
Page 3
The Province is now requesting comments on series of three Discussion Papers
addressing: further changes to the Planning Act / Bill 26, the Provincial Policy
Statement, and the Ontario Municipal Board. The Discussion Papers are
provided as Attachments #1 - #3 respectively. Background and recommended
changes to these initiatives are provided on Appendices I - III respectively.
2.0
Discussion
2.1
Staff's main comments are structured around five topics of strategic concern
to the City.
The five topics are:
. Completing a long-term vision for growth in the Golden Horseshoe;
. Expanding urban boundaries reasonably and responsibly;
. Supporting municipal decision-making;
. Enabling sustainable practices in land use planning and development;
. Adding tools for intensification and redevelopment.
Other comments are structured under the following three topics:
. Strengthening the Planning Act;
. Strengthening the Provincial Policy Statement;
. Clarifying the role of the OMB.
2.2
Comments Addressing Key Municipal Concerns
1. Completing a long-term vision for growth in the Golden Horseshoe
Comments are being requested on three important aspects of planning and
development in Ontario. The proposed legislative, policy and other reforms
will implement a long-term vision for the Province - a vision that is not yet
known. As the results of the Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan,
Infrastructure Plan and Greenbelt Task Force have not yet been released,
there is no clear context within which to provide comments. These
interrelated initiatives must be completed, and a comprehensive package of
reforms released for further consultation.
Recognizing land as a valuable asset, a key thrust of the planning reforms is to
provide stronger guidance on urban areas (location, extent of land, and timing
of expansions). However, among the various reform initiatives, it is unclear
whether the Province or upper-tier municipalities will be establishing lower-tier
priority growth areas. Under the introduction section of the Discussion Papers,
it indicates that the Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan will articulate
a long-term strategic vision and identify priority growth areas where new
population and economic investment will be encouraged.
Report PD 31-04
July 12, 2004
45
Subject Planning Reform Initiatives
Page 4
On the other hand, the proposed PPS identifies that upper-tier plans, in
consultation with local municipalities, shall establish growth areas. This
inconsistency should be clarified. Staff supports the latter approach.
In referencing the Growth Management Plan, the Discussion Papers also
state the Growth Management Plan will set the vision for 30 years. Most
Regional Plans, including Durham's, already use a 30-year time frame. A
provincial planning horizon of 30 years is inadequate for provincial
infrastructure planning, and related regional and municipal planning. The
Province should be considering a 50-year planning horizon for its
Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan, and continue to permit
Greater Toronto Area upper and lower-tier municipalities to plan for up to
30 years.
2. Expanding urban boundaries reasonably and responsibly
Staff supports the policies in the draft Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)
requiring a comprehensive review to demonstrate that existing urban-
designated areas lack a sufficient supply of available land through
intensification and redevelopment. The City is already implementing this
policy approach through its Growth Management Study.
There is also support for eliminating, through Bill 26, private landowner
appeals of urban boundary expansions. Staff had previously recommended
that Bill 26 be amended to allow public agencies to maintain boundary appeal
rights. Staff continues to support this change. Staff recommends that the
transition provisions for Bill 26 on urban boundary appeals be consistent with
the proposed retroactive date for the Bill of December 15, 2003.
Staff supports the PPS concept of intensification targets and minimum
densities in corridors but does not support linking this requirement to meeting
minimum densities along transit and other significant corridors, prior to
permitting alteration to the boundaries of settlement areas. The draft policy
ignores the reality that no landowner can be compelled to develop - only
opportunities and requirements for development can be created.
Intensification and redevelopment is not a one-time process, but rather an
ongoing evolution of a city.
3. Supporting municipal decision-making
Another key aspect of the planning reforms is aimed at providing greater
respect for municipal decision-making. Municipalities require realistic time
frames for review of applications and supporting information, and their
decisions must have weight. Accordingly, staff supports the 180-day time
frame before appeal rights are established as proposed in Bill 26.
Report PD 31-04
July 12, 2004
46
Subject Planning Reform Initiatives
Page 5
Staff also recommends a change to the Planning Act to enable a municipality
to broaden the requirement for a complete application. Further, the
Planning Act should require a mandatory "preconsultation meeting" ahead of
application submissions to address anticipated information requirements.
In reviewing the proposed reforms to the OMB, staff recommends that appeals
involve a two-step process to give greater recognition to the municipal role in
reviewing applications. The recommended process would require an applicant
to seek leave to appeal. Only if leave to appeal is supported by the OMB,
would a hearing be scheduled.
In requesting leave to appeal, the appellant should be required to make
appropriate arguments in order to be granted a hearing. For example, the
reason stated for the appeal should be related to the application, eliminating
appeals such as traffic impacts for a side yard variance. Time frames alone
should not be grounds for a hearing unless it can be shown that all required
information to properly assess the application was submitted in a timely
manner, and review of such information / application was taking an
unreasonable length of time. Simply not agreeing with a Council decision
should not enable a full new hearing -- the appellant should have to
demonstrate that the decision reached is unreasonable, or that it would be
unlikely for another Council to reach a similar position given the information in
front of it.
This two-step approach would assist in giving the municipal role in processing
and decision-making more appropriate weight than the current Planning Act
and OMB processes. The two-step approach is also consistent with the
recommendations of the 2003 GTA Task Force Report on OMB Reform.
4. Enabling sustainability practices as part of the land use planning and
development system
There is a lack of recognition to the principles of sustainability in the planning
reform initiatives. It is critical that sustainability approaches and practices
become part of Ontario's land use planning and development system, as
Pickering is proposing through its Growth Management Study. By enabling
sustainability practices in the Planning Act, and requiring them though the
PPS, municipalities would not only have to include them in the design of
neighbourhoods, infrastructure and buildings, but also could impose
conditions on the development industry that further implement sustainability.
Report PD 31-04
July 12, 2004
Subject Planning Reform Initiatives
Page 6
47
5. Adding tools for intensification and redevelopment
Staff recommends that the following tools be provided to support
intensification and redevelopment in existing built-up areas:
. strengthen site plan control provisions in the Planning Act to enable
greater control over urban design matters;
. broaden the availability of the development permit system to support
appropriate development in targeted areas;
. further investigate conditional zoning to permit the addition of new uses if
specified standards are met; and
. expand the use of community improvement plans to support initiatives of
regional significance.
2.3
Comments Addressing Other Matters
1. Strengthening the Planning Act
Staff supports the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH)
declaring provincial interests for matters appealed to the OMB, but
recommends that such declaration be made much earlier than the 30 days
prior to the hearing. Further, it is recommended that reasons be provided by
Cabinet for any decision arising from the declaration of a provincial interests
that varies, confirms or rescinds an OMB decision. Staff further recommends
that transitional provisions for a Ministry intervention in OMB hearings not
come into force until the revised PPS comes into force.
Where two-tier planning occurs, the Planning Act should identify that
upper-tier plans address region-wide 'strategic' matters and lower-tier plans
provide detailed policies, in order to reduce overlap and uncertainty for
residents and landowners. However, staff is not supportive of the following
suggested changes to the Planning Act to require: increased Official Plan
content; more frequent Official Plan reviews; and mandatory monitoring for
land use planning.
More detailed comments and recommendations are provided in Appendix I.
2. Strengthening the Provincial Policy Statement
The proposed Bill 26 wording change, from "shall have regard to" to "shall be
consistent with" the PPS, is supported. However, it is essential that a working
definition of "shall be consistent with" be included in the PPS document, so
that it is understood what is intended by the phrase, and how it is to be
applied in recognition of local circumstances.
Report PD 31-04
July 12, 2004
48
Subject Planning Reform Initiatives
Page 7
Staff also recommends that the Province create a distinction between "prime
agricultural areas" and "countryside" areas in the PPS. In this way, a broader
range of countryside uses beyond traditional agriculture could be permitted in
certain areas. This recommendation is consistent with the approach in the
City's Growth Management Study and with the City's comments provided
both on the Durham Regional Official Plan Review and the Greenbelt Task
Force Discussion Paper.
More detailed comments and recommendations are provided in Appendix II.
3. Clarifying the role of the Ontario Municipal Board
The continued role of the OMB as an appellate body for land use matters is
supported. Consideration should be given to enabling, in the Planning Act,
minor variance appeals to be heard by municipal Councils. It is recommended
that the terms of Board members be lengthened from three years to at least
five years, with increased remuneration. Training in land use planning for all
Board members is recommended to improve the effectiveness of decisions.
Similarly, training for all members in mediation and alternative dispute
resolution would be beneficial in expediting the resolution of some appeals.
To make the OMB more accessible to the public, it is recommended that the
Board dedicate staff to provide advice to the public who may be unfamiliar
with its policies and procedures. The use of education materials and making
them available in print and on the OMB website is supported.
The proposal for the Board to send an appeal matter back to Council with a
recommendation, and then back to the Board for a final decision is not
supported.
More detailed comments and recommendations are provided in Appendix III.
APPENDIX:
I Staff Comments on Planning Act Reform Discussion Paper
II Staff Comments on Provincial Policy Statement Discussion Paper
III Staff Comments on Ontario Municipal Board Discussion Paper
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Consultation Discussion Paper #1 - Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools
2. Consultation Discussion Paper #2 - Provincial Policy Statement Draft Policies
3. Consultation Discussion Paper #3 - Ontario Municipal Board Reform
Report PD 31-04
July 12, 2004
49
Subject: Planning Reform Initiatives
Page 8
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
Grant McGregor, MCI ,RPP
Principal Planner-Policy
Neil Carro, CIP PP
Director, Planning & Development
~I~
Manager, Policy
GM/SG/MD:ld:jf
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City counc~ ~
Thoma J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer
50
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 31-04
STAFF COMMENTS ON PLANNING ACT REFORM AND
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools
Consultation Discussion Paper #1, June 2004
511
Background:
Discussion Paper #1 asks for comments on the Planning Act as well as on other
potential tools that would assist with implementation for planning and development
(see Attachment #1). The Discussion Paper recaps changes already proposed to the
Planning Act through Bill 26, the Strong Community (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004,
and asks for further comments on matters related to this Bill.
Bill 26 was introduced in the Provincial Legislature on December 15, 2003, and received
second reading on May 13, 2004. Bill 26 is retroactive to December 15, 2003, and is
intended as permanent legislation. Following first reading, comments on Bill 26 were
invited.
Previous Consultation on Bill 26
In preparing initial comments, Pickering staff collaborated with regional and other
area municipal planners on a report to Regional Council (#2004-P-20) that was
considered on March 3, 2004. Regional Council supported most of the provisions of
Bill 26 but also requested that public bodies retain appeal rights of municipal decisions
on requests for urban boundary expansions and that the Minister of Municipal Affairs
integrate consultation and implementation of the proposed changes to the Planning Act
with the review of the Provincial Policy Statement.
Subsequently, the Director, Planning & Development wrote the Ministry supporting
Regional Council's position that consideration of amendments to the Planning Act be
considered at the same time as the revised Provincial Policy Statement. Also, the
Director advised support of the elimination of appeals to the OMB when a municipality
does not support an urban boundary expansion, provided public bodies retain their
appeal rights.
Recommendations:
#1-1. Staff recommends that the Province be required to identify an 'interest' in
an OMB matter much earlier than 30 days ahead of a hearing, as currently
proposed in Bill 26.
Bill 26 includes provisions to give the Province the authority to identify a
provincial interest on official plans and zoning / holding by-laws appealed to the
OMB. Such an interest is to be declared not less than 30 days before
commencement of the OMB hearing. Once the interest is identified, the
Provincial Cabinet will have the authority to confirm, vary or rescind the OMB
decision if, in the Minister's view, the decision would adversely affect the
provincial interest.
52
Staff considers identification of a provincial interest only 30 days before the start of
an OMB hearing insufficient notice for the parties to the hearing to fairly respond to
the provincial interest. By that time, prehearings would have been held, issues
would be identified, and supporting evidence and witness statements prepared,
without necessarily focusing on the particular provincial interest in question. The
Province has an obligation to participate in such appeals earlier. It is anticipated
that any hearing of potential provincial significance is likely to be have prehearings
set. Therefore, it is recommended that the Province be required to identify its
interest at least by the first prehearing. Alternatively, the interest should be
declared within 60 days of the appeal.
#1-2. Staff recommends that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing andlor
Cabinet provide detailed reasons, with evaluation of planning and other
evidence, to show how their decisions are reached.
Further to the discussion set out in item 1 above, while procedures under the
Planning Act are all open to the public, the process of the Minister or Cabinet making
a decision to vary, confirm or rescind an OMB decision would not have such a
requirement. Providing reasons would make the decision-making transparent, and
by discussing the government's implementation of a stated provincial interest, a
better understanding of the broad public interest would be gained.
#1-3. Staff recommends the adoption of different transition dates for
implementing different provisions of Bill 26, as follows:
. appeal timelines: retroactive to December 15/03;
. restrictions on urban boundary appeal rights: retroactive to December 15/03;
. "shall be consistent with": when new PPS comes into force;
. Ministry declaration of interest: when new PPS comes into force
If Bill 26 comes into force as currently written, all changes will be retroactive to
December 15, 2003. The discussion Paper asks whether the new provisions
should come into effect December 15, 2003, when the Bill receives Royal Assent,
or, in the case of the "shall be consistent with" standard for the PPS, at the time
the revised PPS comes into force. The changes relating to appeals would be
undermined if not retroactive. By contrast, it is most appropriate to consider the
new PPS as the statement of provincial concerns and thus declaring an interest,
and that the new test of "be consistent with" come into force with the new PPS.
#1-4. Staff recommends revisions to the Planning Act to expand requirements for
complete applications to include both the mandatory factual information and
other information required by municipalities, as identified in an official plan
and communicated to an applicant in a mandatory pre-consultation (or by
letter following the mandatory pre-consultation).
The Planning Act currently provides that planning applications must contain a
prescribed set of factual information and that municipalities may require such
other information, as they consider necessary. The Planning Act provides that if
a public meeting is not held or decision reached within specified time limits of
submission of an application containing the prescribed set of factual information,
an applicant can appeal to the OMB to deal with the application.
- 2-
Typically, such additional information required by municipalities comprises
technical impact reports (environmental, market analysis, traffic, hydrogeological,
archaeological, among others), which are detailed, could be subject to peer
reviews by other technically qualified professionals, may be reviewed by citizens,
and must be reviewed by staff. Since appeals can be made within the specified
timelines of submission of only the 'mandatory' information, the allowed appeal
period usually does not allow adequate time to receive or evaluate such
technical studies before a matter may be referred to the OMB.
By enabling the municipality to require additional information, as well as setting
out the municipal obligation to identify such information up-front in the process, a
balance of municipal and applicant interests is struck.
53
#1-5. Staff recommends that the Planning Act permit municipalities to require
applicants to pay the costs of peer reviews commissioned by
municipalities of supporting technical reports.
This allows an unbiased second professional review of such reports at no cost to
the municipality.
#1-6. Staff recommends that the MMAH pursue conditional zoning and provide
greater detail on how this new tool would be used.
The Discussion Paper asked if provisions should be adopted to permit the
inclusion of uses in a zoning by-law where that use could only be permitted upon
achievement of certain standards such as brownfields remediation, noise
reduction, etc.
Staff generally supports the new concept of conditional zoning. However, the
Ministry should be requested to provide greater detail of how this may work, and
consult further on this matter.
#1-7. Staff recommends that stronger site planlurban design controls be
provided in Section 41 of the Planning Act.
Section 41 of the Planning Act should be amended to enable greater controls to
achieve high quality urban design (including architectural control of such matters
as building materials, fenestration and others), in order to support infill,
redevelopment, intensification and community livability.
#1-8. Staff recommends that the MMAH expand on the concept of 'transfer
development rights' to assist with environmental and sustainability issues.
A new 'transfer' concept could potentially be useful to municipalities to achieve a
net environmental benefit while permitting economic development in a
watershed. It should result in an overall net environmental benefit by allowing an
owner to offset the environmental impact of development on one site
(groundwater and species habitat impacts) with environmental improvements
elsewhere.
- 3-
54
Further, changes to the Planning Act should be made to enable municipalities to
impose conditions of development relating to sustainable development.
#1-9. Staff recommends that the Planning Act and/or the PPS require Regional
Plan content to be limited to region-wide 'strategic' matters in local
municipalities whose official plans contain detailed policies, in order to
reduce overlap and uncertainty for residents and landowners. Staff also
recommends that the Planning Act not be amended to broaden the
mandatory content of official plans.
The Planning Act requires official plans to include goals, objectives and policies
to manage and direct physical change. The Discussion Paper asks whether the
Planning Act should broaden the required content of official plans to provide a
clearer strategic vision for community building, creating more certainty for land
use planning.
Since the City of Pickering Official Plan articulates a thorough set of policies to
guide development, Pickering would not be negatively impacted by broader
content requirements for official plans. However, the approval authorities should
ensure the content of a lower-tier official plan is appropriate to the issues and
context of the jurisdiction. Thus, the Planning Act change could be viewed as
undermining both lower and upper-tier planning.
In a two-tiered municipal structure, such as Durham Region, the effect of requiring
a broader list of content in official plans could also result in increased duplication of
policies, further complicating an already complex set of planning requirements.
#1-10. Staff recommends that the Province retain the current policy relating to
Official Plan reviews.
The Planning Act requires each municipal council to hold a special meeting at
least once every five years to determine if its official plan needs revision. The
Discussion Paper notes that some official plans and zoning by-laws include very
out-dated policies and asks whether the Planning Act should mandate that
official plans and zoning by-laws must be kept more up-to-date.
In Pickering, amendments to the official plan to update specific policies or to the
land use designations for specific sites or larger areas are processed as the
need arises. Similarly, zoning updates for both site-specific areas, issue-related
reviews, or updates to definitions are processed as the need arises.
Comprehensive reviews of official plans and zoning by-laws are time-consuming,
require significant resources, and usually require lengthy and expensive approval
processes.
#1-11. Staff recommends that applications approved under the Planning Act be
exempted from the Environmental Assessment process.
The Discussion paper notes that some applications need approvals under both
the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act and that material
required for official plan amendments may also be considered for the
Environmental Assessment process. The Discussion Paper asks whether the
processes should be further harmonized.
- 4-
In staff's view, if a matter has been considered under the Planning Act process,
with public notifications, consultation, decision by an elected Council and appeal
rights to the OMB, the added value of also requiring a proponent to go through
the EA process is minimal. Such proposals should be exempted from the EA
process.
55
#1-12. Staff recommends that formal monitoring not become a mandated
requirement for municipal official plans.
The Discussion Paper notes that some municipalities undertake performance
monitoring to measure achievement of official plan objectives. Questions are
then asked whether policies to monitor key local conditions should be mandatory
for official plans and whether provincial scale monitoring should be undertaken to
support the PPS.
Monitoring exercises can be effective in providing feedback that leads to
measurable policy changes, such as economic indicators influencing national
interest rate and other fiscal policy decisions. However, if no measurable policy
response is readily available to institute change, monitoring can become a
time-consuming, ineffective practice. For example, significant effort was spent
harmonizing definitions, data collection, report set up, and then annual
submission of municipal statistics to produce the annual GT A housing and land
supply inventory. However, there is no evidence to link the information on
(scarce) land supply to any current policy response.
Many official plan objectives are not easily measurable. Further, the cause and
effect of observed trends is difficult to determine. Mandatory monitoring is not
supported.
#1-13. Staff recommends that an amendment to the Planning Act permit regional
community improvement plans, and that provincial/federal infrastructure
funding be made available to support community improvement plans.
The Planning Act gives municipalities the ability to prepare community
improvement policies and adopt community improvement plans for degraded
communities. Once a municipality has adopted a community improvement plan,
it can then provide loans or grants to private property owners to improve their
properties, in addition to current authority to direct public capital expenditures to
improve public streets and other public facilities.
Although Pickering has community improvement policies in its official plan and
has used this authority once in the past, Pickering generally does not have large
areas that need upgrading but more importantly, does not have available funds
to pay for upgrades enabled by such a policy. To be of assistance at the local
level, community improvement policies must be supported by a program of
provincial and/or federal funding.
- 5-
56
The Discussion Paper raises the possibility of upper-tier municipalities preparing
Community Improvement Plans as a vehicle to financially support private
initiatives of Regional significance. As upper-tier municipalities have a broader
tax base, the initiation of Regional Community Improvement Plans could be a
positive endeavour, provided local municipalities are appropriately involved.
#1-14. Staff recommends that the Province make the Development Permit System
(DPS) available Province-wide.
The Planning Act provides authority for the Province to issue a regulation to
establish a Development Permit System. A DPS would allow the Planning Act
processes of zoning, site plan and minor variance to be combined into one
seamless process to support development in targeted areas by providing
streamlined approvals and provide modest flexibility for permitted uses and
standards. Currently, the government is pilot-testing the DPS system in a small
number of Ontario municipalities.
The DPS framework appears to present a valuable opportunity to streamline the
planning approvals process in strategic locations, such as the downtown core,
and major intensification and redevelopment sites and corridors. It is
recommended that the Province make the DPS system available Province-wide.
Once available, the City should consider enabling policies in its official plan,
following evaluation of the areas of Pickering and types of development
applications for which the DPS system may be suitable.
- 6-
APPENDIX II TO
REPORTNUMBERPD31~4
STAFF COMMENTS ON PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT:
DRAFT POLICIES
57
58
Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies
Consultation Discussion Paper #2, June 2004
Background:
Previous Consultation on Provincial Policy Statement Review
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) sets out the Province's interest in land use
planning and development and provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest
to those involved in land use planning. The PPS is a complementary policy document
to the Planning Act and is issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Act.
The current PPS came into effect on May 22, 1996, and was amended in 1997.
Subsection 3(10) of the Planning Act states that the PPS must be reviewed every
five years to determine whether revisions are needed.
The five-year review of the PPS started in 2001 with the Province providing an
extensive consultation program across Ontario. In September of 2001, Pickering staff
collaborated with Durham Region Planning staff and other Durham local municipal
planners in preparing comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on
matters in the PPS requiring review. On November 19, 2001, Pickering Council
endorsed the comments in Regional Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P-84
as the City's submission to the Province on the PPS review.
The comments provided in the Commissioner's Report indicated that the current PPS
placed a greater emphasis on economic well-being, and that a clearer balance between
economy and quality of life principles, within the context of developing sustainable
communities, was required. As a measure to achieve this balance, a policy dedicated
to the environment was recommended.
Recommendations:
#2-1. Staff recommends that the Province consider a 50-year planning horizon
for its Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan and permit GT A upper
and lower-tier municipalities to plan within the provincial planning horizon
for up to 30 years.
It is unclear as to whether the Province or upper-tier municipalities will be
establishing lower-tier priority growth areas. Under the 'Setting the Stage for
Planning Reform' section of the draft PPS document, it indicates that the
Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan will articulate a long-term strategic
vision for the next 30 years and identify priority growth areas where new
population and economic investment will be encouraged. However, draft policy
1.3.3 indicates that upper-tier governments, in consultation with lower-tier
governments will identify priority growth areas and coordinate and allocate
population, housing and employment projections for lower-tier governments.
This latter approach is the way by which Durham Region established new growth
areas and allocated population and employment for local municipalities in the
current Regional Official Plan.
A provincial planning horizon of 30 years is inadequate for provincial
infrastructure planning. The Province should be considering a 50-year planning
horizon for its Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan and permitting GT A
upper and lower-tier municipalities to plan for up to 30 years. The responsibility
for establishing new growth areas should continue to be the responsibility of
upper-tier governments in consultation with lower-tier governments, and in
accordance with provincial policy.
#2-2. Staff recommends that a working definition of "shall be consistent with" be
clearly established in the PPS document, so that municipalities understand
what is intended by the phrase, and how it is to be applied in recognition of
local circumstances.
59
City staff endorsed the change in wording from "shall have regard to" to "shall be
consistent with" in the earlier PPS review. Many Planning authorities consider
the current "have regard to" wording in the Planning Act to be too weak in its
application. Applying the phrase "shall be consistent with" to all of the proposed
Policy Statements should provide sufficient flexibility for local implementation and
greater clarity that provincial policy must be applied. However, a working
definition of "shall be consistent with" should be clearly established in the PPS
document, so that municipalities understand what is intended by the phrase, and
how it is to be applied in recognition of local circumstances. Without this clarity
in definition, staff is reluctant to support the change.
#2-3. Staff recommends that MMAH clarify the requirement for municipalities to
demonstrate vacant or underutilized sites in existing urban areas are being
"considered first" for development.
Policies in the draft PPS direct new urban development to take place within
existing urban boundaries through intensification, infill and brownfield
redevelopment. Upper and lower-tier municipalities are required to establish
intensification and redevelopment targets. In this regard, the Pickering Official
Plan contains policies relating to intensification, redevelopment and conversion of
non-residential uses to residential uses. Intensification targets are also provided in
the Official Plan. Staff supports the use of targets to assist with monitoring.
However, staff has identified a concern with draft PPS policy 1.3.3 c). This policy
requires minimum densities to be established and met along transit corridors and
other significant corridors before expandinq urban area boundaries. Staff's
concerns with linking achievement of intensification before expanding is that the
planning and development process does not control a landowner's decision to
develop.
Infilling and intensification projects in developed areas tend to be quite complex.
For example, public comments are often negative, servicing may be more
complicated, and land assembly may be required. Notwithstanding this
complexity, landowners are not required to develop their lands within any given
time frame, if ever. Although infill and intensification in established areas is
supported, it should be recognized that these objectives are achieved through
evolution, over time.
- 2-
60
A further concern has been identified with policy 1.4.2. This policy requires
vacant or underutilized sites in existing developed areas to be "considered first"
prior to permitting greenfield development in designated growth areas. It is
unclear what constitutes lands being "considered first". It is unclear whether this
means actual development, or a reasoned assessment of what lands may come
on stream. A revised policy is recommended eliminating the linkages between
achieving minimum targets / using infill lands and the permission for development in
greenfield or boundary expansion areas.
#2-4. Staff recommends that the Province consider allowing a distinction
between "prime agricultural areas" and "countryside areas" so as to allow
a broader range of other uses within the countryside, such as retail
agricultural operations, agri-tourism and other similar uses.
The draft PPS policies permit a limited range of uses in the prime agricultural
areas. In keeping with our comments previously made on the Greenbelt Task
Force Discussion Paper, the Province should consider allowing a distinction
between "prime agricultural areas" and "countryside areas". The City made a
similar suggestion when commenting on the Review of the Durham Regional
Official Plan. In that comment, it was suggested that the non-urban lands south
of the Oak Ridges Moraine (at least in western Durham) be considered as
countryside, and lands north of the Moraine be retained as agricultural areas.
This is consistent with the City's Growth Management Study, which identified a
countryside area around the Hamlet of Whitevale, extending west to Markham's
countryside area. In the City's Study, a broader range of seasonal and
year-round countryside uses, beyond traditional agriculture, have been
recommended including: retail agricultural operations; farm markets;
agri-tourism; and other similar uses that can enhance the profitability of small
farming operations.
Other detailed comments are provided on the following Table comparing
the Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies to Existing PPS Policies in
Key Areas.
- 3-
Policy Areas
Managing
Growth
Promoting
Settlement
Areas
Provincial Policy Statement Draft Policies: Comparison of Selected
Proposed Policies to Existina Policies in Key Areas
61'
Current PPS
Policies ("shall
have regard to")
&
. Boundary expansions
permitted onto
prime agricultural
lands, including
specialty crop
lands, with
justification
. General policies
for managing and
directing growth
Proposed New PPS
Policies ("shall be
consistent with"
proDosed bv Bill 26)
. Intensification,
redevelopment and infill
of employment,
residential and other
lands prior to expanding
onto greenfields
. Boundary expansions
only at time of
comprehensive
municipal review
. Prohibit expansions onto
specialty crop land
. Upper-tier role to direct
growth including
allocating population,
housing and
employment projections
for lower-tiers
. Recognition of linkages
to provincial plans
StaffCol11mentson New
BPS policies
. Partially agree. The
proposed policy as written
is inappropriate, as it
would have the effect of
restricting greenfield
development until all other
lands are intensified
and/or redeveloped. It is
recommended that the
proposed PPS policy be
clarified to ensure that
greenfield development is
not prevented.
.
Agree. The effect of the
proposed policy is to
restrict privately initiated
applications proposing
urban boundary
expansions.
. Agree with protecting
specialty crop areas such
as the Holland Marsh.
. Agree. However, local-tier
municipalities must be
consulted on upper-tier
population, housing and
emp~ymen~ and
employment projections.
. Agree.
62
Revitalizing
Brownfields I
Intensification
Current PPS
Policies ("shall
have regard to")
. Provide
opportunities for
intensification and
redevelopment in
areas with
sufficient
infrastructure, but
not required prior
to boundary
expansions
. Brownfields
specifically
recognized
. Contaminated
lands viewed
mainly as hazards
to human health
. No targets for
intensification /
density
Transit- . Support
Supportive transit-supportive
land Use densities
Patterns
. Support
multi-modal
transportation
systems
. Protect
transportation
corridors
not
. Intensification of existing
built-up areas and
brownfields development
prior to expanding into
greenfield areas where
possible
. Upper-tier municipality to
set targets for
intensification / minimum
densities
. All municipalities to
permit / facilitate all
forms of intensification /
redevelopment
. Plan infrastructure to
support priority growth
areas
. Promote transit-
supportive land use
patterns including
density I intensification
targets
. Direct new development
to areas well-served by
transit
- 2-
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already contains
policies relating to
redeveloping
contaminated sites.
. Agree with proposed
policy flexibility of
permitting greenfield area
development after due
consideration of existing
built-up areas and
brownfield sites.
. Agree. However, local-tier
municipalities must be
consufted on uppe~tier
i nte n sifica tion/ m in i mum
densities.
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already contains
policies promoting and
facilitating all forms of
intensification and
redevelopment.
. Agree.
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already contains
policies promoting transit
supportive land uses
include densities and
intensification targets.
. Agree. All of urban
Pickering is well served by
transit including GO
Transit.
Employment
Lands
Current PPS
Policies ("shall
have regard to")
. Long-term
(20-year) planning
horizon to include
sufficient land for
industrial,
commercial and
other uses to
promote
employment
opportunities
. Well-being of
downtowns and
mainstreets to be
maintained
63
. Focus travel intensive
land uses on transit
corridors
. Link transportation and
growth planning
. Protect strategic future
transportation corridors
and preclude
incompatible uses within
them
. Upper-tiers to set
minimum densities for
transit corridors
. Ensure adequate supply
of land and
opportunities to
accommodate
range/mix of industrial,
commercial and other
employment uses to
meet long-term needs
. Vitality and viability of
downtowns and
mainstreets to be
maintained
- 3-
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already contains
policies promoting mixed
use development along
main arterial roads.
. Agree.
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already contains
policies promoting the
provision of local transit
service to the high activity
areas within the City.
. Agree. Future arterial
roads are protected by
policy in local and regional
official plans.
. Disagree. There is no
need for the Region to
establish minimum
densities along transit
corridors. Densities
already established in
local official lans.
. Agree. City's Growth
Management Study
provides long-term
emp~yment opportunftes
for Pickering.
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already contains
policies relating to
promoting the downtown
core as the City's main
focus for business,
emp~yment and
residential activit.
64
Policy Areas
Policies ("shall
have regard to")
Air Quality I . No policies on air
Energy quality
Housing
. Support energy
conservation
. Encourage
housing forms and
densities designed
to be affordable to
moderate and
lower income
households
. No target
. No definition of
affordable
. Focused investment
through identification of
priority growth areas
and corresponding
coordination / allocation
of employment
projections
. Support jobs / housing
balance in communities
. Transit supportive land
use patterns
. Provide housing / jobs
in close proximity
. Focus travel intensive
uses on transit corridors
. Support urban greening
. Support alternative
energy systems and
conservation
. Require municipalities to
set minimum targets for
the provision of housing
which is affordable to
low and moderate
income households
. Define "affordable"
. Permit and facilitate
special needs housing
-4-
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already designates
employment lands, which
permit a broad range of
uses.
. Agree. The City's Growth
Management Study has
identified future growth
areas to accommodate
Pickering's population and
employment needs for the
next 20 years.
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already contains
policies that promote
improved live/work
relationships.
. Agree. All of the new draft
PPS policies under this
section are already
addressed in Pickering's
Official Plan.
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already contains
policies relating to
affordabílíty and special
needs housing.
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan already contains an
"affordable" definition.
Policy Areas
Preserving
Greenspace
Water
. Protect significant
natural heritage
features
. Support planning
for recreation
. Protect quality
and quantity of
ground water and
surface water and
function of
sensitive areas
. Support urban greening
. Support planning for
recreation I tourism and
natural heritage systems
. Use watersheds
basis for planning
. Maintain
integrity
watershed
. Protect surface and
ground water features,
functions and drinking
water supplies
. Identify vulnerable areas
. Promote conservation
and appropriate
stormwater management
. Restrict development
and site alteration in
sensitive areas
. Address cross boundary
impacts
- 5-
65
. Agree. Pickering's open
space system not only
includes significant natural
heritage features but also
major parks, recreational
and conservation areas,
major open space
linkages and other major
blocks of land that make
up the City's natural core
areas and corridors.
as
. Agree. Pickering's Official
Plan identifies areas of
groundwater recharge and
discharge. There are other
resource management
policies including the
Resource Management
Scheduœ, wh~h
designates the various
resource features and
areas in the Official Plan.
Also, it is intended that the
City's Official Plan be
amended in recognition of
the Duffins Creek and
Carruthers Creek
Watershed Strategies and
other watershed plans,
where appropriate.
66
Polic
Agriculture
. Protect prime
agricultural areas
and specialty crop
lands while non-
agricultural uses
permitted when
justification
provided
. Protect prime agricultural
areas
. Strictly limit re-designation
of prime agricultural lands
to other uses
. Prohibit residential lot
creation on these lands
- 6-
.
Disagree. The Province
should be promoting
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. Also, the Province
should consider
recognizing two types of
rural areas -- the near-
urban countryside with
greater diversity of uses
and a more pure
agricultural and
establish separate PPS
policies for each.
APPENDIX III TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 31-04
STAFF COMMENTS ON ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
REFORM
67
68
Ontario Municipal Board Reform
Consultation Discussion Paper #3, June 2004
Background:
Previous Discussion on Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Reform
Discussion Paper #3 highlights areas for possible OMB reform consistent with other
Planning Act and other Provincial Policy Statement Reforms. These reforms reflect
government decisions to reinforce the importance of local municipalities in the planning
process, including preventing appeals to the OMB on urban area expansions and
increasing length of time for reviewing applications before they can be appealed.
In September 2002, a group comprising of GTA and Hamilton elected officials and
municipal staff (including planners and solicitors) formed a Task Force to discuss the
appeal process administered by the OMB. In March 2003, this Task Force made
recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, identifying issues
and recommending changes to the OMB. City of Pickering staff provided input to the
Task Force outlining the City's experience at the Ontario Municipal Board. Council
endorsed the staff comments in February 2002. Along with the City of Pickering, the
Task Force also canvassed sixteen stakeholder groups and knowledgeable individuals
including academics, ratepayers groups, government agencies and the development
industry.
Prior to the March 2003 submission by the Task Force, other organizations with interest
in the operation of the OMB had provided the Minister with their suggested reforms.
The Ontario Association of Chief Planning Officials lodged their recommendation report
in October 1999; and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute made their submission
in February 2002. Both reports concluded that the OMB was a necessity, though
reform was required to meet the changing nature of land use planning in Ontario.
Throughout the review process, City staff held the position that, though the OMB is an
integral part of the Ontario system of planning, costs to the City were high, and
decisions were frequently contrary to Council's positions. It was found that
approximately $75,000 per year was being spent on matters before the Board in
"de novo" hearings, (i.e., all over again, in full detail).
The GTA Task Force on OMB Reform identified the following key issues of concern:
. The OMB:
0 can over rule or support decisions of elected councils;
0 is not accountable to the electorate;
0 often makes decisions that undermine local Official Plans created through
considerable public consultation;
0 deals with much more than Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issues and
approval of Official Plans.
. No other Canadian jurisdiction has an appeal body with similar scope of planning
powers.
. Guidelines and limits on the OMB mandate are unclear.
In making the recommendations to the Minister, the Task Force sought to re-establish
the local municipality's powers in the land use planning process, and to make the OMB
more accountable and approachable. The Task Force recommendations were as
follows:
. update the role of the Ontario Municipal Board to better reflect changing planning
needs in Ontario, including limiting the scope of the Board's appeal powers and
returning decision making authority to the municipality;
enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information;
support citizen participation through intervener funding;
promote an independent and fair tribunal.
69
.
.
.
Recommendations
#3-1. Staff recommends that a two-phase appeal process be established rather
than an automatic appeal.
At present the OMB is able to overturn the decisions of locally elected officials
based on planning grounds at a "de novo" hearing. This means that the Board is
able to make a decision based on evidence as if the Council has not made any
decision at all. It is a process that undermines the authority of elected officials
by permitting OMB members, appointed by the Province, to substitute their own
opinions in place of those of Council.
Suggestions have been made by the GTA Task Force, and other organizations,
that the scope of the OMB be narrowed in order to minimize the undermining of
local councils. These suggestions include limiting the OMB to dealing with
matters of provincial interest or where it can be proven that a Council decision
may have been unreasonable.
City staff supports the concept of the Task Force proposal of a two-stage appeal
process. The first step would be requesting leave to appeal and if successful,
then a hearing would be scheduled. In requesting leave to appeal, the appellant
would have to make appropriate arguments, such as:
. demonstrating that all required information to properly assess the
application was submitted in a timely manner, and review of such
information / application was taking an unreasonable length of time;
that the municipality was unreasonably slow in bringing the application to
Council for a decision, relative to applications of the same complexity;
that it would be unlikely for another Council to reach a similar position
given the information in front of it.
.
.
The second step would be when the leave to appeal is granted, and then a
hearing should be scheduled. Hearings should be limited to specific issues
raised, (e.g. traffic impact, environmental impact) rather than always a "de novo"
hearing. The Board should also be generally limited to the same information that
Council had in making a decision.
- 2-
70
#3-2. Staff recommends that OMB decisions be consistent with the Provincial
Policy Statement.
#3-3. Staff recommends that consideration be given to enabling municipalities to
select Council as the appeal body for minor variances.
As a Committee of Council, there is logic that the appeal mechanism be to
Council, rather than an outside tribunal.
#3-4. Staff recommends that the length of an OMB member's term be extended
to at least five years, with appropriate compensation, and qualifications of
new members including experience and training in land use planning.
The perception of the OMB to the general public and those involved in the
planning process should be that the Board is an independent and fair tribunal.
The Task Force discussion paper suggests that common perception of the OMB
is that it is not a fair tribunal. In part, this public belief is due to the Province,
through a closed internal process, appointing the members of the Board.
Lengthening a member's term from three years to at least five years, and the
provision of an appropriate compensation would make the position more
attractive to professionals who would be leaving other employment. The
increased length of term would also provide for more consistent decisions.
#3-5. Staff recommends that caseloads be monitored in order to ensure timely
OMB action.
The OMB hears a wide variety of planning matters that are complex in nature
and often involve contentious and emotional issues. As such it is hard to gauge
the individual performance of members and their caseloads. A quantitative form
of monitoring is difficult to achieve for a qualitative process. Monitoring of time
between an appeal being lodged and the hearing or prehearing is an appropriate
administrative matter for review. Also timelines for the issuance of decisions
should be subject to maximum timelines.
#3-6. Staff recommends that members and staff of the OMB continue to receive
formal training in alternative dispute resolution, and when possible, use
mediation to resolve appeals prior to a hearing.
In order to ensure that members are able to provide appropriate and timely
decisions, on-going education should be provided. In particular, training in
mediation and alternative dispute resolution could assist members in expediting
the planning process without the need for a full hearing.
The Board has in recent years hired a staff comprising professional planners and
other advisors to support the members and liaise with parties involved in the
hearing. This has made the Board more accessible to the public as they are
able to obtain advice and instructions on the process.
- 3-
71J
To further streamline the appeal process, these professionals could also be used
to provide alternative dispute resolution. Rather than each case being brought
before a hearing, a staff member could act as mediator to either explore
alternative resolutions or determine specific criteria that have lead to the appeal.
This would reduce the number of hearings and if the focus of the appeal could
be narrowed to specific point, greatly reduce hearing length wherever alternative
dispute resolution is not possible.
#3-7. Staff recommends that standard information packages and education
materials, in hard copy and electronic format, be available to the public.
#3-8. Staff recommends that the Board not send an appeal matter back to
Council with a recommendation, and then back to the Board for a final
decision.
- 4-
72
AnACHMENTI I TO
REPORT' PO ~
Planning Reform
Planning Act Reform and
Implementation Tools
...
June 2004
~ Ontario
ATTACHMENT' / TO
REPORT # PO 3 I -OJ./.
73
This Consultation Discussion Paper describes potential Planning Act reform and Implementation
Tools, including the proposed Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004. It is one of three
consultation discussion papers to get public input on planning reform and includes consultation
questions asking for your views on potential reforms.
The final section of this document can be removed and used to mail or fax back your comments.
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an on-line questionnaire available at
www.planninqreform.ontario.ca.
Comments must be received no later than AuQust 31. 2004.
For additional copies of this document or any other of the planning reform consultation documents in
either French or English, please contact:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch
777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 645-8082 or 1-866-751-8082
Fax: (416) 585-4006
E-mail: planningreform@mah.gov.on.ca
Or visit www.planningreform.ontario.ca
Disponible en français
@ Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2004
2
ATTACHMENT' I TO
REPORT # PO 3 J - eLf
74
The strength of Ontario depends on the strength of its communities. The McGuinty government is
acting on Ontarians' priorities and is delivering real, positive change that will build strong, prosperous
communities with a healthy environment and quality of life that is second to none.
The Ontario government recognizes that our current planning system needs to be improved.
Over the past years, there has been a growing perception that the Ontario land-use planning system
has not been working as effectively as it should. Our government intends to reform the land-use
planning and development process to support our goal of stronger, better communities. We have
already taken some important steps to achieve this goal.
In December 2003, I introduced Bill 26, the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004,
which proposes important amendments to the Planning Act. If passed, the reforms would bring more
accountability, transparency and public input to the way land-use planning decisions are made in
Ontario.
As part of our Planning Reform initiative we are:
. reviewing the planning process;
. determining the need for effective implementation tools for municipalities and other decision-
makers;
. releasing draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement for public review and input; and
. reviewing the Ontario Municipal Board.
We recognize that these initiatives are linked and that coordinated actions may be required to create
a better land-use planning system.
Planning reform is one essential element of our government's strong communities agenda. Other
initiatives under way to support this goal are a permanent Greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe, the
protection of source water and the development of a Growth Management Plan for the Golden
Horseshoe.
Improving the land-use planning system requires input from a wide variety of individuals and groups.
To hear your views, we are holding a series of public information sessions on planning reform across
the province. Please read this consultation document, attend a meeting, and fill out the questionnaire.
I invite you to share your views on what is needed to improve the land-use planning system and to
build strong communities where all Ontarians can thrive.
Hon. John Gerretsen
Minister
3
ATTACH~~ENT II / TO
RH'ORl # PD 3/ -at/-
75
Ontario's Planning System: It's important to all of us
Over the next 30 years, 4 million new residents will call Ontario home. The Ontario government is
setting a course for building strong, safe and liveable communities in Ontario that offer residents a
high quality of life.
Our approach for attracting healthy and sustainable growth will be clear, consistent and responsive to
Ontarians' priorities. This will require making decisions that will lead to long term benefits - new
economic growth, more liveable communities, enhanced transportation choices, clean and safe water
and improvements to our environment.
The land-use planning system is of key importance to achieving these goals in Ontario.
Land-use planning establishes the rules for development. and helps to determine how our
communities grow.
Ontario's land-use planning system defines the interests and responsibilities of all Ontarians in
planning for future land uses. The system provides the framework for determining the future of our
communities and for protecting valuable resources such as farmlands. wetlands, water and natural
features.
Ontario needs effective land-use planning, and an effective land-use planning system. This is
especially critical given the pressures confronting the province today, such as:
.
Increasing gridlock as a result of urban sprawl;
.
Unprecedented growth pressures in some parts of Ontario, such as the Golden Horseshoe
region;
.
Loss of prime agricultural land and other resources;
.
The need for enhanced environmental protection; and
.
The need for a strong economy.
It is also clear that Ontario's communities and the public need to have an effective voice in land-use
planning. There is a need for balance between individual interests and the broad public interest.
Municipalities must also have the right tools to achieve good land-use planning.
The Ontario government is responding to these challenges. Through the Planning Reform initiative, it
is reviewing the land-use planning system to ensure it meets today's needs.
Planning reform is a key component of the government's commitment to building strong communities
in Ontario. The government believes a strong and effective planning system is critical to: building
strong communities, providing a clean and healthy environment, and sustaining a strong economy.
This lays the foundation for enhancing the overall quality of life for Ontarians.
4
ATTACHMErn # / TO
REPORl Ii PO 31 -0'1
76
There are a number of interrelated initiatives to support strong communities that are currently
underway. These initiatives will depend on a stronger land-use planning system for effective
implementation. They include:
Strong Communities
Several initiatives are under way to support strong communities, including a new deal for our cities
and towns, a "seat at the table" with provincial and federal governments, and an enhanced rural
development program.
Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt
In December 2003, the McGuinty government took the first steps toward permanent protection of a
greenbelt across the Golden Horseshoe region by introducing Bill 27, the Greenbelt Protection Act,
2004. If passed, the Act would create a greenbelt study area within the Golden Horseshoe and
impose a one-year moratorium on new urban development on rural and agricultural lands within this
area.
The Greenbelt Task Force, a team of respected, knowledgeable and diverse stakeholder
representatives, was established by the government to develop recommendations on the scope,
content and implementation of the greenbelt. It is conducting public consultations in May and June
2004 for the purposes of developing recommendations on how the Province could effectively
establish a permanent Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt.
Growth Management in the Golden Horseshoe
This year, the government will release a Growth Management Plan for the Golden Horseshoe that will
articulate a long-term strategic vision and tools for how the Golden Horseshoe and surrounding areas
should grow over the next 30 years. The plan will identify priority growth areas where new population
and economic investment will be encouraged and will prioritize infrastructure through the development
of a 1 O-year infrastructure plan to ensure those areas are adequately serviced. At the same time, the
plan will identify and protect those areas that provide our food, water and recreation. An important
feature of the Growth Management Plan will be a transportation strategy that promotes the efficient
movement of people, goods and services throughout the Golden Horseshoe.
Source Water Protection
In mid-February 2004, the Ministry of the Environment began consultations on how best to deliver
watershed-based source protection as a way of securing the long-term quality and quantity of water
resources throughout the province. The initiative will result in policy, procedures and proposed
legislative changes that will further affect communities in Ontario.
Summary
Planning Reform and related initiatives recognize that comprehensive solutions are needed to build a
strong Ontario. Consultations on these initiatives are being coordinated, and information from the
other initiatives will also be coordinated and shared.
5
ATTACHME~lì # / TO
RErCIA] fi PU m.,~(-D'I_>
77
As a first step in Planning Reform, the government introduced Bill 26, the Strong Communities
(Planning Amendment) Act, 2004, which would amend the Planning Act and provide an enhanced
framework for planning in Ontario.
If passed, Bill 26 would give municipalities more time to make decisions on planning applications. It
would strengthen the requirement that provincial land-use policies are followed, and would empower
municipalities to determine their own local growth boundaries.
Bill 26 would also provide the Ontario government with the ability to make final decisions on matters
before the Ontario Municipal Board where a provincial interest has been declared.
The Ontario government recognizes that more needs to be done in reforming keys aspects of the
planning system. Through consultation with stakeholders and the public, the government is seeking
input and advice on the following Planning Reform components:
.
Whether further changes need to be made to the Planning Act and to Bill 26;
.
The need for implementation tools to help support and implement a strong and effective land-
use planning framework in Ontario.
.
Proposed revisions to the Provincial Policy Statement, which provides policy direction on land-
use planning; and
.
The need for Ontario Municipal Board Reform. The Board is an independent tribunal that
hears appeals from landowners, the public and others on land-use planning matters. It hears
appeals of municipal decisions, and appeals where no decision has been made on planning
applications within timelines set out in the Planning Act.
Consultation Booklets
This booklet and two others have been written to help you understand the initiatives and provide a
range of discussion points for your consideration. They are also designed to make it easier for you to
provide your thoughts and suggestions on each of the Planning Reform components (Planning Act
Reform and Implementation Tools; draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement; and Ontario
Municipal Board Reform).
Your input on the Planning Reform components will help the provincial government to move forward
with proposed land-use planning reforms and will help shape the land-use planning system of the
future.
6
78
ATTACHME~IT # I TO
REPOm Ii PO 3/ - 04
-_.~-<-_._--- . .. - '..
How to Participate
We want your views on Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools.
The Ontario government will be holding public information sessions on planning reform in communities
across Ontario. Please visit our website at www.planninQreform.ontario.ca to check for further
information on dates and locations, or call us at 1-866-751-8082.
The following sections provide important background information. Specific consultation questions are
included in the final section of this document. You can remove the consultation questions section and
mail or fax back your comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an on-line questionnaire available at
www.planninqreform.ontario.ca.
You may send written comments to:
Planning Reform Initiative
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch
777 Bay St, 14th Floor
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 645-8082 or 1-866-751-8082
Fax: (416) 585-4006
E-mail: planningreform@mah.gov.on.ca
Or visit www.planningreform.ontario.ca
Comments must be received no later than August 31, 2004.
Thank you for helping to shape planning in Ontario.
7
ATTACH~m'H #_-1-- TO
r;F'~'f' ,~), 3/-04
79
The Planning Act provides the legislative framework for land-use planning in Ontario. It sets out how
the land-use planning system works, who the decision-makers are, how to resolve disputes, and how
the public can provide input.
The Planning Act also allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, with the approval of the
Lieutenant Governor in Council, to issue policy statements that further define key provincial land-use
planning interests.
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is a statement of the government's land-use priorities. It
provides policy direction to municipalities and other decision-makers, including the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB), as they make land-use and development decisions. The Planning Act also states that in
exercising any authority that affects a planning matter, decision-makers shall "have regard to" these
policy statements. Under Bill 26, the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004, it is
proposed that the implementation standard be changed to "shall be consistent with".
The OMB is an independent administrative tribunal responsible for resolving disputes on a variety of
land-use planning and municipal matters.
A range of tools is available to implement elements of the planning system, such as support materials
and best practices guides for provincial policies. An example is the Transit-Supportive land Use
Planninq Guidelines.
As you read through this paper, please keep the following questions in mind.
1. Do you believe any additional revisions are required to any existing provisions in the
Planning Act to make the planning system more effective?
2. Are changes needed to the Planning Act to meet the objectives of compact urban form,
intensification, re-use of brownfield lands, and effective environmental protection which
would assist in strengthening Ontario's economy?
3. Do you believe any changes are required to Bill 26, the Strong Communities (Planning
Amendment) Act, 2004 to make it more effective?
4. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the land-use planning system in
Ontario?
5.
What changes to existing planning implementation tools would assist in building strong
communities and a strong economy, providing more efficient land-use planning and
discouraging urban sprawl?
8
ATTACHME~IT # / TO
REPORT # PO 3/-6'1
80
6.
What new planning implementation tools are needed to assist in dealing with current
and future land-use planning issues?
For your convenience, please remove the final section of this consultation discussion paper and mail
or fax it back with your comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an on-line questionnaire at
www.planninqreform.ontario.ca.
The Ontario government is moving forward to ensure that the province's land-use planning system
works effectively in dealing with a range of planning and development issues. The Planning Act
provides the legislative framework for land-use planning in Ontario. The provincial government is
committed to reviewing the Act, in consultation with Ontarians, and introducing the types of changes
needed to implement a more effective system.
The government has proposed reforms to the Planning Act through Bill 26 (the Strong Communities
(Planning Amendment) Act, 2004) to bring more accountability, transparency, and public input to the
way land-use planning decisions are made.
Bill 26 received second reading on May 13, 2004. If passed, the Bill would provide municipalities with
better control of their own land-use planning and would put the ability to guide urban development
back into the hands of elected councils.
The main proposals in Bill 26 include:
1.
Increasing the time that decision-makers have to review and make decisions on specific
planning applications (Le., official plans/amendments, zoning bylaws, holding bylaws,
subdivisions/condominiums and consents).
2.
Changing the implementation standard so that decisions affecting a planning matter must be
"consistent with" provincial policy statements issued under the Planning Act.
3.
Ensuring that municipalities have the ability to determine their urban settlement boundaries by
limiting OMB appeals on applications to amend official plans or zoning bylaws for urban
settlement area boundary alterations or to establish a new urban settlement area where the
proposals are not supported by municipal councils.
4.
Giving the province the authority to confirm, vary or rescind an OMB decision on an official plan
or zoning/holding bylaw if, in the Minister's view, all or part of the matter adversely affects or is
likely to adversely affect a provincial interest and a provincial interest is declared.
9
ATTACHrJiWT #_..!___lO
REPORl # PO 3( -OL/
811
5.
Providing the Minister with the authority to make a regulation to deal with transition matters (e.g.,
how to deal with planning applications currently under review).
The government recognizes that the changes proposed in Bill 26 address only some of the concerns
and issues with the Planning Act and the planning system. As a result, the government is undertaking
a further review of the Planning Act. Your input is important to help determine what else can be done
to improve and balance the system through potential amendments to the Planning Act. This further
review may result in more fundamental reforms to the Act and to the planning system.
As the government moves forward with proposed reforms to promote more efficient land-use planning
and discourage urban sprawl, it is also looking for suggestions and input on additional planning
reforms to build strong communities and a strong economy in Ontario.
Following are examples of ideas for further reform of the Planning Act and the broader planning
system. These examples are provided to solicit reaction and generate ideas - they are not
comprehensive, nor do they represent actions that the government is necessarily proposing to pursue.
Complete Application
When someone proposes to develop a property, certain Planning Act approvals may be necessary. If
a Planning Act approval is required, the individual must apply to the approval authority (which may be
the local municipality) for permission.
Currently, the Planning Act requires an application to include information like name of applicant,
description of the subject lands, description of surrounding lands, and any surrounding applications.
Municipalities have identified concerns with what is required to form a "complete application". They
have advised that the information presently required is not sufficient in many instances to properly
evaluate applications. For example, certain planning studies like traffic studies, hydrogeological
studies, or natural heritage impact assessments, may be important for the municipality's review of an
application.
In addition, a municipality has limited time to issue a decision on the application. If a decision is not
issued within this time, the applicant may appeal the matter to the OMB. Bill 26, if passed, would
provide more time for approval authorities to make decisions. However, many approval authorities
believe more detailed information should also be required before an application is considered
complete and the approval time-lines begin.
The development sector, on the other hand, has expressed concern that additional information is often
not necessary and will result in unjustified delays and costs.
10
ATTACHMENT # / TO
REPORT # PO 3/-otf
82
What information do municipalities require to make well-informed decisions within the
expanded time-lines proposed by Bill 261
Does the Act and the accompanying regulations regarding "complete applications" already
require adequate information to be provided with land use planning applications?
Redevelopment, Infilling, Intensification, and Compact Form
In order to accomplish re-development and infilling within existing communities, municipalities need
the ability to address issues such as noise, brownfields, and greenspace.
One suggestion that has been made is that the Planning Act be revised to allow conditional zoning.
This would permit additional uses in existing built-up areas provided they meet certain conditions such
as brownfield remediation and/or noise reduction.
There may also be a need for consideration of other matters such as municipal standards which would
maximize the efficient use of land when dealing with matters like road standards, parkland
requirements, utility rights-of-way, etc.
Would changes to the Planning Act address these issues and make the planning system more
responsive to the needs of Ontario's communities and support a healthy economy?
Bon using
To encourage innovative development, the Planning Act allows municipalities to offer increased
density on a development site in exchange for a specific public objective, e.g. a daycare facility,
community center, recreational facilities, etc. This is known as "bonusing".
Does the ability to bonus support the objective of compact urban form and provide for
community amenities?
Transfer of Development Rights
Municipalities use zoning mainly to set limits on what can be done on a property. Zoning could also
be used in a more strategic way to help municipalities achieve specific objectives while assisting the
development community to attain flexibility in development opportunities. For example, the use of
zoning to facilitate the transfer of development rights could be formally acknowledged in the Planning
Act.
The transfer of rights is a relatively untested practice. This is not to be confused with "bonusing". The
transfer of development rights would essentially permit the transfer of density between building sites.
For example a developer who is redeveloping an historic building site would transfer the density or
height to another site in return for the protection of that building.
11
f\TfÞ¡CHMENl It -- / TO
HUúRI # PD_JL::..Q!L__-
83
Should transfer of development rights be a mechanism to achieve density increases in
appropriate locations?
If appropriate, should limits and conditions governing the use of this mechanism be
established in the Act?
Content of Municipal Official Plans
An official plan describes how land in a community should be used. Official plans are prepared with
input from local residents and help ensure that future planning and development will meet the needs of
the community. The Planning Act describes what municipal official plans must contain. All official
plans must include matters such as goals, objectives, and policies to manage and direct physical
change.
There are increasing expectations and demands being placed on land-use planning in our
communities. As a result, there may be a need for the Planning Act to include more detail on what
official plans should contain to provide a better context for local decision-making, resulting in more
certainty for land-use planning at the local level and helping avoid ad hoc decision-making.
However, the concern is that this may limit municipal flexibility. Some would say that the province's
role should only be focused on establishing provincial policy such as the Provincial Policy Statement
rather than include detailed requirements for official plans.
Should the Act more specifically set out and broaden the content of official plans?
Would this help balance the strategic vision for community building and the specific policies
needed for achieving that vision?
Up-to-Date Land-Use Planning Documents
The Planning Act requires, where official plans exist, that municipal councils hold a special meeting at
least every five years to determine if their official plan needs revision. This gives councils the
opportunity to keep their land-use planning documents, such as official plans and zoning bylaws, up-
to-date.
However, the Act only requires that councils hold a public meeting to consider possible changes.
They do not actually have to make changes. Some municipalities have been inconsistent in updating
their planning documents, resulting in some very outdated planning policies. These out-of-date
policies may not reflect current provincial policy and may create uncertainty.
Should the Planning Act require that land use planning documents such as official plans and
zoning by-laws be kept more up-to-date?
Review of Official Plans
As municipalities update their official plans, the scope or form of what the "update" should include is
not spelled out. However, beyond provincial policy statements, the municipality determines the extent
of the official plan update and what kinds of reports, studies or analyses are used to formulate the new
policy directions.
12
An þ,CHMENT #. . I TO
REPUfj': * PC;, -_.ß(:-£~_._--
84
Does the Planning Act provide sufficient direction for the review of official plans and official
plan amendments?
Should the Planning Act require a more comprehensive examination of matters such as local
planning issues, changing local conditions, adequacy of designated land (and opportunities)
for growth and matters that cross municipal boundaries? For example, the Act could require the
development of official plan policies to be co-ordinated with planning for new or renewed infrastructure
such as road, transit and sewers, and with planning for related matters such as community facilities.
Official Plan and Environmental Assessment Processes
Land uses have a direct impact on the natural environment; some uses have greater impact than
others. For example, a waste disposal site would have a greater impact on the environment than a
local park.
Uses with greater environmental impact may require not only planning approvals, but also approvals
under the Environmental Assessment Act. In obtaining the approvals, the applicant may have to deal
with duplication and delays and run the risk of obtaining planning approvals for a site that may not
receive environmental assessment approvals. To assist applicants through these processes, the
Planning Act provides that the material required for official plan amendments may be considered for
the environmental assessment process.
Should the province prepare a regulation or take other action to further harmonize these
processes?
Transition Provisions for Implementing Bill 26
Bill 26, if passed, would be deemed to have come into force on December 15, 2003. Accordingly, all
planning decisions made after December 15, 2003 would need to have been made in accordance with
the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004. In other words, if Bill 26 receives Royal
Assent it will make all the Planning Act changes retroactive to December 15, 2003. This means that
planning decisions made after December 15, 2003 (e.g. decisions on applications to amend an official
plan) should have been made in accordance with the changes proposed in Bill 26.
However, councils have been making decisions and are unclear as to what rules apply.
In order to address this concern, Bill 26, if passed, would provide the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing the ability to make transition rules to ensure that municipalities and other users of the
planning system convert smoothly to the new rules.
One possible approach to support a smooth transition is a regulation that exempts all planning
applications on which a decision was made before the Bill received Royal Assent. In addition, the Bill
could be amended so that the proposed "shall be consistent with" implementation standard comes into
effect at a later date to coincide with the approval of a revised PPS.
How should the transition provisions deal with applications in process?
When should the "shall be consistent with" standard come into effect?
13
AT1M'fil'."EfIT# / .TO
. ," "., , -,..- . -
RE~CJRl f¡ PD._Æ-e!L__-
85
Effective Date of Policies
In general, the policies that apply to development and other land-use applications are those that are
approved and in effect when the application is made. Those policies continue to apply to the
application even though new policies may have come into effect before a decision is made on the
application. Thus, applications may be approved which are not in keeping with current policies on
environmental and other matters.
Should the Planning Act be amended to state that the most up-to-date policies should apply if
new policies are approved before a decision has been made on an application?
Performance Monitoring
In recent years, performance monitoring has gained increasing attention as a tool for evaluating all
kinds of public policy matters. Some municipalities identify performance indicators (e.g. the amount of
agricultural land converted for development purposes; the number of affordable housing units
constructed; or the amount of park land created) for measuring the effectiveness of policies in their
official plan.
This helps a municipality measure whether it is on track in accomplishing its official plan objectives. It
also provides a mechanism to assist a municipality to maintain focus on priority activities.
The Planning Act does not require performance monitoring for land-use planning.
Should key planning interests and conditions be monitored on a regular basis so trends can be
identified and planning policies adjusted to respond to changing circumstances and
conditions?
Should official plans be required to include policies requiring monitoring of key local
conditions?
Should monitoring on a provincial scale be undertaken to support the PPS?
As the Ontario government moves forward with its proposed reforms to promote more efficient land-
use planning and discourage urban sprawl, it is looking for suggestions and comments on planning-
related implementation tools to help meet this objective.
Here are some examples of existing planning implementation tools:
The Planning Act gives most municipalities the ability to prepare community improvement policies,
plans and programs that encourage redevelopment and/or rehabilitation improvements. Once
implemented, the plan allows municipalities to make community improvement plan grants or loans to
assist in the rehabilitation of lands and buildings within the community improvement plan area. Such
action encourages urban revitalization, promotes urban intensification, and leads to less urban sprawl.
14
86
ATTACHMENT # / TO--
REPORT # PO 3/-()"I
In addition, the Planning Act provides the statutory authority for the province to issue a regulation to
establish a Development Permit System (DPS). The DPS is designed to streamline the planning
approvals process by combining three existing processes - zoning, site plan, and minor variance - into
one seamless process. This new planning system supports economic development in targeted areas
by providing for quicker approvals, eliminating duplication, and incorporating some flexibility for
permitted uses and development standards. At the same time it provides for greater environmental
protection through such matters as the ability to address vegetation removal and the placement of fill.
Before deciding if the DPS should be used more widely, the government is pilot-testing the system in
five municipalities: Town of Oakville, Township of Lake of Bays, Region of Waterloo, City of Toronto,
and City of Hamilton. Some of the objectives for testing the system in these areas include revitalizing
historic downtown neighbourhoods, protecting sensitive shorelines, and facilitating brownfield
rehabilitation. The Government is presently assessing its effectiveness and validity, and identifying
any implementation issues with the legislative and regulatory framework.
The province issues guidelines on various planning topics to help municipalities make wise land-use
planning decisions. For example, the Transit - Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines, released by
the Ministry of Transportation in 1992, are still extensively used to provide ideas and guidance on
planning and development practices that support the provision and use of public transit.
The Province also provides support materials to help facilitate the implementation of provincial
initiatives and to help municipalities address topical planning issues. Support materials have been
provided to address such matters as brownfields, business improvement areas and community
economic development, affordable housing and wind energy. These materials and others are
available on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing website at www.mah.Qov.on.ca.
The following are some examples of new or revised tools to assist better land-use planning. These
examples are not comprehensive, nor do they represent actions that the government is necessarily
proposing to pursue. They are provided to solicit reaction and to generate ideas.
Community Improvement Plans
.
Permit upper-tier municipalities to prepare Community Improvement Plans as a framework to offer
financing incentives to facilitate private sector initiatives, such as transit corridors, that have
region-wide significance or span more than one municipality.
.
Clarify/expand the definition of Community Improvement Plan to allow for a broader range of
urban-intensification initiatives.
Development Permit System (DPS)
.
Amend the DPS regulation, currently being tested in five pilot projects, to allow additional
municipalities to develop and use development permit system bylaws.
15
.\fTJ\CHiV)ErJT #_- / TO
¡:';Eh)RT II PO ~/- 0'1
8~1
.
Amend the DPS regulation, (and Planning Act, if necessary), to address other substantive
community development policy matters such as affordable housing, transit, green technology,
compact-form development, and source water protection.
Provincial Standards for Matters Related to Land-Use Planning and Development
.
Revise provincial standards (e.g. separation distance standards) to reflect urban situations and
support infill, intensification, and brownfield redevelopment in appropriate urban settings.
Implementation Support Materials
.
Provide additional best practice guides and reference materials (e.g., Transit-Supportive Land
Use Planning Guidelines, Alternative Development Standards: Making Choices Guideline) to
support the building of strong communities and assist in implementing these policies.
The following provides additional detail on the main provisions of Bill 26 - the Strong Communities
(Planning Amendment) Act, 2004.
Increased Planning Decision Timelines
Under the Planning Act, proponents have the right to appeal to the OMB if an approval authority fails to
give notice of a decision within prescribed time frames for applications deemed to be "complete". Bill 26
proposes more time for approval authorities to decide on applications for:
.
Official plans/amendments and subdivisions/condominiums - to 180 days from 90;
Zoning bylaws and holding bylaws - to 120 days from 90; and
Consents to sever a property - to 90 days from 60.
.
.
Basis for Proposed Legislative Change
Some municipalities have advised that the Planning Act currently provides insufficient time for meaningful
consideration of planning applications. Members of the public have not had enough time to participate
in the planning process. Bill 26, if passed, would provide municipalities with more time to make planning
decisions and provide the public with more time to participate in the planning process.
Change the Implementation Standard to "shall be consistent with"
Currently the Planning Act requires that, in exercising any authority that affects a planning matter, a
municipality, a local board, a planning board, a Minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission
or agency of the government, including the Municipal Board, "shall have regard to" policy statements
issued under the Planning Act. It also requires a Minister or ministry, board, commission or agency of the
government to follow the same standard when providing comments, submissions or advice that affect a
planning matter. The government is proposing to change the "shall have regard to" standard so that any
planning "decision" "shall be consistent with" policy statements issued under the Act. In addition, Bill 26,
if passed, would require municipalities, local boards and planning boards to apply the new implementation
standard when providing comments, submissions or advice that affect a planning matter.
16
88
ATTACHMENT L- I TO
REPORT # PO ..3/-04
Basis for Proposed Legislative Change
The government believes the current Planning Act standard of "shall have regard to" is not strong
enough to protect provincial interests. A "shall be consistent with" standard would give planning
authorities more certainty in using the PPS and in making planning decisions that implement the PPS.
Appeal Rights
The Planning Act allows for appeals to the OMB for proposed amendments to official plans and zoning
bylaws. Bill 26 proposes to provide municipalities with additional power to determine their boundaries
by not allowing appeals to the OMB when a municipality does not support an application for an
amendment that proposes to alter the municipality's urban settlement area boundary or to establish a
new urban settlement area. The authority for the public to appeal a municipality's approval of an
official plan amendment or zoning bylaw amendment would be maintained.
Basis for Proposed Legislative Change
Municipalities need to be able to control urban sprawl. Of particular concern, has been the ability for
matters to be appealed directly to the OMB regarding a municipal decision to refuse or not make a
decision on proposals that would alter urban settlement boundaries, or introduce a new urban
settlement area. Such appeals have been costly and time-consuming for municipalities and can result
in ad hoc decision-making.
Declaration of Provincial Interest
The Planning Act does not allow the province to declare a provincial interest on matters before the
OMB (e.g., an official plan amendment application). As a result, final decisions rest with the OMB. Bill
26, if passed, would allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to declare a provincial interest
on official plans and zoning/holding bylaws before the OMB, if the Minister believes that all or part of
the application is likely to adversely affect a provincial interest. This would allow the government to
confirm, vary, or rescind an OMB decision on an official plan or zoning/holding bylaw.
Basis for Proposed Legislative Change
There may be occasions when a matter comes before the OMB where the public interest may be so
great that the province needs to be able to review the OMB decision to ensure the protection of the
broader public interest. This authority previously existed in the Planning Act and was only rarely
invoked by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
17
4TTA.CHMEI\JT /f__!-TO
REPORT # PO _3/--~.-
89
Brownfield - lands on which industrial or commercial activity took place in the past. They may be
vacant, underused or abandoned. The soil and water mayor may not be impacted by
contaminants as a result of past practices and uses.
Community improvement - means the planning or re-planning, design or redesign, re-subdivision,
clearance, development or re-development, reconstruction and rehabilitation, or any of them,
of a community improvement project area, and the provision of such residential, commercial,
industrial, public, recreational, institutional, religious, charitable or other uses, buildings, works,
improvements or facilities, or spaces therefore, as may be appropriate or necessary. (from
Planning Act)
Community improvement plan - is a document that sets out the background and policies for the
community improvement area.
Community improvement project area - a municipality or an area within a municipality, the
community improvement of which, in the opinion of the council, is desirable because of age,
dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement, unsuitability of buildings or for any other
environmental, social or community economic development reason. (from Planning Act)
Consents - approval under the Planning Act that authorizes the division of a piece of land into two
new adjoining properties.
Environmental assessment - is a decision-making process used to promote good environmental
planning by assessing the potential effects of certain activities on the environment. In Ontario,
this process is defined and finds its authority in the Environmental Assessment Act.
Green technologies - environmentally friendly technologies, including technologies that promote
sustainability via efficiency improvements, reuse/recycling, and substitution.
Growth boundaries - boundary separating urban from agricultural and / or rural designated lands.
Holding by-law - imposition of a holding provision to a zoning by-law passed under the Planning Act,
that specifies the use to which lands, buildings or structures may be put at such time in the
future as the holding provision is removed by amendment to the by-law.
Hydrogeological Studies - the study of potential impacts of certain activities on ground water
resources.
Infilling - development on vacant lots or underdeveloped lots within a built-up area.
Minor Variance - an authorized change to a zoning by-law not requiring a zoning by-law amendment.
Official Plan - a document that describes how land in a community should, or is intended to, be used;
it must include matters such as goals, objectives, and policies to manage and direct physical
change.
18
90
An ACHMENT # / TO
REPORT # PO 3/-()t/.
Planning Board - a local authority established under the Planning Act which co-ordinates overall
future growth and land-use planning activities in areas with and without municipal organization.
Site plan - detailed plan showing the location of all buildings and structures, and the location of all
facilities and works to be undertaken regarding the development of the land.
Subdivision - the division of a lot or parcel of land into multiple lots or blocks that can be sold
separately.
Urban Settlement Area - means an area of land designated in an official plan for urban uses
including urban areas, urban policy areas, towns, villages, hamlets, rural clusters, rural
settlement areas, urban systems, rural service centres or future urban use areas, or as
otherwise prescribed by regulation.
Zoning (Zoning by-law) - a document regulating permitted land uses including where buildings and
other structures can be located, the lot sizes and dimensions, parking requirements, building
heights and setbacks from the street.
19
ATIACHMENT # / era
REPORT # PO 3/ -1>1:..- ~-->
9t
CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Planning Act Reform
This section contains specific consultation questions to stimulate discussion and is provided for your
consideration and input.
For your convenience, this section of the discussion paper can be removed and used to mail or fax
back your comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Comments should be directed to:
Planning Reform Initiative
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch
777 Bay St., 14th Floor
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 645-8082 or 1-866-751-8082
Fax: (416) 585-4006
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an on-line questionnaire available at
www.planninareform.ontario.ca.
The government values your input and thanks you for your comments. Public input is essential to
ensure that we have a land-use planning system that supports a strong Ontario.
Comments must be received no later than August 31, 2004.
Your Contact Information
Name
Organization
Address
Telephone
Fax
E-mail Address
20
!
92
ÃT"AC' ".nqiT #. . I-. <~'r
'I nul_.'. ~»~-~,=",u
¡:.;fT"OR-C Ii on ;i/-!Yi
. ..'., , , ,.- --- . ':I...n.w,=.",."",...., ,
1.
Do you believe additional revisions are required to any existing provisions in the
Planning Act to make the planning system more effective? If yes, please explain.
2.
Are changes needed to the Planning Act to meet the objectives of compact urban form,
intensification, re-use of brownfield lands, and effective environmental protection which
would assist in strengthening Ontario's economy? If yes, please explain.
3.
Do you believe any changes are required to Bill 26, the Strong Communities (Planning
Amendment) Act, 2004, to make it more effective? If yes, please explain.
4.
Do you have any other suggestions for improving the land-use planning system in
Ontario? If yes, please explain.
5.
What changes to existing planning implementation tools would assist in building strong
communities, providing more efficient land-use planning and discouraging urban sprawl';'
6.
What new planning implementation tools are needed to assist in dealing with current and
future land-use planning issues?
7.
Any other comments or questions?
ATTACHMENT' L TO
REPORT I PO ~ - {) y-
93
Planning Reform
Provi ncial Pol icy Statement:
Draft Pol icies
Provincial Policy Statement:
Consultation Discussion Paper #2
June 2004
~ Ontario
94
ATTACHMENT' 2. TO
REPORT # PO ~ I -,., if
This Consultation Discussion Paper contains the draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. It is
one of three consultation discussion papers on Planning Reform.
The final section of this document can be removed and used to mail or fax back your comments.
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an on-line questionnaire available at
www.DlanninQreform.ontario.ca.
Comments must be received no later than Auaust 31, 2004.
For additional copies of this document, or any other of the planning reform consultation documents in
either French or English, please contact:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch
777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 645-8082 or 1-866-751-8082
Fax: 416-585-4006
E-mail: planningreform@mah.gov.on.ca
Or visit www.planningreform.ontario.ca
Disponible en français
@ Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2004
2
ATTACHMENT #__.4:_---,,;
REPORT # po-3.J ~~O 'f
95
The strength of Ontario depends on the strength of its communities. The McGuinty government is
acting on Ontarians' priorities and is delivering real, positive change that will build strong, prosperous
communities with a healthy environment and quality of life that is second to none.
The Ontario government recognizes that our current planning system needs to be improved.
Over the past years, there has been a growing perception that the Ontario land-use planning system
has not been working as effectively as it should. Our government intends to reform the land-use
planning and development process to support our goal of stronger, better communities. We have
already taken some important steps to achieve this goal.
In December 2003, I introduced Bill 26. the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004,
which proposes important amendments to the Planning Act. If passed, the reforms would bring more
accountability, transparency and public input to the way land-use planning decisions are made in
Ontario.
As part of our Planning Reform initiative we are:
. reviewing the planning process;
. determining the need for effective implementation tools for municipalities and other decision-
makers;
. releasing draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement for public review and input; and
. reviewing the Ontario Municipal Board.
We recognize that these initiatives are linked and that coordinated actions may be required to create
a better land-use planning system.
Planning reform is one essential element of our government's strong communities agenda. Other
initiatives under way to support this goal are a permanent Greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe, the
protection of source water and the development of a Growth Management Plan for the Golden
Horseshoe.
Improving the land-use planning system requires input from a wide variety of individuals and groups.
To hear your views, we are holding a series of public information sessions on planning reform across
the province. Please read this consultation document, attend a meeting, and fill out the questionnaire.
I invite you to share your views on what is needed to improve the land-use planning system and to
build strong communities where all Ontarians can thrive.
Hon. John Gerretsen
Minister
3
96
ATTACHMENT I
REPORT tI PO
Ontario's Planning System: It's important to all of us
Over the next 30 years, 4 million new residents will call Ontario home. The Ontario government is
setting a course for building strong, safe and liveable communities in Ontario that offer residents a
high quality of life.
Our approach for attracting healthy and sustainable growth will be clear, consistent and responsive to
Ontarians' priorities. This will require making decisions that will lead to long term benefits - new
economic growth, more liveable communities, enhanced transportation choices, clean and safe water
and improvements to our environment.
The land-use planning system is of key importance to achieving these goals in Ontario.
Land-use planning establishes the rules for development, and helps to determine how our
communities grow.
Ontario's land-use planning system defines the interests and responsibilities of all Ontarians in
planning for future land uses. The system provides the framework for determining the future of our
communities and for protecting valuable resources such as farmlands, wetlands, water and natural
features.
Ontario needs effective land-use planning, and an effective land-use planning system. This is
especially critical given the pressures confronting the province today, such as:
.
Increasing gridlock as a result of urban sprawl;
.
Unprecedented growth pressures in some parts of Ontario, such as the Golden Horseshoe
region;
.
Loss of prime agricultural land and other resources;
.
The need for enhanced environmental protection; and
.
The need for a strong economy.
It is also clear that Ontario's communities and the public need to have an effective voice in land-use
planning. There is a need for balance between individual interests and the broad public interest.
Municipalities must also have the right tools to achieve good land-use planning.
The Ontario government is responding to these challenges. Through the Planning Reform initiative, it
is reviewing the land-use planning system to ensure it meets today's needs.
Planning reform is a key component of the government's commitment to building strong communities
in Ontario. The government believes a strong and effective planning system is critical to: building
strong communities, providing a clean and healthy environment, and sustaining a strong economy.
This lays the foundation for enhancing the overall quality of life for Ontarians.
There are a number of interrelated initiatives to support strong communities that are currently
underway. These initiatives will depend on a stronger land-use planning system for effective
implementation. They include:
4
ATTACHMENT # 2. TO
REPORT # PO g t -0 'T
97
Strong Communities
Several initiatives are under way to support strong communities, including a new deal for our cities
and towns, a "seat at the table" with provincial and federal governments, and an enhanced rural
development program.
Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt
In December 2003, the McGuinty government took the first steps toward permanent protection of a
greenbelt across the Golden Horseshoe region by introducing Bill 27, the Greenbelt Protection Act,
2004. If passed, the Act would create a greenbelt study area within the Golden Horseshoe and
impose a one-year moratorium on new urban development on rural and agricultural lands within this
area.
The Greenbelt Task Force, a team of respected, knowledgeable and diverse stakeholder
representatives, was established by the government to develop recommendations on the scope,
content and implementation of the greenbelt. It is conducting public consultations in May and June
2004 for the purposes of developing recommendations on how the Province could effectively
establish a permanent Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt.
Growth Management in the Golden Horseshoe
This year, the government will release a Growth Management Plan for the Golden Horseshoe that will
articulate a long-term strategic vision and tools for how the Golden Horseshoe and surrounding areas
should grow over the next 30 years. The plan will identify priority growth areas where new population
and economic investment will be encouraged and will prioritize infrastructure through the development
of a 10-year infrastructure plan to ensure those areas are adequately serviced. At the same time, the
plan will identify and protect those areas that provide our food, water and recreation. An important
feature of the Growth Management Plan will be a transportation strategy that promotes the efficient
movement of people, goods and services throughout the Golden Horseshoe.
Source Water Protection
In mid-February 2004, the Ministry of the Environment began consultations on how best to deliver
watershed-based source protection as a way of securing the long-term quality and quantity of water
resources throughout the province. The initiative will result in policy, procedures and proposed
legislative changes that will further affect communities in Ontario.
Summary
Planning Reform and related initiatives recognize that comprehensive solutions are needed to build a
strong Ontario. Consultations on these initiatives are being coordinated, and information from the
other initiatives will also be coordinated and shared.
5
98
ATTACHMENT # 2 TO
REPORT # PO ~ I - 0 Lf
As a first step in Planning Reform, the government introduced Bill 26, the Strong Communities
(Planning Amendment) Act, 2004, which would amend the Planning Act and provide an enhanced
framework for planning in Ontario.
If passed, Bill 26 would give municipalities more time to make decisions on planning applications. It
would strengthen the requirement that provincial land-use policies are followed, and would empower
municipalities to determine their own local growth boundaries.
Bill 26 would also provide the Ontario government with the ability to make final decisions on matters
before the Ontario Municipal Board where a provincial interest has been declared.
The Ontario government recognizes that more needs to be done in reforming key aspects of the
planning system. Through consultation with stakeholders and the public, the government is seeking
input and advice on the following Planning Reform components:
.
Whether further changes need to be made to the Planning Act and to Bill 26;
.
The need for implementation tools to help support and implement a strong and effective land-
use planning framework in Ontario;
.
The draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, which provide policy direction on land-
use planning; and
.
The need for Ontario Municipal Board Reform. The Board is an independent tribunal that
hears appeals from landowners, the public and others on land-use planning matters. It hears
appeals of municipal decisions, and appeals where no decision has been made on planning
applications within timelines set out in the Planning Act.
Consultation Booklets
This booklet and two others have been written to help you understand the initiatives and provide a
range of discussion points for your consideration. They are also designed to make it easier for you to
provide your thoughts and suggestions on each of the Planning Reform components (Planning Act
Reform and Implementation Tools; draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement; and Ontario
Municipal Board Reform).
Your input on the Planning Reform components will help the provincial government to move forward
with proposed land-use planning reforms and will help shape the land-use planning system of the
future.
How to Participate
We want your views on the draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement.
The Ontario government will be holding public information sessions on planning reform in
communities across Ontario. Please visit our website at www.planningreform.ontario.ca to check for
further information on dates and locations, or call us at 1-866-751-8082.
6
-
ATTACHMENT#~ Z- TO
REPORT # PO ~ I - D!:/:_.,....
The following sections provide important background information. Specific consultation questions are
included in the final section of this document. You can remove the consultation questions section and
mail or fax back your comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
99
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an online questionnaire available at
www.planninareform.ontario.ca.
You may send written comments to:
Planning Reform Initiative
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch
777 Bay St, 14th Floor
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 645-8082 or 1-866-751-8082
Fax: (416) 585-4006
E-mail: planningreform@mah.gov.on.ca
Or visit www.planningreform.ontario.ca
Comments must be received no later than August 31, 2004.
Thank you for helping to shape planning in Ontario.
7
100
ATTACHME~JT #__~TO
REPORï # PO 3 l -: Q..'t"._"",~"w
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) sets out the Ontario government's interests in land-use
planning and development and provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest to those
involved in land-use planning. The PPS is the complementary policy document to the Planning Act
and is issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Act. It embodies good planning principles and
seeks to protect the public interest.
The current PPS came into effect on May 22. 1996 and was amended in 1997. Subsection 3( 1 0) of
the Planning Act states that the PPS must be reviewed every five years to determine whether
revisions are needed.
The five-year review of the PPS started in 2001 and has included extensive consultation across
Ontario with interested groups, professionals and individuals. A copy of the Summary Report of
Consultations, issued in 2002, can be found at:
http://www.mah.Qov.on.ca/userfiles/HTMUnts 1 6976 1.html.
The PPS review provides an opportunity to examine the province's land-use policy direction on key
issues that affect our overall well-being. These include: creating strong, livable and healthy
communities by promoting infill and intensification; supporting a vibrant and strong economy by
providing for an appropriate mix and ratio of employment opportunities to meet long-term needs; and
protecting the environment and resources, such as water, greenspace, agricultural lands and natural
and cultural heritage.
As part of its planning reform agenda, the Ontario government wants your views on the draft PPS
policies. The draft policies have been developed for your review, and will be improved as a result of
consultation.
As you read through the draft policies in the following sections of this document, we would appreciate
hearing your views on the following questions:
.
Do the draft policies provide sufficient direction to effectively protect provincial
interests in land-use planning?
.
Do the draft policies achieve the right balance among different policy interests, such as
building strong communities, protecting the environment and resources, and
supporting a strong economy?
.
Are there emerging or additional planning matters that require provincial policy
direction which are not included or which you believe are not adequately addressed?
For your convenience, you can remove the final section of this consultation discussion paper and use
it to mail or fax back your comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an online questionnaire at
www.planninQreform.ontario.ca.
8
ATTACHMENT # 2- TO
REPORT # PO .3 I - 0 'I-
101
The draft policies contained in the following section form part of the government's strategy to improve
the land-use planning system, and are intended to ensure that provincial land-use planning interests
are protected.
The draft policies include stronger, clearer direction to support the following goals:
.
Building strong communities by:
Promoting intensification, infill and brownfields development
Promoting the revitalization of cities, towns, villages and other settlement areas
Recognizing that the long-term health of communities is dependent on providing an adequate
supply of land and opportunities to meet employment, residential and other community needs
Promoting the integrity of local planning by ensuring that changes to growth boundaries are
made only in the context of comprehensive reviews of municipal official plans
Providing better "big-picture" and cross-boundary planning through requirements for
intensification and minimum density targets
Requiring the identification of priority growth areas
Supporting the efficient use of public investments in infrastructure, such as sewage, water and
transportation to help address gridlock, save costs, and protect the environment
Supporting a full range and mix of housing for current and future residents, including
affordable and special needs housing
Supporting urban greening, recreation opportunities, and improved accessibility for persons
with disabilities and the elderly
Supporting an improved jobs/housing balance to promote people working within their
communities and to reduce the problem of gridlock
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Protecting the environment and resources by:
Protecting water and ensuring a safe drinking water supply
Protecting significant natural resource features such as coastal and other wetlands, and the
habitat of endangered and threatened species
Supporting up-front planning for natural heritage systems and environmental protection
Helping to improve air quality and mitigate the impacts of climate change through supportive
land-use patterns
Protecting prime agricultural and specialty crop lands by addressing residential lot creation in
these areas
Ensuring the continued protection of Ontario's tender fruit lands for the future
Supporting the protection of significant cultural heritage and archaeological resources
Supporting the use of alternative energy systems and energy conservation
Providing strong policies for sewer and water systems which protect the environment and
public health
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Supporting a strong economy by:
Recognizing that good planning provides an economic advantage by supporting strong
communities, promoting a clean, healthy environment, and supporting a high quality of life
Ensuring an adequate supply of land and opportunities to accommodate a range/mix of
industrial, commercial, employment, residential and other uses to meet long-term needs
Identifying that Ontario's long-term prosperity and social well-being depend on maintaining a
diversified economy and a range and choice of employment lands
.
.
9
ATTACHMENT # 2 TO
REPORT # PO 3 1 - ð If
Helping municipalities to focus their funding locally by requiring municipalities to identify
priority growth areas and to co-ordinate/allocate employment projections accordingly
Maximizing the cost-effectiveness of municipal/provincial infrastructure investment by linking
infrastructure planning with land-use planning
Promoting densities and a mix of land uses that support public transit and other alternative
transportation modes
Requiring a comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to planning for transportation,
so that transportation systems are efficient, cost-effective, facilitate the movement of people
and goods, and help relieve traffic gridlock
Ensuring an adequate supply of mineral and other resources to meet long-term needs.
102
.
.
.
.
.
The draft policies generally focus on results, rather than how to achieve those results. This protects
significant provincial interests, while recognizing that approaches developed locally will best meet
local needs.
Subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act now requires that, in exercising any authority that affects a
planning matter, a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a Minister of the Crown and a
ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Ontario Municipal Board,
"shall have regard to" the PPS. Subsection 3(6) requires that the same standard be followed by a
Minister or ministry, board, commission or agency of the government when providing comments,
submissions or advice that affect a planning matter.
The government is proposing to change subsection 3(5) to require that any decision by planning
decision makers "shall be consistent with" policy statements issued under the Act. The government
also proposes to change subsection 3(6), to include municipalities, local boards and planning boards
in the list of bodies that must apply the new implementation standard when providing comments,
submissions or advice that affect planning matters.
The proposed change is intended to ensure that provincial policies are applied in all land-use planning
decisions, and that the outcomes of planning decisions are not in conflict with provincial policies.
The general,
common usage /
meaning of the
current and
proposed standards,
is shown in the table
to the right.
I Current I Proposed I
Shall have regard to Shall be consistent with
less demanding test more demanding test
directory in nature mandatory in nature
provincial policy statements must be provincial policy statements must be applied
considered as an important factor by in planning decisions
decision-makers in land-use planning
decisions
applies to decision-maker and to process of applies to outcome of the decision
making decisions
10
ATTACHMENT # 2 TO
REPORT # PO .3 t - 0 Lf
103
Current PPS Policies Proposed New PPS Policies
Policy Areas ("shall have regard to") ("shall be consistent with"
ro osed b Bill 26
Managing Growth . Boundary expansions . Intensification, redevelopment and infill
& Promoting permitted onto prime of employment, residential and other
Settlement Areas agricultural lands, including lands prior to expanding onto greenfields
specialty crop lands, with . Boundary expansions only at time of
justification comprehensive municipal review
. General policies for managing . Prohibit expansions onto specialty crop
and directing growth land
. Upper-tier role to direct growth including
allocating population, housing and
employment projections for lower-tiers
. Recognition of linkages to provincial
lans
Revitalizing . Provide opportunities for . Identify brownfields as opportunities for
Brownfields / intensification and redevelopment
Intensification redevelopment in areas with . Intensification of existing built-up areas
sufficient infrastructure, but and brownfields development prior to
not required prior to boundary expanding into greenfield areas where
expansions possible
. Brownfields not specifically . Upper-tier municipality to set targets for
recognized intensification / minimum densities
. Contaminated lands viewed . All municipalities to permit / facilitate all
mainly as hazards to human forms of intensification / redevelopment
health . Plan infrastructure to support priority
. No targets for growth areas
intensification/densit
Transit-Supportive . Support transit-supportive . Promote transit-supportive land use
Land Use Patterns densities patterns including density /
. Support multi-modal intensification targets
transportation systems . Direct new development to areas well-
. Protect transportation served by transit
corridors . Provide housing / jobs in close proximity
to one another
. Focus travel intensive land uses on
transit corridors
. Link transportation and growth planning
. Protect strategic future transportation
corridors and preclude incompatible
uses within them
. Upper-tiers to set minimum densities for
transit corridors
Employment Lands . Long-term (20-year) planning . Ensure adequate supply of land and
horizon to include sufficient opportunities to accommodate range/mix
land for industrial, commercial of industrial, commercial and other
and other uses to promote employment uses to meet long-term
employment opportunities needs
11
104
ATTACHMENT I
REPORT # PO
Z- TO
~'-D'f
. Well-being of downtowns and . Vitality and viability of downtowns and
mainstreets to be maintained mainstreets to be maintained
. Maintain diversified economic base and
range and choice of employment lands
. Focused investment through
identification of priority growth areas and
corresponding coordination / allocation
of employment projections
. Support jobs / housing balance in
communities
Air Quality / Energy . No policies on air quality . Transit supportive land use patterns
. Support energy conservation . Provide housing / jobs in close proximity
. Focus travel intensive uses on transit
corridors
. Support urban greening
. Support alternative energy systems and
conservation
Housing . Encourage housing forms and . Require municipalities to set minimum
densities designed to be targets for the provision of housing
affordable to moderate and which is affordable to low and moderate
lower income households income households
. No target . Define "affordable"
. No definition of affordable . Permit and facilitate special needs
housing
Preserving . Protect significant natural . Protect more significant natural heritage
Greenspace heritage features features including coastal wetlands,
. Support planning for additional wetlands on Canadian Shield
recreation and habitat of endangered and
threatened species
. Support urban greening
. Support planning for recreation / tourism
and natural heritage systems
Water . Protect quality and quantity of . Use watersheds as basis for planning
ground water and surface . Maintain watershed integrity
water and function of sensitive . Protect surface and ground water
areas features, functions and drinking water
supplies
. Identify vulnerable areas
. Promote conservation and appropriate
stormwater management
. Restrict development and site alteration
in sensitive areas
. Address cross boundary impacts
Agriculture . Protect prime agricultural . Strong protection for specialty crop lands
areas and specialty crop including prohibiting growth expansion
lands while non-agricultural onto these lands and prohibiting non-
uses permitted when agricultural uses
justification provided . Protect prime agricultural areas
. Strictly limit re-designation of prime
agricultural lands to other uses
. Prohibit residential lot creation on these
lands
12
ATTACHMENT'~ z.. TO
REPORT # PO 3' - 0 Lf
105
PART I
PART II
PART III
PART IV
PART V
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREAMBLE
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
HOW TO READ THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
VISION FOR ONTARIO'S LAND USE PLANNING SYSTEM
POLICIES
1.0
BUILDING STRONG COMMUNITIES
1.1 Efficient Settlement Patterns
1.2 Efficient Development and Land Use Patterns for Employment,
Residential and Other Uses
Coordination Within and Between Municipalities
Housing
Infrastructure
Long Term Prosperity and Social Well-Being
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
WISE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES
2.1 Natural Heritage
2.2 Water
2.3 Agriculture
2.4 Minerals & Petroleum
2.5 Mineral Aggregates
2.6 Cultural Heritage & Archaeology
PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
3.1 Natural Hazards
3.2 Human-made Hazards
IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION
FIGURE
DEFINITIONS
13
106
2
'-'
Hl¡:-'URI 11 f'u-3. l - 0 Lf '---'-
PART I:
PREAMBLE
The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to
land use planning and development. It supports the provincial goal of an Ontario which provides a
high quality of life for its citizens, now and in the future, through strong, liveable communities, a clean
and healthy environment, and a strong economy.
The Provincial Policy Statement provides for appropriate growth and development while protecting
resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural environment.
By setting out policy direction in each of these areas, the Policy Statement supports improved land
use planning and management, and contributes to a more effective and efficient land use planning
process.
Land use planning is only one of the tools for protecting provincial interests. A wide range of
legislation, regulation, policies and programs may also affect land use planning matters, and assist in
protecting these interests.
PART II: LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
The Provincial Policy Statement is issued under the authority of Section 3 of the PlanninQ Act and
came into effect on <DATE>. It replaces the Policy Statement which came into effect on May 22,
1996, as amended.
In respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a land use planning matter, section 3 of the
PlanninQ Act requires that decisions affecting land use planning matters shall be consistent with 1
policy statements issued under the Act.
This provision is intended to ensure that the Provincial Policy Statement is applied by all decision
makers when making decisions on land use planning matters affecting provincial interests. It ensures
that provincial interests remain an essential part of decision-making for land use planning, and that
provincial policies are implemented.
PART III: HOW TO READ THE PROVINCIAL POLICY
STATEMENT
The Provincial Policy Statement promotes a policy-led planning system, which recognizes that there
are complex inter-relationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use
planning.
In order to best address these inter-relationships, the Provincial Policy Statement is intended to be
read in its entirety. The Policy Statement is intended to be cumulative and integrated, rather than
considering each policy individually, so that all policies which apply to a site, issue or feature are read
as if they were specifically referenced in each individual policy which applies. This supports a
comprehensive approach to planning, and facilitates the consideration of linkages among policy areas,
while achieving the overall intent of the Policy Statement.
'The .shall be consistent with" implementation standard has been included as a placeholder to reflect the standard that would apply if the proposed Strong Communities
(Planning Amendment) Act, 2004 (Bill 26) is passed. The current standard, set out in subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act, provides that planning authorities "shall have
regard to. the PPS when exercising any authority that affects a planning matter.
14
".1"""':;.".' 2
,'<. .1'-"';",,-,,,. 11 , ,I U
REf'JRï tI PO .,.-_3. L :Q_if... , ..,
107
The Vision for Ontario's Land Use Planning System is intended to provide a context to facilitate
implementation of the Policy Statement. Additional direction on matters of implementation is provided
in the Implementation and Interpretation section, and may also be provided through provincial plans
approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Italicized terms in the Policy Statement are defined in the Definitions section. For other terms, the
normal meaning of the word applies. In certain cases, terms are italicized only in specific policies; for
these terms, the defined meaning applies where they are italicized and the normal meaning applies
where they are not italicized. Also, in certain cases, specific elements of defined terms are highlighted
in policy and/or specific policies are referenced in other policies for ease of use. In these instances,
respectively, the full definition set out in the Definitions section takes precedence in applying the
policies of this Policy Statement, and specific policy references in individual policies do not take away
from the need to read the Policy Statement as a whole.
There is no implied priority in the order in which the policies appear.
PART IV: VISION FOR ONTARIO'S LAND USE PLANNING
SYSTEM
The long-term prosperity and social well-being of Ontarians depend on maintaining strong
communities, a clean and healthy environment, and a strong economy.
The wise management of growth - which may involve directing or promoting growth - is a key
provincial interest. Wisely managed growth achieves efficient development patterns which focus
growth in settlement areas, and direct growth away from significant or sensitive resources. Efficient
development patterns optimize the use of land, resources, and public investments in transportation,
servicing and other infrastructure; minimize the negative impact of growth; and support the financial
well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term. They result in strong, liveable and
healthy communities that enhance social well-being, are economically and environmentally sound,
and meet the full range of needs of current and future residents.
Our resources - the Province's natural heritage, water, agricultural land base, mineral resources, and
cultural and archaeological heritage - provide environmental, economic and social benefits. The wise
use and management of these resources over the long term is a key provincial interest. Wise use and
management protects essential ecological processes and public health and safety, minimizes
environmental and social impacts, and provides for resource sustainability to meet long-term needs
and support ongoing prosperity.
Equally, protecting the long term health and safety of the population is a key provincial interest. The
preventative approach - which directs development away from areas of natural hazards, and from
areas of human-made hazards where these cannot be mitigated - protects public health and safety,
supports provincial and municipal financial well-being over the long term, and minimizes cost, risk and
social disruption.
Doing things right conserves land and resources, avoids the need for costly remedial measures to
correct problems, and supports economic and environmental principles.
Achieving long-term prosperity and social weill-being requires a comprehensive, integrated, and long-
term perspective for growth and resource management which facilitates strategic and cross-
jurisdictional planning, the consideration of linkages among provincial interests, and efficient and
15
(il,lAIPJ;nrr Ii k___- ro
-1fHJR"T ii PO - .. 3_L: _9_'-:t-,_,
effective decision-making regarding development. It also requires a clear recognition that strong
communities, a clean and healthy environment, and a strong economy are inextricably linked.
108
Long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being should take precedence over short-
term considerations.
PART V: POLICIES
1.0
BUILDING STRONG COMMUNITIES
Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well-being depend on managing
change and promoting efficient land use and development patterns that support strong, liveable, and
healthy communities; protect the environment and public health and safety; stimulate economic
growth; and sustain provincial and municipal financial well-being over the long term.
To achieve this goal, development will be directed in accordance with the policies of Part V.
Accordingly:
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.1.1
1.1.1.2
1.1.1.3
1.1.1.4
EFFICIENT SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
SETTLEMENT AREAS
Settlement areas will be the focus of growth.
Settlement areas are cities, towns, villages and hamlets in incorporated municipalities.
Opportunities to sustain and enhance the vitality and regeneration of built up areas within
settlement areas through intensification and redevelopment should be utilized before
extending development into designated growth areas.
New development taking place in designated growth areas should occur adjacent to the
existing built-up area, and have a compact form, mix of uses, and densities that allow for
the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public seNice facilities.
Alteration to Boundaries of Settlement Areas
The alteration of all or any part of a boundary of a settlement area or the creation of a new
settlement area will be permitted only at the time of a comprehensive review and only
where it has been demonstrated that:
a) existing designated areas in the municipality do not have a sufficient supply of land -
available through intensification and redevelopment and, if justified and feasible,
designated growth areas - to accommodate the growth projected for the municipality
over the planning horizon identified in policy 1.2. Land requirements will be
determined in accordance with policy 1.2;
16
1.1.2
1.1.2.1
1.1.2.2
1.1.2.3
1.1.2.4
1.1.2.5
1.1.2.6
1.1.3
1.1.3.1
1.1.3.2
.ATTACHMENT # Z. TO
REPORT # PO 3 ¡ -0 Ll-
b) the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available are
suitable for the development, and protect public health and safety over the long-term;
and
109
c)
in prime agricultural areas:
1. the lands do not comprise specialty crop areas;
2. there are no reasonable alternatives, which avoid prime agricultural areas;
and
3. there are no reasonable alternatives with lower priority agricultural lands in
prime agricultural areas.
The policies of Part V will be applied in the determination of the most appropriate direction
for alterations to the boundaries of settlement areas or the location of new settlement
areas.
RURAL ARE.AS
Rural areas will be the focus of activities and land uses related to the management or use
of natural resources, resource-based recreational activities, limited residential
development, and other rural land uses.
Rural areas are those lands within incorporated municipalities which are located outside
settlement areas and prime agricultural areas.
In managing change, planning authorities will undertake comprehensive, integrated and
long-term planning so that development protects provincial interests, is compatible with the
landscape qualities of the rural area, and can be sustained by rural service levels.
Scattered development, including strip development, will be discouraged.
In those parts of the rural area which are adjacent or in proximity to settlement areas,
development and land use patterns that would hinder the efficient expansion of these
settlement areas will not be permitted.
Significant concentrations of new development in the rural area which are to be located
outside settlement areas will only be permitted in accordance with the criteria identified in
policy 1.1.1.4(a) and (b).
New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities will
comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.
AREAS WITHOUT MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION
Notwithstanding policy 1.1.2, the focus of development activity in territory without
municipal organization will be activities and land uses related to the management or use of
natural resources and resource-based recreational activities.
Territory without municipal organization comprises lands within rural areas where there is
no municipal structure.
The establishment of new permanent townsites will not be permitted.
17
110
1.1.3.3
1.1.3.4
1.1.3.5
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
ATTACHMENT # 2. IU
REPORT # PO 31 ~ 0 I.f
Conversions from seasonal to permanent dwellings will be discouraged.
In areas adjacent to and surrounding municipalities, only development that is related to the
management or use of natural resources and resource-based recreational activity will be
permitted unless:
a) the area forms part of a planning area; and
b) it has been determined, as part of a comprehensive review, that the impacts of growth
will not place an undue strain on the public service facilities and infrastructure provided
by adjacent municipalities, regions and/or the Province.
In areas that are not adjacent to or surrounding municipalities, only development that is
related to the management or use of natural resources and resource-based recreational
activity will be permitted unless:
a) it has been determined, as part of a comprehensive review, that the impacts of growth
will not place an undue strain on the public service facilities and infrastructure
provided by planning authorities, and/or the Province, designated agencies or other
public service delivery bodies.
EFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE PATTERNS FOR
EMPLOYMENT, RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER USES
Efficient, development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the
Province and municipalities over the long-term will be promoted.
All planning authorities will make provision to accommodate an appropriate range and mix
of industrial, commercial, institutional, employment, recreational, residential and open
space uses to meet long-term needs.
land requirements and land use patterns will be based on:
a) The provision of sufficient land - through intensification and redevelopment and, if
necessary and justified, designated growth areas - to promote employment
opportunities and for an appropriate range and mix of housing to accommodate
growth projected for a time horizon of up to 20 years.
However, where an alternate time period has been established for specific areas of
the Province as a result of a provincial planning exercise or a provincial plan approved
by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, that time frame may be used for upper, single
and lower-tier municipalities within the area.
b) Densities and a mix of land uses which:
1. Efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities;
2. Avoid the need for unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of infrastructure;
3. Are appropriate to infrastructure which is planned or available, including sewage
and water systems and transportation;
4. Contribute to improving air quality, mitigating the impacts of climate change. and
promoting energy efficiency by:
18
1.2.4
1.2.5
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
ATTACHMENT # 2 TO
REPORT # PO 3 I ~ 0 if
111
i)
facilitating viable choices of public transit and other alternative
transportation modes in areas where they exist or are to be developed;
focusing major employment and travel intensive land uses on sites which
are well served by public transit, or designing these sites to permit the
establishment of public transit in the future;
providing for an efficient, cost-effective, reliable multi-modal transportation
system that is integrated with adjacent systems and those of other
jurisdictions, and is appropriate to address expected population growth;
improving the mix between employment and housing uses so as to
shorten commute journeys, decrease transportation congestion and
reduce the overall need to travel; and
maintaining or expanding vegetated areas within settlement areas,
wherever possible.
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
c) The provision of a range of uses, and opportunities for intensification and
redevelopment, in areas which have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure to
accommodate them;
d) Development standards which are cost effective and which will minimize land
consumption and servicing costs; and
e) Take into account the applicable policies of Part V.
Major facilities (such as airports, transportationltransit corridors, rail yards, harbours,
sewage treatment facilities, waste management systems, oil and gas pipelines, industries
and resource extraction activities) and sensitive land uses will be appropriately designed,
buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent adverse effects from odour, noise
and other contaminants, and minimize risk to public health and safety.
Development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and
safety concerns will be avoided.
COORDINATION WITHIN AND BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES
A coordinated, integrated and comprehensive approach should be achieved when dealing
with land use planning matters which cross municipal boundaries including:
a) Managing and/or promoting growth and development;
b) Managing natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural and archaeological
heritage resources;
c) Infrastructure, public service facílíties and waste management systems;
d) Ecosystem, shoreline, and watershed related issues;
e) Shoreline, riverine, and natural and man-made hazards; and
f) Population, housing and employment projections, based on regional market areas.
A comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to planning will be achieved within
municipal boundaries when dealing with the matters identified in policy 1.3.1.
Where planning is conducted by the upper-tier level, upper-tier governments, in
consultation with lower-tier governments, will:
19
112
1.4
1.4.1
1.4.2
1.4.3
1.4.4
ATTACHMENT #__~___TO
REFORl it Pfì .. 3 I:P l.f
a) identify priority growth areas and coordinate and allocate population, housing and
employment projections for lower-tier municipalities accordingly;
b) identify targets for intensification and redevelopment within all or any of the lower-tier
municipalities, including minimum targets that should be met before alteration to the
boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.1.4;
c) identify minimum densities for transit corridors, and other significant corridors and
areas, including minimum densities that should be met before alteration to the
boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.1.4; and
d) identify and provide policy direction for the lower-tier municipalities within their
jurisdiction for matters which cross municipal boundaries.
Where there is no upper-tier level, adjacent planning jurisdictions should ensure that this
coordination occurs as part of the planning process.
Where single-tier planning takes place, the planning authority will ensure that the elements
identified in subsections (a)-(d) are undertaken as part of the planning process.
HOUSING
All planning authorities will maintain at all times:
a) the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through lands
which are designated and available for residential development; and
b) where new development is to occur, land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide
at least a 3 year supply of residential units in draft approved and registered plans, or
in cases of residential intensification and redevelopment, lands suitably zoned and
available.
In meeting the land and unit supply requirements in policy 1.4.1, residential intensification
and redevelopment will be considered first. land in designated growth areas will be
utilized only where residential intensification and redevelopment are not sufficient to meet
the requirements.
Where planning is conducted by the upper-tier level, the maintenance of land and unit
supply at the lower-tier level identified in policy 1.4.1 will be based on and reflect the
upper-tier allocation of population and units.
All planning authorities will provide for a full range of housing types and densities to meet
projected demographic, market and special needs requirements, including dedicated
facilities, of current and future residents of the regional market area by:
a) identifying minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and
moderate income households;
20
1.5
1.5.1
1.5.2
1.5.3
1.5.4
1.5.4.1
ATTACHMENT # _..~".>__TO
RW¡¡i ~li' 3 L - 0 if
113
b) permitting and facilitating:
i) all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being
requirements, including special needs, of current and future residents;
all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment in parts of built-up
areas that have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure to create a
potential supply of new housing units;
ii)
c)
directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels
of infrastructure and public service facilities are, or will be, available to support current
and future needs; and
d) establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and
new residential development, which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate
compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.
IN FRASTRUCTU RE
All planning authorities will make provision such that public service facilities and
infrastructure will be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner to
accommodate projected growth.
Planning for infrastructure will be integrated with planning for growth so that the
development of new infrastructure and public service facilities is directed to support priority
growth areas.
Existing infrastructure and public service facilities within settlement areas will be utilized to
accommodate growth, wherever feasible, before developing new infrastructure and public
service facilities.
Public service facilities should be strategically located to support the effective and efficient
delivery of emergency management services.
SEWAGE AND WATER SYSTEMS
All planning authorities will provide for a comprehensive, integrated and long-term
approach to planning for municipal sewage and water services, private communal sewage
and water services and, where permitted by this policy, private non-communal sewage and
water services so that:
a) expected population growth can be accommodated and directed in a manner that
promotes the efficient use of existing:
1. municipal water and sewage services; and
2. where such services are not available, private communal water and sewage
services;
b)
subject to the hierarchy of services described in policies 1.5.4.2, 1.5.4.3 and 1.5.4.4,
lot creation will be permitted only if there is a confirmation of sufficient reserve
capacity for municipal sewage and water services or private communal sewage and
water services, including treatment capacity for hauled sewage from private
communal and private non-communal sewage services;
21
114
1.5.4.2
1.5.4.3
1.5.4.4
n-
AHACHMENT #--2:-_- TO
op 3/ - 0 If
c)
services are being provided in a manner that:
i) is commensurate with the water resources upon which such services rely;
ii) protects human health and the natural environment; and
iii) ensures that sewage and water systems are financially viable to comply
with all regulatory requirements that apply to the provision of such services;
d)
e)
water conservation and water use efficiency is promoted; and
servicing and land use considerations are integrated at all stages of the planning
process.
Planning for sewage and water systems will be undertaken so that municipal sewage and
water services are the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas. Intensification and
redevelopment within settlement areas on existing sewage and water services will be
promoted.
In areas serviced by municipal sewage and water services, development will be permitted
only if sufficient reserve water and sewage system capacity is available.
Where municipal sewage and water services are not provided, and municipalities choose
to utilize private communal sewage and water services and, where this policy permits,
private non-communal sewage and water services, they must establish policies to ensure
that the services to be provided satisfy the principles set out in policy 1.5.4.1.
Private communal sewage and water services and private non-communal sewage and
water services may be permitted subject to the following:
a) private communal sewage and water services will only be used as a means of
servicing a new development of six or more lots or private residences in areas where
municipal sewage and water services cannot be provided and where site conditions
are suitable for the long-term provision of such services;
b) private non-communal sewage and water services will only be used for a new
development of five or Jess lots or private residences and where site conditions are
suitable for the long-term provision of such services; but
c)
notwithstanding policy 1.5.4.3(b), in rural areas, and solely for the servicing of the
permitted uses identified in policy 1.1.2.1, private non-communal sewage and water
services may be used to service more than five lots or private residences where site
conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services.
Partial services will not be permitted, except:
a) where they are necessary to address failed private non-communal sewage and water
services in existing development; and
b) within settlement areas, to allow for infilling and rounding out of existing development
on partial services so long as:
i) the development is within the reserve water and sewage system capacity; and
ii) site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services.
22
1.5.5
1.5.5.1
1.5.6
1.5.6.1
1.5.6.2
1.5.6.3
1.5.7
1.5.7.1
2-..........." ,"u"
\i ri',~!¡.....' ,I --
RE.PjRì 11 PO 31 -ð '-I
115
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
All planning authorities will provide for a comprehensive, integrated and long-term
approach to planning for transportation so that:
a) transportation systems are provided which are safe, energy efficient, facilitate the
movement of people and goods, and are appropriate to address expected growth;
b) efficient use is made of existing and planned infrastructure;
c)
connectivity within and between transportation systems and modes is maintained or
improved, including connections which cross jurisdictional boundaries;
d) a land use pattern, density and mix of uses is promoted which reduces growth in the
length and number of motol1ized journeys, and creates viable choices of public transit
and other alternative transportation modes; and
e) transportation and land use considerations are integrated at all stages of the planning
process.
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS
Corridors and rights-of-way for significant transportation and infrastructure facilities will be
planned for and protected to serve current and projected needs.
In identified corridors, development that could preclude use of the corridor for the
purpose(s) for which it was identified will not be permitted.
The preservation and reuse of abandoned corridors for purposes that maintain the
corridor's continuous linear characteristics should be encouraged, wherever feasible.
AIRPORTS
Airports will be protected from incompatible land uses and development by:
a) Prohibiting new residential development and other sensitive land-uses in areas near
airports above 30 NEF/NEP, as set out on maps (as revised from time to time)
reviewed by Transport Canada;
b) Considering redevelopment of existing residential uses and other sensitive land uses
or infilling of residential and other sensitive land uses in areas above 30 NEF/NEP
only if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the long-
term function of the airport; and
c)
Discouraging land uses which may cause a potential aviation safety hazard.
23
116
, ¡-I'A'" "'j.LIIJ' ' 2- . U
d vr,iVIL IF______- .
REPORT # PO ~ I - 0 '-f
1.5.8
WASTE MANAGEMENT
1.5.8.1
Waste management systems will be provided that are of an appropriate size and type to
accommodate present and future requirements, and facilitate, encourage and promote
reduction, reuse and recycling objectives.
Waste management systems will be located and designed in accordance with provincial
legislation and standards.
1.6
LONG-TERM PROSPERITY AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING
1.6.1
In accordance with the policies of Part V, long-term prosperity and social well-being will be
supported by:
a) optimizing the long-term availability and use of land, resources, infrastructure and
public service facilities;
b) maintaining the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets;
c) providing opportunities for a diversified economic base, including maintaining a range
and choice of available employment lands;
d) providing opportunities for the generation and use of alternative energy systems,
where feasible;
e) providing for a full range of publicly-accessible built and natural settings for recreation,
including facilities, parklands, open space areas, trails and water-based resources;
f) providing opportunities for sustainable tourism development;
g) planning public streets and spaces, and facilities used by the public, to meet the
needs of pedestrians, facilitate pedestrian and non-motorized movement, and to be
safe and lively;
h) improving accessibility for persons with disabilities and the elderly by removing and/or
preventing land use barriers, including housing and transportation barriers, which
restrict their full participation in society;
i) mitigating adverse effects on natural heritage systems so that biodiversity and natural
functions are maintained; and
j) providing for the sustainability of provincial parks and conservation reserves.
2.0
WISE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES
Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on protecting
natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for
their economic use and/or their environmental and/or societal benefits.
To achieve this goal, development will be directed in accordance with the policies of Part V.
Accordingly:
24
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.2.1
2.1.2.2
2.1.2.3
2.1.2.4
2.1.2.5
2.1.3
2.1.3.1
2.2
2.2.1
ATTACHMENT # -. 2- _TO
REPORT i! 1'0__3/_"':9.:1_.__..
117
NATURAL HERITAGE
The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological
function of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or improved where
possible, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas,
surface water features and ground water features.
Natural Heritage Features And Areas
Development will generally be directed away from natural heritage features and areas.
Development and site alteration will not be permitted in:
a) significant habitat of endangered and threatened species;
b) significant wetlands in Site Regions 5E, 6E and 7E;2 and
c) significant coastal wetlands within the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System.
Development and site alteration will not be permitted in:
a) significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Site Regions 5E, 6E and 7E;2
b) significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield;3
c) significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield;3
d) significant wildlife habitat; and
e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest
unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural
features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified.
Development and site alteration will not be permitted in fish habitat, except in accordance
with provincial and federal requirements.
Development and site alteration will not be permitted on adjacent lands to 2.1.2.2, 2.1.2.3,
and 2.1.2.4 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands have been evaluated, and
it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or
on the ecological functions for which the area is identified.
Existing Agricultural Uses
Nothing in policy 2.1 is intended to limit the ability of existing agricultural uses to continue.
WATER
All planning authorities will provide for a comprehensive, integrated and long-term
approach for the protection, improvement or restoration of the quality and quantity of
water by:
a) utlilizing the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for planning;
2 Site Regions 5E, 6E and 7E are shown on Figure 1.
3 Areas south and east of the Canadian Shield are shown on Figure 1.
25
118
2.2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.3.1
2.3.3.2
. I' ,.'..'."'..;1'."'="'11. ~ 2- 1,',
,\ ,,',J' \ "U, , " , ,. ,_. ,.
. Oì', 3 I - 0 If
b) addressing potential negative impacts, including cross-jurisdictional and cross-
watershed impacts;
c) identifying surface and ground water features, hydrologic functions and natural
heritage features and areas necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of
the watershed;
d) identifying restrictions on development and site alteration:
1. to protect all municipal drinking water supplies;
2. to protect, improve or restore sensitive surface and ground water features and
their hydrologic functions;
e) maintaining linkages and related functions among surface and ground water features,
hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas;
f) promoting efficient and sustainable use of water resources, including practices for
water conservation and sustaining water quality; and
g) ensuring stormwater management practices which minimize stormwater volumes and
contaminant loads, and maintain or increase the extent of vegetative and pervious
surfaces.
Development and site alteration will be restricted in or near sensitive surface and
groundwater features such that these features and their related hydrological functions will
be protected, improved or restored.
Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches may be required in order
to protect, improve or restore sensitive surface and groundwater features, and their
hydrologic functions.
AGRICULTURE
Prime agricultural areas will be protected for long term use for agriculture,
Prime agricultural areas are areas where prime agricultural lands (which include specialty
crop areas and/or Canada Land Inventory Classes 1. 2 and 3 soils) predominate.
Specialty crop areas will be given the highest priority for protection, followed by Classes 1,
2 and 3 soils, in this order of priority.
All planning authorities will designate specialty crop areas using evaluation procedures
established by the province, as amended from time to time.
Permitted Uses
In prime agricultural areas, permitted uses and activities are: agricultural uses; secondary
uses; and agriculture-related uses.
Proposed new secondary uses and agriculture-related uses will be compatible with, and
will not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations.
In prime agricultural areas, agricultural uses and normal farm practices will be promoted
and protected.
New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities will
comply with the minimum distance separation formulae.
26
2.3.4
2.3.4.1
2.3.5
2.3.5.1
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.2.1
2.4.2.2
Lot Creation And Lot Adjustments
,¡ !.\," Ij.---..?:...--.--....
" ¡ ,i;1 P 0....3.1::.9_<-[_- .
119
Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and will only be permitted for:
a) agricultural uses, provided that they are of a size appropriate for the type of
agricultural use(s) common in the area and are sufficiently large to maintain flexibility
for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operations;
b) agriculture-related uses, provided that any new lot will be limited to a minimum size
needed to accommodate the use and an appropriate sewage and water system;
c)
infrastructure, where the facility cannot be accommodated through the use of
easements or rights-of-way; and
d) legal or technical reasons.
Redesignation Of Prime Agricultural Areas
An area will only be excluded from prime agricultural areas for:
a) an expansion of settlement areas in accordance with policy 1.1.1.4;
b) extraction of mineral resources, in accordance with policies 2.4 and 2.5; and
c) limited non-residential uses, provided that:
1. the land to be developed does not comprise specialty crop areas;
2. there is a demonstrated need within the planning horizon provided for in
policy 1.2 for additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed
use;
3. there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural
areas; and
4. there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with
lower priority agricultural lands.
Impacts from any new or expanding non-agricultural uses on surrounding agricultural
operations and lands will be mitigated.
MINERALS AND PETROLEUM
Minerals and petroleum resources will be protected for long-term use.
Protection Of Long Term Resource Supply
Mineral mining operations and petroleum resource operations will be protected from
development and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use
or which would be incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental
impact.
In areas adjacent to or in known mineral deposits or known petroleum resources, and in
significant areas of mineral potential, development and activities which would preclude or
hinder the establishment of new operations or access to the resources will only be
permitted if:
27
120
2.4.3
2.4.3.1
2.4.4
2.4.4.1
2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.2.1
2.5.2.2
2.5.2.3
2.5.2.4
2.5.2.5
,'irTACHMENT #- Z TO
REPORT # PO ~ I - 0 If
a) resource use would not be feasible; or
b) the proposed land uses or development serves a greater long term public interest; and
c) issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation to accommodate subsequent land uses will be required after extraction and
other related activities have ceased. Progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken
wherever feasible.
Extraction In Prime Agricultural Areas
Extraction of minerals and petroleum resources is permitted in prime agricultural areas,
provided that the site is rehabilitated.
MINERAL AGGREGATES
Mineral aggregate resources will be protected for long term use.
Protection Of Long Term Resource Supply
As much of the mineral aggregate resource as is realistically possible in the context of
other land use planning objectives will be made available as close to markets as possible
to supply local, regional and provincial needs.
Demonstration of need for mineral aggregate resources, including any type of
supply/demand analysis, will not be required, notwithstanding the availability, designation,
or licensing for extraction, of mineral aggregate resources locally or elsewhere.
Notwithstanding the need for mineral aggregate resources identified in 2.5.2.1, extraction
will be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social and environmental costs.
The conservation of mineral aggregates resources will be promoted by making provision
for the recovery of these resources, wherever feasible.
Mineral aggregate operations will be protected from development and activities that would
preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use or which would be incompatible for
reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact. Existing mineral aggregate
operations will be permitted to continue without the need for official plan amendment,
rezoning or development permit under the PlanninQ Act. When a license for extraction or
operation ceases to exist, policy 2.5.2.5 continues to apply.
In areas adjacent to or in known deposits of mineral aggregate resources, development
and activities which would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or
access to the resources will only be permitted if:
a) resource use would not be feasible; or
b) the proposed land uses or development serves a greater long term public interest; and
28
2.5.3
2.5.3.1
2.5.3.2
2.5.4
2.5.4.1
2.5.5
2.5.5.1
-.' "~'.}-i,\':i:l\r, . __2:__TO
Ti ,¡:, /i :JD__31--:o ~Lj-------~-
121
c)
issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed.
Rehabilitation
Progressive and final rehabilitation will be required to accommodate subsequent land
uses, and to promote land use compatibility and the interim nature of extraction. Final
rehabilitation will take surrounding land use and approved land use designations into
consideration.
In parts of the Province not designated under the Aaareaate Resources Act, rehabilitation
standards that are compatible with those under the Act should be adopted for extraction
operations on private lands.
Extraction In Prime Agricultural Areas
In prime agricultural areas, on prime agricultural land, extraction of mineral aggregate
resources is permitted as an interim use provided that rehabilitation of the site will be
carried out whereby substantially the same areas and same average soil quality for
agriculture are restored.
On these prime agricultural lands, complete agricultural rehabilitation is not required if:
a) there is a substantial quantity of mineral aggregate resources below the water table
warranting extraction, or the depth of planned extraction in a quarry makes restoration
of pre- extraction agricultural capability unfeasible;
b) other alternatives including resources in areas of classes 4 to 7 agricultural lands,
resources on lands committed to future urban areas, and resources on prime
agricultural lands where rehabilitation is feasible have been considered by the
applicant and found unsuitable. Where no other alternatives are found, prime
agricultural land will be protected in this order of priority: specialty crop areas,
Canada land Inventory classes 1, 2 and 3; and
c)
agricultural rehabilitation in remaining areas will be maximized.
Wayside Pits And Quarries, Portable Asphalt Plants, And Concrete Plants
Wayside pits and quarries, portable asphalt plants, and portable concrete plants used on
public authority contracts will be permitted, without the need for official plan amendment,
rezoning, or development permit under the Plannina Act in all areas, except those areas of
existing development or particular environmental sensitivity which have been determined
to be incompatible with extraction and associated activities.
29
122
2.6
2.6.1
2.6.2
2.6.3
3.0
"" TAGHPJiENI /! -~.2:____TO
:~r¡:¡¡Rl" ii PD. ..3.J:.c>.~-_._---
CULTURAL HERITAGE AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes will be conserved.
Development and site alteration will only be permitted on lands containing archaeological
resources or areas of archaeological potential if significant archaeological resources have
been conserved by removal and documentation, or by preservation on site. Where
significant archaeological resources must be preserved on site, only development and site
alteration which maintain the heritage integrity of the site will be permitted.
Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to designated
heritage properties where it has been demonstrated through evaluation that the heritage
attributes of the designated heritage properties will be conserved.
PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on reducing the
potential for public cost or risk to Ontario's residents by directing development away from areas of
natural and/or human-made hazards where there is a risk to public health or safety or of property
damage.
To achieve this goal, development will be directed in accordance with the policies of Part V.
Accordingly:
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
NATURAL HAZARDS
Development will generally be directed to areas outside of:
a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes - Sf. Lawrence River
System and large inland lakes which are impacted by flooding, erosion, and/or
dynamic beach hazards;
b) hazardous lands adjacent to river, stream and small inland lake systems which are
impacted by flooding and/or erosion hazards; and
c) hazardous sites.
Development and site alteration will not be permitted within:
a) the dynamic beach;
b) defined portions of the one hundred year flood level along connecting channels (the
St. Mary's, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers);
c) areas that would be rendered inaccessible to people and vehicles during times of
flooding, erosion and/or other water related hazards, unless it has been demonstrated
that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development, and the
natural hazard; and
d) a floodway regardless of whether there are high points of land within the area of
inundation.
30
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
ATTACHMENT#-- ~-----TO
REPORT # PO ~ I -0 Lf
123
Notwithstanding policy 3.1.2, development and site alteration may be permitted in the
areas identified in Policy 3.1.2:
a) in those exceptional situations where a Special Policy Area has been approved by the
Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural Resources. Any change or
modification to the site-specific policies applying to the Special Policy Area must first
be approved by the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural Resources
prior to the approval authority giving its consent for such changes or modifications; and
b) where the development is limited to: uses which by their nature must locate within the
floodway; flood and/or erosion control works; minor additions or passive, non-
structural uses which do not affect flood flows.
Where the two zone concept for flood plains is applied, development and site alteration
may be permitted in the flood fringe, subject to appropriate flood proofing to the flooding
hazard elevation or another flooding hazard standard approved by the Minister of Natural
Resources.
New development will not be permitted to locate in hazardous lands and hazardous sites
where the use is:
a) an institutional use associated with hospitals, nursing homes, pre-school, school
nurseries, day care and schools, where there is a threat to the safe evacuation of the
sick, the elderly, persons with disabilities or the young during an emergency as a
result of flooding, failure of flood proofing measures or protection works, or erosion;
b) an essential emergency service such as that provided by fire, police and ambulance
stations and electrical substations, which would be impaired during an emergency as a
result of flooding, the failure of flood proofing measures and/or protection works, and/or
erosion; and
c) associated with the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage of hazardous
substances.
Except as prohibited in policies 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, development and site alteration may be
permitted in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the risk to
public safety and other effects - as determined by the demonstration and achievement of
all of the following - can be absorbed, managed or mitigated in accordance with the
following provincial standards:
a) the hazards can be safely addressed, and the development and site alteration is
carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection works standards,
and access standards;
b) vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of
flooding, erosion and other emergencies
c) new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and
d) no adverse environmental impacts will result.
HUMAN-MADE HAZARDS
Development on, abutting or adjacent to lands affected by mine hazards; oil, gas and salt
hazards; or former mineral resource operations will be permitted only if rehabilitation
measures to address and mitigate known or suspected hazards are under-way or have
been completed.
Contaminated sites will be remediated as necessary prior to any activity on the site
associated with the proposed use such that there will be no adverse effect.
31
124
4.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
,. ..AC' ,. .EI"l. ') TO
J.".! I H,.VII'. #_.~..~-
REF-ORì # PO 3 [ -0 'f
IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION
The Provincial Policy Statement came into effect on <DATE>, and replaces the Provincial
Policy Statement which was approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in
Council No. 764-96, as amended.
The Provincial Policy Statement applies to all applications submitted on or after <DATE>,
and to all applications submitted prior to <DATE> in respect of which no decision has yet
been made.
For the purposes of this section, a decision shall be deemed to have been made in
accordance with the provisions of Regulation <X>.4
In accordance with Section 3 of the Planninq Act, this Policy Statement will be applied by
planning authorities and decision-makers in dealing with all planning matters, including
providing comments, submissions or advice that affect a planning matter, and decisions on
official plans, subdivisions, consents, zoning bylaws, minor variances, and other land use
planning matters.
In implementing the Provincial Policy Statement, the Minister may take into account other
considerations when making decisions to support strong communities, a clean and healthy
environment, and the economic vitality of the Province.
The Provincial Policy Statement is to be read in its entirety, and all pertinent policies are to
be applied to each situation.
Within the framework of the provincial policy-led planning system, matters of regional and
local importance can build upon this Policy Statement. Nothing in this Policy Statement is
intended to prevent planning authorities and decision makers on land use planning matters
from going beyond the minimum standards established in specific policies, in developing
official plan policies and when making decisions on planning matters, unless doing so
would conflict with any other policy of the Policy Statement.
While municipal official plans can build upon the minimum standards of the Provincial
Policy Statement, their adoption does not remove the requirement for a decision-maker to
apply the Provincial Policy Statement.
4 Bill 26 proposes to introduce a new section 70.4 to the Planning Act giving the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing power to make a regulation respecting transitional
provisions relating to applications commenced before the new amendments to the Act come into force. Through this initiative, a decision shall be deemed to have been
made, in the case of:
1. an official plan, on the day council adopts all or part of the plan or on the day that the approval authority approves, modifies and approves or refuses to
approve all or part of the plan, whichever is earlier,
an official plan amendment, on the day council adopts or refused to adopt all or part of the amendment or on the day that the approval authority approves,
modifies and approves or refuses to approve the amendment, whichever is earlier,
a zoning by-law, on the day council passes the by-law;
a zoning by-law amendment, on the day that council passes or refuses to pass the amending by-law;
a holding by-law, on the day that council passes the by-law applying the holding symbol;
a minor variance, on the day the committee of adjustment makes its decision;
a site plan, on the day the council gives or refuses to give its approval;
a draft plan of subdivision, on the day the approval authority makes its decision (draft approval or refusal);
a plan of condominium, on the day the approval authority makes its decision to exempt the plan or approve or refuse to approve (draft approval);
a consent, on the day the councilor the Minister gives or refuses to give a provisional consent;
a zoning order, on the day the Minister makes the order, or on the day the Minister amends, refused to amend or revoke an order, or on the day the Minister
makes a decision for a minor variance to a zoning order; and
12. an application, matter or proceeding appealed or referred to the Ontario Municipal Board from the council's neglect, refusal or failure to make a decision, on
the day the Ontario Municipal Board makes a decision disposing of the application, matter or proceeding in whoie or in part.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
32
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
2-
3/-DLf
Since the policies in the Provincial Policy Statement focus on end results, the official plan
is the most important vehicle for its implementation.
1 1,)'-
-¡",:J
Municipal official plans provide an appropriate mechanism through which: comprehensive,
integrated and long-term planning is achieved; provincial interests are identified for
protection; and cross-boundary matters are coordinated so that the actions of one planning
authority complement the actions of another planning authority and promote mutually
beneficial solutions.
Municipal official plans will integrate all applicable provincial policies, identify provincial
land use planning interests, and apply appropriate land use designations and policies.
Municipal official plans will provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies for protecting
provincial interests, and for development and site alteration in suitable areas.
In order to best protect provincial interests, planning authorities will keep their official plans
up-to-date with the Provincial Policy Statement.
A wide range of legislation and regulations may affect lands which are the subject of
applications under the Plannino Act, and may assist in the implementation of the Provincial
Policy Statement. There may be cases where a proposal requiring approval under the
Plan nino Act may also require approval under other legislation or regulation.
In addition to land use approvals under the Plannina Act, infrastructure may also require
approval under other legislation and regulations, including the Environmental Assessment
Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the
Ontario Enerav Board Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, and the Safe Drinkino Water
Act. 2003. An environmental assessment process may be applied to new infrastructure
and modifications to existing infrastructure under applicable legislation. The applicable
policies would be considered as part of the evaluation conducted under the relevant
environmental assessment process.
Provincial plans (such as those adopted under the Ontario Plannino and Development Act.
1994, the Niaoara Escarpment Plannino and Development Act, or the Oak Ridoes Moraine
Conservation Act 2001, which have been approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council,
will take precedence over policies in the Provincial Policy Statement to the extent of any
conflict.
The Province, in consultation with municipalities, will identify performance indicators for
measuring the effectiveness of some or all of the policies, and will monitor their
implementation, including reviewing performance indicators concurrent with any review of
the Provincial Policy Statement.
Municipalities are encouraged to establish performance indicators to monitor the
implementation of the policies in their official plans.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, together with other ministries with land use
planning interests, may issue new support materials and/or update existing materials to
assist planning authorities and decision-makers in implementing the Provincial Policy
Statement.
33
126
't"""
W
£t:
~
C)
-
LL
~
II)
! i:,:;~.. ' , ,
2.. ,(
.3; -I:) I.f
;:S:~¡::','I
I)í:'
~.
:s!
11
r! ~
m -g ~
.5 m m
t: I}S ð
.fi ~ l;
!i! Q
'~ ~
c.. ~
i ~ i
œ Õ 11
:r: "= '~
m .s ~
::; Ë e
'ñi ! ~
z ~ ~
~
J
~
~ ' I
u.. ,
.t
.'IL
.
..
.
..
,.
~,
".
Co.
'\
~,
. !.
..... ~ i'...,~.
,-,.... ,. ,.
.ft.',..." '.....,>
,.-- '..; ,
t
"
.
34
6.0: DEFINITIONS
l./::..T'7 1'- 2- ... Tn
.,~>,-h' ':JD-3L~Q'f-
127
Adjacent lands: means
a) for the purposes of policy 2.1, those lands, contiguous to a specific natural heritage feature
or area, where it is likely that development or site alteration would have a negative impact
on the feature or area. The extent of the adjacent lands may be recommended by the
Province or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives; and
b) for the purposes of policy 2.6.3, those lands contiguous to a designated heritage property or
as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan.
Adverse effects: as defined in the Environmental Protection Act, means one or more of:
a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it;
b) injury or damage to property or plant and animal life;
c) harm or material discomfort to any person;
d) an adverse effect on the health of any person;
e) impairment of the safety of any person;
f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for use by humans;
g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property; and
h) interference with normal conduct of business.
Affordable: means
a) in the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of:
i) housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which
do not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate
income households; or
housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average
purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area;
ii)
b) in the case of rental housing, the least expensive of:
i) a unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household
income for low and moderate income households; or
a unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the
regional market area.
ii)
Agricultural uses: means the growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of
livestock; raising of other animals for food, or fur including poultry and fish; aquaculture; apiaries;
agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures.
Agriculture-related uses: means those farm related commercial and farm-related industrial uses that
are small scale and directly related to the farm operation and are required in close proximity to the
farm operation.
Airports: means all Ontario airports, including designated lands for future airports, with Noise
Exposure Forecast (NEF)/Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) mapping.
35
128
:'"..',\:1'"
Z- TO
3 l - ()'f
. ,,[., ¡ .",
Alternative energy systems: mean generation sources which produce electrical power from
renewable resources such as solar or wind energy.
Archaeological resources: includes artifacts, archaeological sites, and marine archaeological sites.
The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological fieldwork
undertaken in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act.
Areas of archaeological potential: means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological
resources. Criteria for determining archaeological potential are established by the Province, but
municipal approaches which achieve the same objective may also be used. Archaeological potential
is confirmed through archaeological fieldwork undertaken in accordance with the Ontario HeritaQe Act.
Areas of mineral potential: means areas favourable to the discovery of mineral deposits due to
geology, the presence of known mineral deposits or other technical evidence.
Areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI): means areas of land and water containing natural
landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related
to protection, scientific study, or education.
Brownfield sites: means previously developed properties that may be contaminated. They are
usually, but not exclusively, former industrial or commercial properties that may be underutilized,
derelict or vacant.
Built heritage resources: means one or more significant buildings, structures, monuments,
installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military
history, and identified as being important to a community. These resources may be identified through
designation under the Ontario HeritaQe Act, or listed by local, provincial or federal jurisdictions.
Coastal wetland: means:
a) any wetland that is located on one of the Great Lakes or their connecting channels (Lake St.
Clair; St. Mary's, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers); or
b) any other wetland that is on a tributary to any of the above-specified water bodies and lies,
either wholly or in part, downstream of a line located 2 kilometres upstream of the 1: 1 00
year floodline (plus wave run-up) of the large water body to which it is connected.
Comprehensive review: means
a) for the purposes of 1.1.1.4, an official plan review which is initiated by a planning authority
and which:
1. is based on a review of population and growth projections;
2. considers alternative directions for growth and determines how best to accommodate
this growth while protecting provincial interests;
3. utilizes opportunities to accommodate projected growth through intensification and
redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas;
4. confirms that the lands to be developed do not comprise specialty crop areas in
accordance with policy 2.3.2;
5. is integrated with planning for infrastructure and public service facilities; and
6. considers cross-jurisdictional issues.
36
ATTACHMENT#~TO
REPORT # PO 31 -04
129
Planning Reform
Ontario Municipal Board Reform
Ontario Municipal Board Reform:
Consultation Discussion Paper #3
June 2004
@ Ontario
130
ATTACHMENT # ~ TO
REPORT # PO 3/-oL{.
This Consultation Discussion Paper contains a general description of the Ontario Municipal Board. It
is one of three consultation discussion papers to get public input on planning reform and includes
consultation questions asking your views on potential reforms.
The final section of this document can be removed and used to mail or fax back your comments.
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an on-line questionnaire available at
www.Dlanninqreform.ontario.ca.
Comments must be received no later than AuQust 31. 2004.
For additional copies of this document or any other of the planning reform consultation
documents in either French or English, please contact:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch
777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 645-8082 or 1-866-751-8082
Fax: 416-585-4006
E-mail: planningreform@mah.gov.on.ca
Or visit www.planningreform.ontario.ca
Disponible en français
@ Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2004
2
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # PO
3 TO
3/-04
131.
The strength of Ontario depends on the strength of its communities. The McGuinty government is
acting on Ontarians' priorities and is delivering real, positive change that will build strong, prosperous
communities with a healthy environment and quality of life that is second to none.
The Ontario government recognizes that our current planning system needs to be improved.
Over the past years, there has been a growing perception that the Ontario land-use planning system
has not been working as effectively as it should. Our government intends to reform the land-use
planning and development process to support our goal of stronger, better communities. We have
already taken some important steps to achieve this goal.
In December 2003, I introduced Bill 26, the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004,
which proposes important amendments to the Planning Act. If passed, the reforms would bring more
accountability, transparency and public input to the way land-use planning decisions are made in
Ontario.
As part of our Planning Reform initiative we are:
. reviewing the planning process;
. determining the need for effective implementation tools for municipalities and other decision-
makers;
. releasing draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement for public review and input; and
. reviewing the Ontario Municipal Board.
We recognize that these initiatives are linked and that coordinated actions may be required to create
a better land-use planning system.
Planning reform is one essential element of our government's strong communities agenda. Other
initiatives under way to support this goal are a permanent Greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe, the
protection of source water and the development of a Growth Management Plan for the Golden
Horseshoe.
Improving the land-use planning system requires input from a wide variety of individuals and groups.
To hear your views, we are holding a series of public information sessions on planning reform across
the province. Please read this consultation document, attend a meeting, and fill out the
questionnaire.
I invite you to share your views on what is needed to improve the land-use planning system and to
build strong communities where all Ontarians can thrive.
Hon. John Gerretsen
Minister
3
132
ATTACHMENT #
REPOR1 # PO
3 TO
31-04
Ontario's Planning System: It's important to all of us
Over the next 30 years, 4 million new residents will call Ontario home. The Ontario government is
setting a course for building strong, safe and liveable communities in Ontario that offer residents a
high quality of life.
Our approach for attracting healthy and sustainable growth will be clear, consistent and responsive to
Ontarians' priorities. This will require making decisions that will lead to long term benefits - new
economic growth, more liveable communities, enhanced transportation choices, clean and safe water
and improvements to our environment.
The land-use planning system is of key importance to achieving these goals in Ontario.
Land-use planning establishes the rules for development, and helps to determine how our
communities grow.
Ontario's land-use planning system defines the interests and responsibilities of all Ontarians in
planning for future land uses. The system provides the framework for determining the future of our
communities and for protecting valuable resources such as farmlands, wetlands, water and natural
features.
Ontario needs effective land-use planning, and an effective land-use planning system. This is
especially critical given the pressures confronting the province today, such as:
.
Increasing gridlock as a result of urban sprawl;
.
Unprecedented growth pressures in some parts of Ontario, such as the Golden Horseshoe
region;
.
Loss of prime agricultural land and other resources;
.
The need for enhanced environmental protection; and
.
The need for a strong economy.
It is also clear that Ontario's communities and the public need to have an effective voice in land-use
planning. There is a need for balance between individual interests and the broad public interest.
Municipalities must also have the right tools to achieve good land-use planning.
The Ontario government is responding to these challenges. Through the Planning Reform initiative, it
is reviewing the land-use planning system to ensure it meets today's needs.
Planning reform is a key component of the government's commitment to building strong communities
in Ontario. The government believes a strong and effective planning system is critical to: building
strong communities, providing a clean and healthy environment, and sustaining a strong economy.
This lays the foundation for enhancing the overall quality of life for Ontarians.
There are a number of interrelated initiatives to support strong communities that are currently
underway. These initiatives will depend on a stronger land-use planning system for effective
implementation. They include:
4
ATTACHMENT I 3 TO
REPORT # PO 3/ -Oil
133
Strong Communities
Several initiatives are under way to support strong communities, including a new deal for our cities
and towns, a "seat at the table" with provincial and federal governments, and an enhanced rural
development program.
Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt
In December 2003, the McGuinty government took the first steps toward permanent protection of a
greenbelt across the Golden Horseshoe region by introducing Bill 27, the Greenbelt Protection Act,
2004. If passed, the Act would create a greenbelt study area within the Golden Horseshoe and
impose a one-year moratorium on new urban development on rural and agricultural lands within this
area.
The Greenbelt Task Force, a team of respected, knowledgeable and diverse stakeholder
representatives, was established by the government to develop recommendations on the scope,
content and implementation of the greenbelt. It is conducting public consultations in May and June
2004 for the purposes of developing recommendations on how the Province could effectively
establish a permanent Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt.
Growth Management in the Golden Horseshoe
This year, the government will release a Growth Management Plan for the Golden Horseshoe that will
articulate a long-term strategic vision and tools for how the Golden Horseshoe and surrounding areas
should grow over the next 30 years. The plan will identify priority growth areas where new population
and economic investment will be encouraged and will prioritize infrastructure through the development
of a 10-year infrastructure plan to ensure those areas are adequately serviced. At the same time, the
plan will identify and protect those areas that provide our food, water and recreation. An important
feature of the Growth Management Plan will be a transportation strategy that promotes the efficient
movement of people, goods and services throughout the Golden Horseshoe.
Source Water Protection
In mid-February 2004, the Ministry of the Environment began consultations on how best to deliver
watershed-based source protection as a way of securing the long-term quality and quantity of water
resources throughout the province. The initiative will result in policy, procedures and proposed
legislative changes that will further affect communities in Ontario.
Summary
Planning Reform and related initiatives recognize that comprehensive solutions are needed to build a
strong Ontario. Consultations on these initiatives are being coordinated, and information from the
other initiatives will also be coordinated and shared.
5
134
ATTACHMENT I 3 TO
REPORT # PO 3/-D-I
As a first step in Planning Reform, the government introduced Bill 26, the Strong Communities
(Planning Amendment) Act, 2004, which would amend the Planning Act and provide an enhanced
framework for planning in Ontario.
If passed, Bill 26 would give municipalities more time to make decisions on planning applications. It
would strengthen the requirement that provincial land-use policies are followed, and would empower
municipalities to determine their own local growth boundaries.
Bill 26 would also provide the Ontario government with the ability to make final decisions on matters
before the Ontario Municipal Board where a provincial interest has been declared.
The Ontario government recognizes that more needs to be done in reforming key aspects of the
planning system. Through consultation with stakeholders and the public, the government is seeking
input and advice on the following Planning Reform components:
.
Whether further changes need to be made to the Planning Act and to Bill 26;
.
The need for implementation tools to help support and implement a strong and effective land-
use planning framework in Ontario;
.
Proposed revisions to the Provincial Policy Statement, which provides policy direction on land-
use planning; and
.
The need for Ontario Municipal Board Reform. The Board is an independent tribunal that hears
appeals from landowners, the public and others on land-use planning matters. It hears appeals
of municipal decisions, and appeals where no decision has been made on planning applications
within timelines set out in the Planning Act.
Consultation Booklets
This booklet and two others have been written to help you understand the initiatives and provide a
range of discussion points for your consideration. They are also designed to make it easier for you to
provide your thoughts and suggestions on each of the Planning Reform components (Planning Act
Reform and Implementation Tools; draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement; and Ontario
Municipal Board Reform).
Your input on the Planning Reform components will help the provincial government to move forward
with proposed land-use planning reforms and will help shape the land-use planning system of the
future.
How to Participate
We want your views on the Ontario Municipal Board.
The Ontario government will be holding public information sessions on planning reform in
communities across Ontario. Please visit our website at www.planninqreform.ontario.ca to check for
further information on dates and locations, or call us at 1-866-751-8082.
6
ATTACHMENT #
REPOR1 # PO
3 TO
3 I -aLf
135
The following sections provide important background information. Specific consultation questions are
included in the final section of this document. You can remove the consultation questions section
and mail or fax back your comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an online questionnaire available at
www.planninQreform.ontario.ca.
You may send written comments to:
Planning Reform Initiative
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch
777 Bay St, 14th Floor
Toronto, ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 645-8082 or 1-866-751-8082
Fax: (416) 585-4006
E-mail: planningreform@mah.gov.on.ca
Or visit www.planningreform.ontario.ca
Comments must be received no later than August 31, 2004.
Thank you for helping to shape planning in Ontario.
7
136
ATTACHMENT I 3 TO
REPORT # PO 3/ - 0'-/
The Government recognizes that a clean, healthy environment and a vibrant economy are the
cornerstones for the quality of life for which Ontario's communities have become well known. Strong
communities make this province a better place to live, work and play, and, as well, create a more
attractive environment for investors from around the globe. A credible, efficient land-use planning
system is a key element in meeting these goals. The Ontario Municipal Board (OM B) plays an
important role in this system and if it is to function effectively as an independent adjudicative tribunal,
the OMB's mandate should reflect today's values. For these reasons, the government is committed
to proposing reforms to the OMB that are consistent with improvements to the system as a whole,
and which would equip the Board to carry out its responsibilities effectively and efficiently.
The revisions proposed to the Planning Act through Bill 26 emphasize the Government's desire to
reinforce the importance of local municipaliUes in the planning process. Key changes include
preventing appeals to the OMB on urban expansions that are opposed by municipal councils and
increasing the length of time available for review and public consultation of planning applications
before they may be appealed to the OMB.
Another change proposed in Bill 26 that is likely to affect the OMB is the proposal to require that land-
use decisions "be consistent with" provincial policies. This would replace the current wording of the
Act, which says that decision-makers should "have regard to" provincial policies.
The Government has heard a variety of concerns with respect to the OMB. Key among these
concerns is that the OMB substitutes its opinions for those of elected municipal councils, is
inaccessible to the public, and requires municipalities to devote scarce resources to defending
decisions that have already been dealt with through the planning process. The Government has also
heard that the OMB is needed for intensification projects because of the often strong neighbourhood
concerns with such projects. There is also a perception that the concerns of ordinary citizens are not
dealt with fairly or given the same attention as the interests of developers.
Many observers have also noted that although the OMB has responded positively to the changing
environment in which it operates, a number of key concerns raised by the development community,
the general public and other stakeholders stem from modifications made to the Planning Act over
time that require municipalities to respond to development applications within specific timeframes.
Reforms to the OMB cannot be made without considering their impact on the land-use planning
system as a whole.
We want to hear your views on the reform of the OMB. Some of these issues raised are governed by
the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act. Others relate to the administrative process of
the Board and are the prerogative of the OMB. Recommendations to the OMB will be made based on
your views on these administrative issues. We have posed a number of key questions throughout the
paper. Each question is accompanied by a brief discussion of the issues as a way to focus the
consultation.
8
ATTACHME[IJT # 3 TO
REPOR1 # PO 31 -o,-/-
13?
Given the magnitude of changes in the municipal environment since the OMB's creation in 1897 and
the heightened understanding of the role that planning and development activities play in our
communities, it is important to review the role of the OMB in the context of land-use planning reform.
Areas to be reviewed include:
. The OMB's mandate, which encompasses the most complex projects to backyard additions.
. Accountability of the OMB to stand in the place of elected councils.
. The qualifications of OMB members and their length of tenure that affect the public's perception
with respect to the Board's independence.
. The public's ability to participate in OMB hearings.
Although the OMB traces its roles and responsibilities back to more than 100 statutes, this paper
focuses on those aspects of the OMB's mandate that relate specifically to the Planning Act and the
Ontario Municipal Board Act.
Information on the OMB and questions for your consideration are identified throughout this
consultation paper to generate ideas and solicit reaction. We encourage you to send your comments
on issues raised in this paper and ideas of your own to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
For your convenience, please remove the final section of this consultation discussion paper and use it
to mail or fax back your comments to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an on-line questionnaire at
www. planninqreform .ontario.ca.
1. Accountability
Although the OMB often supports the decisions of municipal councils, it is in those instances where
municipal decisions are overturned on planning grounds that the credibility of the formal planning
process is harmed in the minds of some members of the public. There are those who argue that
allowing un-elected OMB members, appointed by the province, to substitute their own land-use
planning opinions for those of elected counciillors is undemocratic and has the effect of undermining
the authority of elected councils.
The rationale in support of the current practice is that the OMB acts as an appellate body to protect
the public against decisions that may not be following provincial or municipal planning policies. It
must also be recognized that there are instances when a council may defer making a difficult or
unpopular decision, and is prepared to have the matter appealed to the OMB. Any review of the
criteria or tests for appeals should make provision to guard against this kind of use of the system.
9
138
ATTACHf'/'ENT #
REPORT # PO
3 TO
3/-04
A recent municipal report on the future of the OMB recommends that the OMB should become a
limited appeal body, dealing only with matters of provincial interest or with matters where it is clear
that the municipal council has not acted properly from a land-use planning perspective.
The public good requires that it is necessary to have a mechanism to appeal against demonstrable
error or impropriety on the part of a council. Some argue, that it is possible for the appeal function to
be handled through the courts. This approach can be more costly and time-consuming and the
courts do not have any specific expertise in ,land-use planning. The net result of such an approach
may be to raise new barriers to the public's involvement or their ability to receive fair treatment.
In the century or more that the OMB has been in existence, the Board, in hearing cases, has dealt
with both the collective rights identified as the public interest and articulated through the land-use
policies of municipal councils, and the interests of the individual - this includes both the private citizen
reacting negatively to a development proposal and a proponent seeking to protect its property
interests by appealing a project that has not been approved by Council. The concept of natural
justice suggests that anyone likely to be affected by the outcome of a decision has a right to be
heard. Some of the OMB's longest hearings have occurred because of the Board's insistence that all
parties have an opportunity to make their views known. It could be argued that throughout the formal
planning approval process, the rights of the individual tend to be subordinate to the broader benefits
with respect to the public interest, so retaining an appeal mechanism provides an appropriate
counterbalance to council's role.
As well, Ontario municipalities are organized on a ward system, where the local councilor plays a very
important role in determining the fate of a project. In some cases, a municipal council will respect
arguments - pro or con - made by a councilor because all of the other councilors hope to find similar
support on decisions to be made with respect to projects in their own wards. The right to appeal a
municipal council decision is, therefore, an important counterbalance in protecting the minority view.
Should there be some appeal mechanism for land-use planning decisions?
Should the courts be used as the appeal body for land-use planning decisions?
The dictionary defines an "appeal" as "a request of a review of a decision by an authority." If a
municipal council, hypothetically speaking, rejects an application for a 12- storey building on the basis
that the project does not conform to duly adopted council policies (or approves the application over
the objections of local residents), the job of the OMB in dealing with an appeal, on the merits of the
case presented, is to effectively decide if that decision should be upheld on the basis of good
planning principles.
An issue has been raised by those seeking OMB reform concerning whether the OMB should be able
to substitute its decision for that of an elected council. One approach might be for the Board to send
the matter back to the municipal council, with a recommendation and a detailed explanation of why it
disagrees with the council decision. The municipal council may choose to accept the OMB's
recommendation or decide to modify or reaffirm its original decision.
Should the OMS's ability to substitute its decision for that of an elected council be modified?
10
ATTACHMENT # 3 TO
REPORT # PO 3/ - 0,-/
139
2. Onus
The Planning Act generally requires the Board to conduct each hearing "de novo" -literally, to start
anew. This means that the OMB hears a presentation of evidence as if the municipal council has
made no decision. A key point in this regard is that the Board is reviewing the merits of a case on the
evidence being presented, rather than challenging the decision of the municipal council. That
challenge has already been made by the party launching the appeal.
Holding a "de novo" hearing provides the opportunity for the Board to take a fresh look at the
evidence related to a case. It can also be argued that the OMB is able to take a broader view than
that of the municipal council. Critics of this approach argue that the case presented before the OMB
often bears little resemblance to the matter dealt with by the municipal council.
On the other hand, the knowledge that all reports and opinions rendered by municipal staff or by
consultants for an applicant could potentially be put into evidence at the OMB has an important
influence on planners and others who may be required to give expert testimony. This knowledge
might have an influence over the consideration given to planning reports and other materials
produced during the course of dealing with an application or other matter that could potentially be
appealed to the OMB.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and other stakeholders suggest that "de novo"
hearings should become the exception rather than the rule. Their recommendation is that a hearing
be allowed only when "the appellant could show that there was an error of fact or law. .. bad faith so
serious that council made a wrong decision as a result of it"
Although it may be reasonable to suggest that "de novo" hearings become the exception rather than
the rule, this would require a major shift in approach, effectively requiring the OMB to function more
like a court by focusing on the validity of the appeal rather than the merits of the case on planning
grounds. It is likely that as much effort would be expended in hearing the merits of an appeal per se
as is currently devoted to "de novo" hearings. It would also effectively eliminate the authority of the
OMB to rule on appeals of decisions of municipal councils except on narrow legal grounds.
Should the OMB continue to conduct "de novo" hearings looking at the full merits of a
planning matter?
3. Scope
The current scope of the OMB is that they are the final arbitrator on all Planning Act decisions. There
are several possible options for addressing the issue of the Board's scope of operations in this regard.
The first is to leave things as they are. Another approach is to look at options for a municipal model of
secondary appeal.
Should the scope of matters which can be appealed to the OMB be narrowed? If so, how
should it be done?
11
140
ATTACHMENT #
REPORl # PO
3 TO
31-01./
For the OMB to function effectively, it is important that the general public, municipal representatives,
the development industry and the many professionals actively engaged in the planning process
perceive the Board to be an independent and fair tribunal.
Independence of OMS
Members of the OMB are appointed to make land-use planning decisions that have a direct impact on
local neighbourhoods. OMB appointments are made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council through
Orders in Council that are reviewed by the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. The
membership includes a wide range of professions, including lawyers, planners, engineers,
accountants, economists, teachers, professors, and municipal administrators. Although the
headquarters of the OMB is in Toronto, members are selected with a regional focus.
Transparency of Recruitment Policies for OMS Members
To avoid any suggestion that appointments are not made on merit, it may be appropriate for specific
criteria to be developed and published with respect to qualifications and experience to be met by new
members, and for formal recruitment processes to be undertaken.
What qualifications and experience are important for a member of the OMB?
How can we create a more open process for recruiting and appointing qualified applicants?
Terms of Appointment
Currently, appointment to the OMB is for a three-year term, with a possible appointment to another
three-year term. There are those who argue that the three-year term is not long enough to allow new
members to acquire the background knowledge of practice and procedures of the Board.
Various stakeholders have suggested increasing the terms of appointment from three to five or even
seven years.
Will increasing the appointment term make for better decisions by the members and remove
the perception that decisions are being made under pressure?
The need for a transparent process to hear and deal with complaints against members as well as the
introduction of a formal probationary period should be considered. The probationary period could be
based on objective performance criteria.
Is a probationary period of one year desirable?
How should a complaint against a member be dealt with?
12
ATTACHMENT # 3 TO
REPORT # PO 3 -otl
141
Compensation
The role of an OMB member is demanding. The pay levels for OMB members therefore need to be
set at appropriate levels. The challenge is to establish a compensation package that not only reflects
the experience of an individual as a member of the OMB but which bridges the range of expectations
found in the diverse range of professions from which the membership is selected. The reality is that
some professions earn more than others. An attractive salary for one profession may be
unacceptable for another.
If the OMB is to attract and retain top people, adequate pay scales are necessary. Building on the
criteria for OMB appointments described above, levels of remuneration should be established to allow
the Board to attract and retain the best talent.
What comparables and criteria should be considered in establishing compensation levels for
OMB members?
The OMB hears evidence on a wide variety of planning matters. Hearings often involve contentious
issues, based on highly complex and technical evidence. It is important that OMB members have the
required skills and competences to hear and decide matters. The Board's processes must also be
accessible to the public.
1. Decision-Making at the OMB
Performance
A challenge facing the Board Chair in a large institution like the OMB is the difficulty in effectively
monitoring the performance of Board members. The demeanour of members during a hearing, the
way they interact with witnesses and the general public during a hearing and their success in
comprehending a vast range of expert evidence are all matters subject to interpretation and difficult to
assess in an objective manner. The quality of the decisions may be easier to monitor because they
are available in written form. Another area of member performance that requires monitoring is their
ability to keep up with case-loads.
Should member performance be reviewed and assessed annually?
How should member performance be reviewed and assessed?
Education and Training
The education and training of Board members has been made more challenging in recent years by
the increasing complexity of the issues at both OMB hearings and joint board hearings.
Progress has been made in the area of member training and education. Recent administrative
changes have seen the issue of education and training explicitly addressed through the formal
application of modern time-management techniques that reserve dedicated time for members to
undertake their own research and training, hear cases, and prepare the written decisions.
13
142
ATTACHIv'.EiH #
REPURì # PO
3 TO
3 -Dlf
Members benefit from formal programs of continuous professional learning through courses,
conferences, and other learning opportunities. There is a need for knowledge of statues and law,
mediation and alternative dispute resolution training. There may also be a need for a member to meet
with and hear from diverse stakeholders to facilitate a full appreciation of the issues and interest
groups that are involved in planning and development.
What learning and training initiatives would benefit OMB members?
Decision-making and Consistency
The obvious challenge for the OMB is to not only ensure that their members have the necessary skills
and competencies to handle their challenging roles but that the Board is able to communicate the
facts to the general public in an appropriate manner. An occasional source of concern among
stakeholders is a perception that decisions by members lack consistency across the province and
from year to year.
The OMB is not bound to follow decisions of other panels of the Board. This is different from the court
system. The Board focuses on the "unique facts and circumstances" surrounding each case.
However, the OMB promotes consistency without establishing precedent through internal processes
that the public may not be aware of. The Board in the past five years has, in fact, increased its staff
capacity by bringing on professional planning staff to support the administration of the OMB.
The issues of consistency and competence are inter-related. Although the Board provides a rigorous
orientation for its new members and on-going guidance through a mentoring program utilizing skills of
more experienced members, this is not well known.
What else can the Board be doing to promote consistency?
How could the OMB better communicate its decisions and decision-making processes?
Evidence
The challenge of reaching decisions on land use and related issues is that such matters are rarely
black and white but require absorption of large amounts of technical evidence, analysis and
interpretation before a member is able to render a decision. Sometimes the results of a hearing are
likely to come down to the credibility of expert witnesses on technical matters or even matters of legal
jurisdiction that require an expert legal opinion.
During complex hearings, Board members typically rely on the testimony of expert witnesses called
by parties to the hearing. Although rarely used, Board members have the power to summon
witnesses to provide expert testimony.
How should the Board ensure that it has the best evidence on which to base a decision?
14
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # PO
3 TO
31-01/
143
Decisions
Members who attend the hearings are responsible for writing the decisions. This has many obvious
benefits. The Board has also taken steps to make decisions available electronically. Both
professionals and the general public increasingly rely on internet-based research. It is important that
there is easy access to the decisions of the Board as well as the components of evidence and
argument that comprise the building blocks of a decision.
It may be that the introduction of a decision format by the Chair could provide some efficiency while
allowing flexibility within the system without unduly affecting the freedom of each member to express
an opinion or the unique aspects of a particular case. The creation of a system of keywords (created
in consultation with experts in library science and a panel of practitioners representing the land-use
professions) for application and inclusion in written decisions could provide the public (and
professionals) with a greatly enhanced tool for analysis and informal monitoring and commentary on
the effect of OMB decisions.
Are there any improvements to the decision-writing process and the accessibility of decisions
that should be made by the OMS?
2. Accessibility of the OMS
Case Management
In looking at opportunities to improve the public's understanding and accessibility to the OMB and its
processes, an obvious place to start is the range of options available for not proceeding to a hearing
in the first place.
An innovation introduced several years ago was enhanced case management. The Board hired a
staff of professional planners and other advisors to both provide support to members and to liaise
with parties involved in a hearing. This has helped not only to reduce the length of hearings when
they do take place but in many instances has improved the potential to reduce the number of appeals
that require the attention of a Board member. An additional benefit has been that all the activities of
the Board (pre-hearings, mediations and hearings) are scheduled more quickly.
What improvements could be made to case management at the OMS?
Alternative Dispute Resolution
As well, the Board has moved quickly in recent years to shift emphasis wherever feasible to pre-
hearing conferences - where the parties are often able to reach a satisfactory resolution without
needing to proceed to a full hearing. As members receive training in and become more expert in
alternative dispute resolution techniques more cases are dealt with in this cost-efficient manner.
While not all cases are suited to mediation, there are also numerous occasions when one might be
expected to agree to mediation. A number of commentators have called for the Board to be given the
power to require mediation before proceeding with a hearing.
15
144
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # PO
3 TO
3~ -°1./
Disputes between people and the means by which they are settled are central to civil society. When
those disputes involve land use. it is understandable that feelings run high, particularly when property
interests or the future of an environmentally sensitive area is the subject of dispute. There are,
nevertheless, times when reasonable people should be able to resolve their differences through
mediation. Provided that criteria for mandatory mediation prior to a hearing are developed and
discussed before hand, it is possible the Board members could be given the authority to require
parties to participate in mediation when it is clearly in the public interest to do so.
Should the OMB have the authority to require parties to mediate?
Information
Statistics on the Board's caseload activities are partially summarized in its annual reports. Although
the Board is inherently an adversarial process, the degree to which the Board is able to work with
parties to resolve disputes is an important contribution to the effective functioning of the land-use
planning process and as such merits a high priority with respect to how the success of the Board is
communicated to the public.
How can the OMB inform the public of the option of avoiding hearings through mediation and
settlement?
Participation at the OMB
An important concept was enshrined by the Ontario Court of Appeal nearly 50 years ago when it
stated that the legislation creating the OMB had "made clear its intention that proceedings before the
Board should be conducted in a manner less rigid and less formal than proceedings conducted before
established Courts of Law." The OMB should be user-friendly and parties should be encouraged to
provide testimony without having to retain legal counsel.
However, there is mounting frustration among the general public that OMB cases are becoming
increasingly complex and that the time needed to follow a complex case from beginning to end is
making it more difficult for the public to be adequately involved, effectively creating a barrier to the
public's participation in the OMB process. As well, there is a concern that, although the OMB indeed
provides a forum for presenting the public's position on issues, such views cannot compete effectively
with the weight of professional and highly technical evidence presented to the Board. In addition,
when participants are unfamiliar with the processes followed by the OMB, this can inadvertently
cause delays and misunderstandings that result in the misuse of resources by all parties.
One way to address concerns that OMB processes and procedures are hard to comprehend is to
provide the public with more education materials. Although the Board has made an excellent start in
developing such materials, and making them available in print and on the OMB website, such
materials can always be enhanced.
How can the public be better informed about process at the OMB?
Another way to make the OMB more accessible to the public might be to provide improved guidance
and advice before a decision is made to proceed with a hearing as well as during the actual hearings.
One stakeholder group has suggested that the OMB hire staff dedicated to providing advice on
policies and procedures to citizen groups or other third parties unfamiliar with how the Board
operates.
16
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # PO
3 TO
31-°'-/
145
This could have two benefits. The first is to provide an additional resource for the public to help
private citizens or groups of citizens to decide if proceeding with an appeal is in their interests. The
second more direct benefit is to give private individuals increased confidence in proceeding with an
appeal without having to resort to retaining counselor hiring expert witnesses. Such a person could
help private citizens make the best use of their scarce resources.
Should there be an "adviser" at the OMS to perform this role?
The preceding information and questions are designed to establish context, and perhaps generate
some ideas, for your consideration of OMB reform. You may have recommendations on the issues
raised or on matters not addressed in this consultation document. We welcome and encourage all
your ideas as they will form a base for the government's consideration of OMB reform.
17
x
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # PO
3 TO
31-öl.j
CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Ontario Municipal Board Reform
These consultation questions aim to stimulate discussion and collect your input.
You can remove this section of the consultation paper and mail or fax it back with your comments to:
Planning Reform Initiative
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Planning and Environmental Services Branch
777 Bay St., 14th Floor
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 645-8082 or 1-866-751-8082
Fax: (416) 585-4006
To submit your comments electronically, you can complete an on-line questionnaire available at
www. pi ann in ore form. ontario. ca.
The government values your input and thanks you for your comments. Public input is essential to
ensure that we have a land-use planning system that supports a strong Ontario.
Comments must be received no later than August 31, 2004.
Your Contact Information
Name
Organization
Address
Telephone
Fax
E-mail Address
19
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # PO
3 TO
3\ -°1(
147
1.
Are there other reforms of the Ontario Municipal Board that you believe should be
considered?
2.
Do you have any additional comments or questions?
Comments and Suggestions:
148
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That By-laws be enacted to:
1.
2.
3.
Stop-up and close as public highway:
a)
b)
Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
Parts of Blocks 30,31,32 and 33, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 38, 40, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
c)
Declare the following lands surplus to the needs of the Corporation for the
purpose of reconveyance to the adjacent owner, subject to any required
easements and in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act:
a)
Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
Parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39,40,42,43 and 44,
Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 38, 40, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
b)
c)
Authorize the Mayor, Clerk, Director, Planning & Development and Solicitor for
the City to obtain all relevant documentation necessary and execute all
documentation required to effect the stopping-up and closing of the above-noted
lands and to effect the conveyance of them.
4.
149
Dedicate as public highways:
a)
Part of Lot 15, Range 3, BFC, Pickering
(Part 2, Plan 40R-22677) - Church Street
Parts of Lots 15 and 16, Range 3, BFC, Pickering
(Parts 6 and 7, Plan 40R-22677) - Copperstone Drive
Parts of Lot 16, Range 3, BFC, Pickering
(Parts 18 and 21, Plan 40R-22677) - Squires Beach Road
Parts of Blocks 31, 32, 40 and 42, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 35, 36, 41, 42, 45 and 48, Plan 40R-22677) - Copperstone Drive
Parts of Lot 11, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 43 and 44, Plan 40R-22677) - Copperstone Drive
Block 41, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering - Copperstone Drive
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
150
C¿ú¡ o~
From:
Subject:
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 27-04
Date: June 17, 2004
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Church Street Urbanization and Extension
388270 Ontario Limited (now Panattoni Canada Inc.)
(West Side of Church Street, south of Bayly Street)
By-laws to Stop-up, Close, Convey and Dedicate Various
Portions of Road Allowances as Public Highways
Our File: V0401
Recommendation:
By-laws should be enacted to:
1.
2.
3.
Stop-up and close as public highway:
a)
b)
Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
Parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32 and 33, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 38, 40, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
c)
Declare the following lands surplus to the needs of the Corporation for the
purpose of reconveyance to the adjacent owner, subject to any required
easements and in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act
a)
b)
Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
Parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 44,
Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 34, 38, 40, 46, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
c)
Authorize the Mayor, Clerk, Director, Planning & Development and Solicitor for the
City to obtain all relevant documentation necessary and execute all documentation
required to effect the stopping-up and closing of the above-noted lands and to
effect the conveyance of them.
Report PD 27-04
Date: June 17, 2004
1511
Subject Church Street Urbanization and Extension
Page 2
4.
Dedicate as public highways:
a)
Part of Lot 15, Range 3, BFC, Pickering
(Part 2, Plan 40R-22677) - Church Street
Parts of Lots 15 and 16, Range 3, BFC, Pickering
(Parts 6 and 7, Plan 40R-22677) - Copperstone Drive
Parts of Lot 16, Range 3, BFC, Pickering
(Parts 18 and 21, Plan 40R-22677) - Squires Beach Road
Parts of Blocks 31, 32, 40 and 42, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 35, 36, 41, 42, 45 and 48, Plan 40R-22677) - Copperstone Drive
Parts of Lot 11, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 43 and 44, Plan 40R-22677) - Copperstone Drive
Block 41, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering - Copperstone Drive
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Executive Summary: In 1988, 388270 Ontario Limited conveyed portions of the
above-noted lands to the City for road and reserve purposes. These lands were to be
retained by the City until the adjacent lands to the east were developed, at which time
the City would reconvey them to the adjacent owner (now Panattoni) for nominal
consideration ($2.00).
The City has now received an application for the development of a
warehouse/distribution facility (known as the Kestrel project) on the adjacent easterly
lands and as such, the City no longer requires the lands conveyed in 1988 for road and
reserve purposes. It is therefore appropriate at this time to reconvey them.
Further, in order to meet land severance application and site plan conditions, the
applicant is required, as part of its development, to construct/reconstruct a certain
portion of Church Street, extend Clements Road from its current terminus to connect
with Church Street and construct a connection between Silicone Drive and Copperstone
Drive, all of which when completed, will be required to be dedicated as public highways.
As it is anticipated that various components of these works will be completed during the
summer period, staff is requesting that the appropriate dedicating By-law be enacted at
this time and be held in staff's files until the construction/reconstruction has been
completed to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Planning & Development and
registration of the By-law can be effected.
Staff forwarded Report PD 23-04 on May 12, 2004, setting out the need for the
applicant to undertake certain road works within the project; this report addresses the
technical legal steps required to finalize such road matters.
Financial Implications: All costs willi be borne by the adjacent owner.
152 Report PO 27-04
Subject Church Street Urbanization ~nd Extension
Date: June 17, 2004
Page 3
BackQround:
1.0
Stop-up and Close Various Portions of Copperstone Drive and Silicone
Drive for the Purpose of Reconveyance to the Adjacent Owner.
In 1988, 388270 Ontario Limited registered Plan 40M-1552, Pickering, which
plan dedicated Copperstone Drive and Silicone Drive as public highways.
The Subdivision Agreement relating to Plan 40M-1552 also required 388270
Ontario Limited to convey additional lands to the City for road and reserve
purposes on the condition that the conveyed lands would be retained by the
City until the adjacent lands to the east were developed, at which time, the City
would reconvey them to the adjacent owner (now Panattoni) for nominal
consideration, subject to the provisions of the Municipal Act.
As the City has now received an application for the development of a
warehouse/distribution facility on adjacent lands to the east, there is no longer a
need for the City to retain the turning circle portions of Copperstone Drive and
Silicone Drive or the lands that were conveyed to the City for additional road
and reserve purposes.
Accordingly, it is now appropriate to initiate the process to stop-up and close
the most easterly (turning circle) portion of Copperstone Drive and Silicone
Drive along with the lands that were conveyed to the City for additional road
purposes and reconvey them back to Panattoni for nominal consideration.
1.1
Dedication of Newly Constructed Portions of Church Street, Squires
Beach Road and the Connection of Road Between Silicone Drive and
Copperstone Drive.
In order to meet conditions of the land severance application and site plan
conditions, the applicant, as part of its development, is required to
construct/reconstruct a certain portion of Church Street, extend Clements Road
from its current terminus to connect with Church Street and construct a
connection between Silicone Drive and Copperstone Drive.
The applicant has conveyed the appropriate portions of land to the City for
future road purposes as requested, and is expected to undertake the works
required for the construction/reconstruction of these roads during the summer
months. Once the construction/reconstruction has been completed, the newly
constructed portions of roadway must be dedicated as public highways.
Report PD 27-04
Date: June 17,2004
153
Subject Church Street Urbanization and Extension
Page 4
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
In an effort to ensure that there are no delays in dedicating the newly
constructed sections of roads as public highway, should various components of
the works be completed during the summer period, staff is requesting that the
appropriate dedicating By-law be enacted at this time. The enacted By-law will
be held in staff's files until such time as the construction/reconstruction has
been completed to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Planning &
Development and registration of the By-law can be effected.
By-laws should be enacted to:
Stop-up and close as public highway:
a)
b)
Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
Parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32 and 33, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 38, 40, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
c)
Declare the following lands surplus to the needs of the Corporation for the
purpose of reconveyance to the adjacent owner, subject to any required
easements and in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act
a)
Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
Parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 44,
Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 34, 38, 40, 46, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
b)
c)
Authorize the Mayor, Clerk, Director, Planning & Development and Solicitor
for the City to obtain all relevant documentation necessary and execute all
documentation required to effect the stopping-up and closing of the
above-noted lands and to effect the conveyance of them.
Dedicate as public highways:
a)
Part of Lot 15, Range 3, BFC, Pickering
(Part 2, Plan 40R-22677) - Church Street
Parts of Lots 15 and 16, Range 3, BFC, Pickering
(Parts 6 and 7, Plan 40R-22677) - Copperstone Drive
Parts of Lot 16, Range 3, BFC, Pickering
(Parts 18 and 21, Plan 40R-22677) - Squires Beach Road
b)
c)
154 Report PO 27-04
Subject: Church Street Urbanization and Extension
Date: June 17, 2004
Page 5
d)
Parts of Blocks 31, 32, 40 and 42, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 35, 36, 41 , 42, 45 and 48, Plan 40R-22677) - Copperstone Drive
Parts of Lot 11, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 43 and 44, Plan 40R-22677) - Copperstone Drive
Block 41, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering - Copperstone Drive
e)
f)
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
Location Map
By-law - Stop-up & Close, Delcare Surplus and Reconvey
By-law - Dedicate as Public Highways
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
¡:JJ - ~~
Denise Bye, Coordinator,
Property & Development Services
DB:bg
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Solicitor for the City
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
-,,'
~~l
BAYLY
/
J - PARTS18&21
1 "AN <OR-,,'"
\V
~
"
0
<>:
0
a:::
I
U
<>:
w
CO
V)
w
a:::
:::>
a
V)
CLEMENTS
City of Pickering
w
>
¡ÿ
0
w
z
0
l-
V)
a:::
w
D-
D-
o
U
.
'ATTA~' ", TO
REPORT I PQ .D;;::r-LYL
n
-
COPPERSTONE DRIVE ~
P,","1.'. >h";ð\'." \ PAR"'"
40R- 2677)~~\:j BLeCK 38 TO 42N4,fu & 4à TO 51,
'," ""- ~ jP<A p-"",
SILICONE
XXI
-
DRIVE
ROAD
~
STREET
PART2"PLAN
40R-2"~
/
155
\
I-
W
~~
C?)
~
~
~@
:::>
I
u
I~
¡~
I@
Ip
~
"
:1
I,
II
Ii
"
11
:'
Planning & Development Department
~ LANDS TO BE DEDICATED AS PUBLIC HIGHWAYS
~ LANDS TO BE STOPPED-UP AND CLOSED
c:::::J LANDS TO BE CONVEYED TO ADJACENT OWNER
I DATE JUNE 14, 2004
l'
156
ATTACHMENT ,....6L-.TO
REPORT # PO r~::r~-níL
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law to stop-up and close that part of Copperstone Drive, Plan
40M-1552, Pickering, being Part 39, Plan 40R-22677, that part of Silicone
Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering, being Part 50, Plan 40R-22677 and those
parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32 and 33, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering, being Parts
38, 40, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677 as public highway and authorize the
sale of that part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering, being
Part 39, Plan 40R-22677, that part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552,
Pickering, being Part 50, Plan 40R-22677, and those parts of Blocks 30,
31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 44, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering, being
Parts 34, 38, 40, 46, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677, as they are no longer
required for municipal purposes.
WHEREAS, Copperstone Drive and Silicone Drive have been dedicated as public highways on
Plan 40M-1552, Pickering; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Act, the Council of the City may pass by-laws to stop-up
a highway, or part thereof, and to authorize its sale or the sale of a part thereof;
WHEREAS, Notice of this By-law has been published for two (2) consecutive weeks in compliance
with the provisions of the Municipal Act, the Sale of Surplus land Policy and Public Notification By-
law 6166/03 relating to the closing of a highway;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCil OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOllOWS:
1.
The following portions of highway are hereby stopped-up and closed to both vehicular
and pedestrian traffic:
. Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
. Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
. Parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32 and 33, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 38, 40, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
2.
The following portions of highway are hereby deemed surplus to the needs of the
Corporation and shall therefore be offered for sale to the adjacent owner, subject to any
required easements:
. Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
. Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
. Parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 44,
Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 34, 38, 40, 46, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
3.
The Corporation of the City of Pickering shall ensure that all utility easements over any of
the lands described herein are conveyed to the appropriate utility authority for nominal
consideration ($2.00).
ATTACHMENT#~ TL
REPORT # PO - 0
157
4.
The Mayor, Clerk, Director, PIÇinning & Development and Solicitor for the City are
authorized to obtain all relevant ~ocumentation necessary and execute all documentation
required to effect the stopping-up and closing of:
. Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
. Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
. Parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32 and 33, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 38, 40, 41, 42, 48, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
and to effect the conveyance of:
. Part of Copperstone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 39, Plan 40R-22677)
. Part of Silicone Drive, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Part 50, Plan 40R-22677)
. Parts of Blocks 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43 and 44,
Plan 40M-1552, Pickering
(Parts 34, 38, 40, 46, 49 and 51, Plan 40R-22677)
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 26th day of July, 2004.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
VO401
158
ATTïCHMENT I u~ . TO
REPO T I PO ~":+- Dc../-
THE CORPORA ION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law to dedicate certain roads within the City of
Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham as public highways.
WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands lying within
Pickering and wishes to dedicate them as public highways.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY
ENACTS AS FOllOWS:
1.
That part of lot 15, Range 3, BFC, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-22677 is hereby
dedicated as public highway. (Church Street)
2.
Those parts of lots 15 and 16, Range 3, BFC, Pickering, being Parts 6 and 7, Plan
40R-22677 are hereby dedicated as public highway. (Copperstone Drive)
3.
Those parts of lot 16, Range 3, BFC, Pickering, being Parts 18 and 21, Plan
40R-22677 are hereby dedicated as public highway. (Squires Beach Road)
4.
Those parts of Blocks 31, 32, 40 and 42, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering, being Parts 35,
36, 41, 42, 45 and 48, Plan 40R-22677 are hereby dedicated as public highway.
(Copperstone Drive)
5.
Those parts of lot 11, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering, being Parts 43 and 44, Plan
40R-22677 are hereby dedicated as public highway. (Copperstone Drive)
6.
Block 41, Plan 40M-1552, Pickering, is hereby dedicated as public highway.
(Copperstone Drive)
BY-lAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 26th day of July, 2004.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
VO401
159
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That By-laws be enacted to:
1.
assume the road and services within Plan 40M-1981, save and except Blocks 14,
15 and 16;
2.
amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the road within Plan
40M-1981; and
3.
authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement from title
relating to Plan 40M-1981, save and except its removal from Blocks 15, 16, 17
and 18.
160
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 29-04
Date: June 30, 2004
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Danlu Holdings Limited
- Plan 40M-1981, Pickering
Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision
Recommendation:
By-laws should be enacted to:
1.
assume the road and services within Plan 40M-1981, save and except Blocks
14,15and16;
amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the road within Plan
40M-1981; and
authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement from title
relating to Plan 40M-1981, save and except its removal from Blocks 15, 16, 17
and 18.
2.
3.
Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the
above-noted developer for the development of Plan 40M-1981. As the developer has
now completed all works and services within this Plan, it is now appropriate for the City
to assume the M-Plan (save and except Blocks 14, 15 and 16) and release the
developer from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement (save and except Blocks
15,16,17 and 18). It should be noted that Block 14 was developed by Registered Plan
40M-2093 and will be assumed through the assumption of that Plan and Blocks 15, 16,
17 and 18 have future development implications and will be assumed when developed.
Financial Implications: There are no new financial implications to the City as a
result of this recommendation.
Background: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the
above-noted developer for the development of Plan 40M-1981. As the developer has
now completed all works and services within this Plan, it is now appropriate for the City
to assume the M-Plan (save and except Blocks 14, 15 and 16) and release the
developer from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement from all of the lots and
blocks within the Plan (save and except Blocks 15, 16, 17 and 18).
Report PD 29-04
Subject Final Assumption of Plan 0/ Subdivision
40M-1981
161
Date: June 30, 2004
Page 2
Blocks 14, 15 and 16 were designated as future development blocks when Plan
40M-1981 and its related Subdivision Agreement were registered on title. Since that
time, Block 14 has been developed by Registered Plan 40M-2093 and its related
Subdivision Agreement. Accordingly, while it is appropriate to remove the developer
from the obligations of the Subdivision Agreement for Plan 40M-1981 as it relates to
Block 14, the assumption of Block 14 will not take place until the process to assume
Plan 40M-2093 has been completed.
Blocks 15 and 16 remain undeveloped. Accordingly, they cannot be assumed at this
time and the Subdivision Agreement relating to them should remain on title.
Blocks 17 and 18 are currently being used for road purposes until the lands to the north
are developed and the road pattern which currently exists on that portion of Sparrow
Circle can be realigned. Once that realignment is complete, Blocks 17 and 18 will be
stopped-up and closed as road and reconveyed to the adjacent owners in accordance
with the Subdivision Agreement relating to Plan 40M-1981. As the conditions for
reconveyance can only be complied with when Blocks 15 and 16 are developed, it is
appropriate to assume the works and services currently lying within Blocks 17 and 18 at
this time, however, not to release the developer from the obligations set out in the
Subdivision Agreement relating to them.
It is recommended that the following By-laws be enacted to:
1.
assume the road and services within Plan 40M-1981, save and except Blocks
14,15and16;
amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the road within Plan
40M-1981; and
authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement from title
relating to Plan 40M-1981, save and except its removal from Blocks 15, 16, 17
and 18.
2.
3.
Attachments:
1.
2.
Location Map - Plan 40M-1981
By-law to assume the road and services within Plan 40M-1981, save and except
Blocks 14, 15and 16
By-law to amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the road
within Plan 40M-1981
By-law to authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement from
title relating to Plan 40M-1981, save and except its removal from Blocks 15, 16,
17 and 18
3.
4.
1 6tJ
- f-
Report PD 29-04
Date: June 30, 2004
Subject Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision
40M-1981
Page 3
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
¡J .~-€-
Denise Bye, Coordinator
Property & Development Services
I , RPP
Ing & Development
DB:bg
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering Cit ou "I
,,'
¿t
Recommendation approved:
"
Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director, Planning & Development
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT' I TO
REPORT I PO /Jet - °4-
163
\ I~ 0(2-.
(2-.\Q /
0(2-.
G
0 BLO K16
<t B 'R 17 & 18,
0 BLOC 5
cr:
.-
~ V, ~~~~)(~
0
--<Q(2-. "/'<. 'I ,v
- "» ~ Y. ~/
y\ Þ / 7'::
-i '"
> ~ ~~
§I Y
~ .I-. //¡ "7" Y ,,/
-
14. .#-/v ';<V V
NOW 40M-2Ö! 3
.. r-...... ,/',.' 7v I ,,/ "
It. X
... ~ ~ 1/"
/ " "I/'.. 7':
~)( X'f::.~ A
I
XJ7
~ I I
\
~
~ SPARROW
/ ~1
'" '-.,
I-- --..-J
0::::
:=J
~, « 0 -
c¿c NT z r - u
0 -J
\\
I-- CHICKADEE '
..-J
7/ « [ U L J
~LV
]I--{
ON \--
(f) ~
¡.....-.-.. 0::: I
f------- :=J l>Þ~ SUBJECT
0 I PLAN OF SUBDIV/~ ION
f--- :::::o 0
< z 40M-1981
fTl «
(f)
y ~\; ~
~ GROVE ~
PINE
w 1\
~ > -
~ ~
0
~ Ir---
ìY w
w
0::: f---
U I
I-
(J)
w
3: f----
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PLAN 40M-1981 l'
OWNER VARIOUS DATE JUNE 28, 2004 DRAWN BY JB
FILE No. SUBDIVISION COMPLETION AND ASSUMPTION SCALE 1:3000 CHECKED BY DB
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-10 PA-
164
ATTACHMENT#~TO
REPORT # PD~
THE CORPORAilON OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law to assume the road within Plan
40M-1981 for public use as a public highway and to
assume the services within Plan 40M-1981 under
the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering, save and
except those lying within or adjacent to Blocks 14,
15 and 16, Plan 40M-1981.
WHEREAS above ground and underground services required for the development of the
above-noted Plan has been completed to the City's satisfaction; and
WHEREAS the City of Pickering has jurisdiction over the road shown on Plan 40M-1981; and
WHEREAS pursuant to the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, section 30, a highway is owned by
the municipality having jurisdiction over it; and
WHEREAS pursuant to the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, section 31, a municipality may by
By-law assume highways for public use;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY
ENACTS AS FOllOWS:
1.
The above ground services required by the Subdivision Agreement relating hereto,
which are to be constructed or installed in the development of the above-noted Plan or
which are located on lands that are dedicated to or owned by the City within Plan
40M-1981, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto are hereby accepted and
assumed for maintenance under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of
Pickering, save and except those lying within or adjacent to Blocks 14, 15 and 16, Plan
40M-1981.
2.
The underground services that are required to be constructed or installed in the
development of the above-noted Plan including the storm drainage system and related
appurtenances, located on lands that are dedicated to or owned by the City in Plan
40M-1981, or lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, are hereby accepted and
assumed for maintenance under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of
Pickering, save and except those lying within or adjacent to Blocks 14, 15 and 16, Plan
40M-1981.
3.
In sections 1 and 2, the phrase "lands that are...owned by the City" includes lands that
are subject to an easement transferred to the City, but only with respect to the specific
service or services referred to in the easement transfer document.
4.
The following highway is hereby assumed for public use as a public highway under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering:
. Sparrow Circle, Plan 40M-1981
BY-lAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 26th day of July, 2004.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
A IT ACHMENT #
REPORT # PO
3 TO
æ - °i-
165
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law to amend By-law 1416/82 providing
for the regulation and licencing of places of
amusement.
WHEREAS pursuant to the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, section 150(1), the Council of The
Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law 1416/82 providing for the regulation and
licencing of places of amusement;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS
AS FOllOWS:
(a)
Schedule A to By-law 1416/82, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto
Sparrow Circle, Plan 40M-1981, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham.
BY-lAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 26th day of July, 2004.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
166
ATTACHMENT '~Tq
REPORT # PD~
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law to authorize the release and removal
of the Subdivision Agreement respecting Plan
40M-1981, Pickering, from title, save and except the
lands being Blocks 15, 16, 17 and 18, Plan
40M-1981.
WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, c. 13, s. 50, or a predecessor thereof,
The Corporation of the City of Pickering and Danlu Holdings Limited entered into a Subdivision
Agreement dated July 5, 1999, Notice of which was registered as Instrument No. l T923087
respecting the development of Plan 40M-1981 , Pickering;
AND WHEREAS, Danlu Holdings Limited has complied with the provisions of the Subdivision
Agreement within Plan 40M-1981 , save and except for as it relates to Blocks 15, 16, 17 and
18, Plan40M-1981;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY
ENACTS AS FOllOWS:
1.
The Mayor and Clerk hereby authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision
Agreement from title dated July 5, 1999, Notice of which was registered as Instrument
No. l T923087 between Danlu Holdings Limited and The Corporation of the City of
Pickering, respecting the development of Plan 40M-1981, save and except removing it
from the lands described as Blocks 15, 16, 17 and 18, Plan 40M-1981.
BY-lAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 26th day of July, 2004.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
167
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
1.
That Report CS 22-04 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be
received and that:
2.
The write-offs of taxes as provided under Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act,
2001 be approved; and,
3.
The appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary action to give effect hereto.
168
C¿tq o~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 22-04
Date: July 9, 2004
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act - Adjustment to Taxes
Recommendation:
1. It is recommended that Report CS 22-04 of the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer be received and that
2. the write-offs of taxes as provided under Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act, 2001
be approved; and,
3. the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
action to give effect hereto.
Executive Summary:
Not Applicable
Financial Implications: If approved, the write-off of taxes as contained in this report
represents a gross cost of $15,928.95 with a net cost to the City of approximately
$4,114.96, the balance being charged back to the Region of Durham and the School
Boards. Pickering's share of the costs will be charged to the 2004 Current Budget
allocation under General Government - Provision for Uncollectable Taxes. The 2004
recommended budget provision is $173,163 and $14,490.05 including the above has
been spent to date.
Background: The Municipal Act provides the Treasurer with various tax tools
regarding the administration and collection of property taxes. Under the provisions of
the new Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, Section 357 of the Act (formerly Section
442) provides for the reduction of taxes due to fire, demolition, exemption, assessment
change or error and the tax reduction is applicable to the current year only. Section 358
of the new Municipal Act (formerly Section 443) allows for the reduction of taxes due to
assessment error and this section can be applied to property taxes for the two
preceding years (2001 & 2002).
Change in realty tax class can translate into lower property taxes if the property went
from industrial to commercial tax class or commercial to residential tax class. When
the City of Pickering acquires property, the property becomes exempt from taxation and
Report CS 22-04
Date: July 9,2004
169
Subject: Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act - Adjustment to Taxes
Page 2
therefore, the taxes have to be cancelled, as reflected in the attached report.
Demolitions, and other physical changes to a property, such as removing or filling in a
swimming pool, or damage caused by fire result in a reduction in assessment and
taxes.
Attachments:
1.
Section 357/358 Adjustment to Taxes
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
,~~
r--~
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
GAP:tp
Attachment
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City ncil
/'
f~
.......1
0
CITY OF PICKERING
SECTION 357/358/354 ADJUSTMENTS TO TAXES
July, 2004
APP#
NAME
REASON FOR ADJUSTMENT YEAR
ROLL NUMBER
CITY
REGION
EDUCATION
TOTAL
11/04 Bopa Developments * Became Exempt 2004 030-020-20590 869.97 1,705.45 740.00
12/04 Bopa Developments * Became Exempt 2004 030-020-20559 257.51 504.81 219.04
13/04 Bopa Developments * Became Exempt 2004 030-020-20585 428.03 839.08 364.08
14/04 Bopa Developments * Became Exempt 2004 030-020-20595 709.90 1,391.65 603.84
19/04 City of Pickering Became Exempt 2004 010-018-19341 85.26 167.13 72.52
21/04 Ontario Realty Corporation House Damaged by Fire 2004 010-019-37300 302.75 593.50 257.52
23/04 Region of York/Region of Durham Building Demolished 2004 020-022-20900 473.26 927.76 402.56
25/04 Region of York/Region of Durham Building Demolished 2004 020-022-23400 438.46 859.55 372.96
27/04 Victorian Homes * Became Exempt 2004 030-002-08170 20.88 409.31 177.60
47/04 Ministry of Transportation *** Became Exempt 2004 020-017-29601 330.59 648.07 0.00
49/04 Neri & Selena Clarke Building Demolished 2004 010-018-08800 198.35 388.84 168.72
4,114.96 8,435.15 3,378.84
* This land was purchased by the City of Pickering
*** This land is designated as "401 Right-of-Way" and is therefore exempt from taxation as per
Subsection 3.8 of the Assessment Act. (Highways and roads are exempt from taxation).
3,315.42
981.36
1,631.19
2,705.39
324.91
1,153.77
1,803.58
1,670.97
607.79
978.66
755.91
~
»
15,928.95 n
:I:
3
m
Z
-I
f
a
~
'"0
0
~
~
~
1711
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
1.
That Report QES 22-04 for the supply and delivery of a % ton pick-up truck be
received and that
2.
Quotation No. Q-26-2004 submitted by Donway Ford Sales Ltd. for the supply
and delivery of a % ton pick-up truck in the amount of $32,520.00 (GST & PST
extra) be accepted;
3.
The total purchase cost of $37,413.00 and a net purchase cost of $35,136.60 be
approved;
4.
That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance
the project through the issuance of debt;
a)
Debt financing not exceeding the amount of $35,000 for a period not
exceeding five years, at a rate to be determined; be approved and the
balance of approximately $137 plus financing costs be financed from
current funds;
b)
Financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $7,800
be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering
commencing in 2005 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid;
c)
The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan
and repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt and Financial
Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial
obligations for 2004 as established by the Province for municipalities in
Ontario;
172
d)
6.
The Treasurer be authorized to take any actions necessary in order to
effect the foregoing; and'
Staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto.
173
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 22-04
Date: July 13, 2004
From:
Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Division Head,
Municipal Property & Engineering
Subject:
Supply and Delivery of 3/4-ton pick-up truck
Q-26-2004
Recommendation:
1.
That Report OES 22-04 for the supply and delivery of a 3/4 ton pick-up truck be
received and that
2.
Quotation No. Q-26-2004 submitted by Donway Ford Sales Ltd. for the supply
and delivery of a 3/4 ton pick-up truck in the amount of $32,520.00 (GST & PST
extra) be accepted;
3.
The total purchase cost of $37,413.00 and a net purchase cost of $35,136.60 be
approved;
4.
That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance
the project through the issuance of debt;
a. Debt financing not exceeding the amount of $35,000 for a period not
exceeding five years, at a rate to be determined; be approved and the
balance of approximately $137 plus financing costs be financed from current
funds;
b. Financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $7,800 be
included in the annual Current Budget for The City of Pickering commencing
in 2005 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid;
c. The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan and
repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt and Financial Obligations
approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial obligations for
2004 as established by the Province for municipalities in Ontario;
d. The Treasurer be authorized to take any actions necessary in order to effect
the foregoing: and
174 Report OES 22-04
Subject Quotation Q-26-2004
Date: July 13, 2004
Page 2
6.
Staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto.
Executive Summary:
Not Applicable
Financial Implications:
1.
Approved Source of Funds:
Account
2004 Capital Budget 2320/6157
Debt (5 Years)
Project Code
04-2320-001-02
Amount
$45.000.00
$45.000.00
Total Approved Funds
2.
Estimated Project Cost Summary
Q-26-2004 3/4 ton pick-up truck
Air Conditioning Tax
Trade-in Credit for Unit #021
Sub Total
G.S.T.
P.S.T.
License Fee
Total Purchase Cost
G.S.T. Rebate
Net Purchase Cost
(
$37,420.00
100.00
5,000.00)
32,520.00
2,276.40
2,601.60
15.00
37,413.00
( 2.276.40)
~ 36.60
3.
Purchase & Cost Under (over) Approved Funds
$9,863.40
Under expenditure is partially due to GST 3% rebate savings that was already captured
in the 2004 Current Budget.
The Director, Corporate Services Treasurer has reviewed the budgetary implications
and the financing of the expenditures contained in this report and concurs.
Background: The purchase of a 3/4 ton pick-up truck was approved by Council in
the 2004 Capital Budget. This vehicle will replace Unit #021, a 1998 Chevrolet pick-up
truck. Supply & Services invited eight vendors to participate in the bidding process, four
vendors responded of which two quotations were rejected due to incomplete
documents. Upon careful examination of all quotations received, Municipal Property &
Report OES 22-04
Date: July 13, 2004
175
Subject: Quotation Q-26-2004
Page 3
Engineering Division recommends acceptance of the low bid from Donway Ford Sales
Ltd. in the amount of $32,520.00 (G.S.T., P.S.T. and license extra) and that the net
purchase cost of $35,136.60 be approved. This report has been prepared in
conjunction with the Manager,Supply & Services who concurs with the foregoing.
Attachments:
1.
Supply & Services Memorandum
Prepared By:
it
r, Fleet Operations
Everett sma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
~~~
b G llis A. Paterson
'U Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
RH:vn
Attachments
I:\COUNCIL\OES 22-04.DOCJuly 04
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City counc~ <--
Th as J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer
ATTACHMENT# I . TO REPORT # DES. J.2.-0
I of._~
RECEIVED
JUN 2 J 2004
176
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF PICKERING
MUNICIPALPAOPERTY & ENGINEERING
.~
June 22, 2004
To:
Richard Holborn,
Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
~
O."..~".'
"
~. '" !t
Quotation No. Q-26-2004, Supply & Deliver One % Ton ~['
Pickup Truck
Closing: June 17, 2004
From:
Bob Kuzma
Purchasing Analyst
Subject
Quotations have been received for the above project. Eight (8) companies
were invited to participate of which four (4) responded. Quotations shall be
irrevocable for 90 days after the official closing date and time.
Copies of the quotations are attached for your review along with the
summary of costs. The quotation requested the bidder to identify costs
associated with different purchasing options, these included cash purchase,
dealer financing and a lease option. The Treasurer will review these
purchase options upon receipt of your recommendation.
Each line item provides a space for the vendor to indicate a "Yes, No,
Specify" to provide the City with information and details to subjectively
review each line item and the sum total of all specifications. Supplementary
Quotation Terms & Conditions Item 8 states where a manufacturer deviates
from the quotation specifications, they must indicate "NO" and then specify
the changes. The acceptance of these deviations relies solely within the
discretion of the User Department/Division.
The quotation submitted by Donway Ford Sales Ltd. in the total cash
purchase amount of $37,413.00 is the low quotation and is the only
quotation submitted completed with the requested purchase options. This
quote is subject to further evaluation of the vehicles conformance to
specification. Please advise with your recommendation any reason the lovII
bid from Donway Ford Sales Ltd. is not acceptable.
Richard Holborn
',U<Î .0_..1 ,,(JREPOR1# OES ).2-ðt.¡,
~_O! Z, , June 22,2004
Page 2
177
Project Code -
Approved Capital Budget-
Financing -
SUMMARY
04-2320-001-02
$45,000.00
Debt (5 year)
Total Total Total Amount
Amount Amount Lease Option
Cash Dealer
Purc.R!I~ Finance 48 month term
Vendor 48 month Optional
X Total Monthly Total cost buyout at
'. monthly Capitalized Lease over term end of term
, Cost Payment (taxes
payment extra)
Donway 37,413.00 43,797.12 40,863.00 665.83 31,959.84 13,114.00
Ford
Alex Irvine 37,769.10 Not Not Not Not Not
Motors provided provided provided provided provided
Village Rejected
Chrysler
Dodge quote not
Jeep Ltd. signed
Boyer Rejected
Pontiac quote not
Buick siqned
G.S.T.lP.S.T. in
Bidders will be advised of the outcome. Please do not disclose pricing to
enquiring bidders.
The 2004 Capital budget has identified this purchase as debt financed,
therefore a Report to Council is required. Please contact Stan Karwowski or
Gil Paterson to review purchase and/or finance details as part of your
decision making on this requirement.
If you require further information or assistance during the evaluation phase
of this quotation call, feel free to contact me at extension 2131.
Thank you,
B, Kuzma
/bk
Attachments
178
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CS 24-04 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer concerning
Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information be received for information.
I
C¿tq o~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
179
Report Number: CS 24-04
Date: July 12, 2004
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information
Recommendation:
It is recommended that report CS 24-04 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
concerning Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information be received and
forwarded to Council for information.
Executive Summary: Council approved the Purchasing By-law on November 5,
2001 which includes a request to have a summary of contract awards arising from the
formal quotation process be forwarded to Council as information only on a quarterly
basis.
Financial Implications:
Not applicable
Background: In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 04.06, a summary of
contract awards arising from the formal quotation process is provided herein for the
information of Council.
Formal Quotations Summary
April 1, 2004 to June 30,2004
Taxes as applicable
Reference No. Description Vendor PricinQ Date Awarded
W02-2004 Co-operative Supply, delivery Miller Paving Various May 1 , 2004
Tender, Liquid and application Ltd. unit prices
Calcium of liquid calcium
Chloride chloride
W02-2004 Co-operative Supply and Innovative Various May 1 , 2004
Tender, Flake delivery of flake Building unit prices
Calcium calcium chloride Products
Chloride
180
Report CS 24-04
Date: July 12, 2004
Subject: Formal Quotations - Ouarte~ly Report for Information
Page 2
Reference No. Description Vendor Pricing Date Awarded
02004-1 Co-operative Supply and LaFarge Various April 1, 2004
Tender for delivery of Canada unit prices
Various various
Aggregates aggregate
materials
T -279-2003 Co-operative Delivery of Shepstone 2na year May 14, 2004
Tender, Sodium sodium chloride Haulage pricing -
Chloride various
unit prices
T -283-2003 Co-operative Mixing of winter Miller Paving 2na year May 14, 2004
Tender, Mixing sand and salt Limited pricing -
Sand & Salt various
unit prices
W03-2003 Co-operative Supply and Unisource Various February 1 ,
Tender, delivery of Fine Papers unit prices 2004
Duplicating duplicating
Paper and paper and
Coverstock coverstock
T -280-2003 Co-operative Supply of Canadian Salt 2na year March 10,
Tender, Sodium sodium chloride Co. pricing - 2004
Chloride various
unit prices
CL2003-6 Co-operative Supply and Scugog Signs 2na year May 4, 2004
Tender, Traffic delivery of traffic pricing -
Signs, Posts signs, posts and various
and Hardware hardware unit prices
T -207 -2003 Co-operative Provision of Superior 2na year May 4, 2004
Tender, Catch catch basin Catchbasin pricing -
Basin Cleaning cleaning Service various
Limited unit prices
0-7-2004 Secu rity Provision of Securitas Various April 19, 2004
Services security Canada Inc. hourly
services rates
0-9-2004 Materials Provision of Amec Earth & Various April 13, 2004
Testing materials testing Environmental unit prices
services
0-9-2004 Materials Provision of Trow Various April 13, 2004
Testing materials testing Consulting unit prices
services Enqineers Ltd.
0-10-2004 Ice Plant Service to ice Cimco Various June 1,2004
Machinery plant machinery Refrigeration hourly
Service - arenas rates
0-12-2004 Ice Resurfacer Supply and Resurfice $67,125.00 June 4, 2004
delivery of ice Corp. PST extra
resurfacer GST extra
Report CS 24-04
Date: July 12, 2004
181
Subject: Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information
Page 3
Reference No. Description Vendor Pricing Date Awarded
0-17-2004 Parking Lot - Provision of D. Crupi & $17,875.00 June 25, 2004
Progress paving parking Sons Ltd. PST
Frenchman's lot at Progress included
Bay Park Frenchman's GST extra
Bay Park
0-20-2004 Ice Plant Supply, install Black & $53,735.40 June 30, 2004
Compressor and commission McDonald PST &
ice plant Limited GST
compressor included
0-22-2004 Fire Provision of fire Crown Fire Various June 25, 2004
Extinguisher safety Equipment unit prices
and Safety maintenance,
Maintenance Facilities
0-24-2004 Concrete Supply and Brennan $24,387.51 June 16, 2004
Sidewalk, installation of a Paving & PST
Sandy Beach concrete Construction included
Road sidewalk, Sandy Ltd. GST extra
Beach Road
0-25-2004 Telescopic Provision of O&R G radall $75.00 per June 24, 2004
Boom telescopic boom Rentall hour
Excavation excavation PST
Service service - rental included
GST extra
T04007 Co-operative Supply and Acapulco Various June 18, 2004
Tender for Pool delivery of Pools unit prices
Chemicals various pool
chemicals
T04007 Co-operative Supply and Glen Various June 18, 2004
Tender for Pool delivery of Chemicals unit prices
Chemicals various pool
chemicals
Attachments:
Not applicable
182
Report CS 24-04
Date: July 12, 2004
Page 4
Subject: Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Vera A. Felg mac r
Manager, Supply & Services
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
b. G'lis A. Paterson
0 Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council . .. ~
s J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer
183
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Mayor Ryan be authorized to make the following proclamations:
Falls Prevention Week - October 17 - 23, 2004
Safe Homes for Children Week - October 4 - 10, 2004
184
May 12, 2004
Mr. Bruce Taylor,¡ Clerk R E C E ~ V ED
PICKERING
Clerk's Office, City of Pickering Municipal Office, CITY OF .. -
1 The Esplanade,
Pickering, Ontario
LIV 6K7
CLERK'S DIVISION
Dear Mr. Taylor,
Re:
Proclámation of Falls Prevention Week 2004
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Health Department
On behalf of the Falls Prevention Workgroup, Injury Prevention
Program, Durham Region Health Department, we are asking you to help
raise awareness regarding falls prevention by bringing this to the
attention of your municipal council. Weare requesting that the council
proclaim the weekiofOctober 17-23,2004 as Falls Prevention Week.
HEAD OFFICE
SUITE 210
1615 DUNDAS ST. E.
WHITBY ON L1N 2L1
CANADA
905-723-8521
Tor: 905-686-2740
1-800-841-2729
Fax; 905-723-6026
For th.e seven. th.CEn. S.ec.u tive.ye ar, th. e Fans..p re.vention.wor.kgrOu.. p is
planning a public wareness campaign for the week .of October 17-23,
2004. Part of the ampaign is requesting the Regional Council and local
councils to proclai declare FALLS PREVENTION WEEK in their
municipalities. In þddition, the campaign will include a media release,
community events and resource.materials for seniors in the community.
www.region.durham.on.ca
An Accredited
Public Health Agency
Falls Prevention is an important issue since approximately 1 in 3 seniors
fall each year and falls are the leading cause of fatal injuries among
seniors. (Health Canada, Veterans Affairs Canada Falls Prevention,
Fact Sheet No.8, 2002). In 2001, there were 629 hospitalizations
among Durham Region seniors as a result of an injury-related fall.
(Hospital Data 2001, Provincial Health Planning Data Base, Health
Planning Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care). In
1999, there were 58 injury-related deaths in Durham Region residents 65
years and older. Seventy-four percent (74%) of these deaths were the
result ofa fall. ("Fast Facts On...Falls in Durham Region Seniors",
Durham Region Health Department, Epidemiology, 2003).
Falls not only affect the individual, but their families and the
community. The Falls Prevention Workgroup, in collaboration with
other community æ. ganizations are raising community awareness that.
most fall.s ..are pred' table a.nd preventable. Please J. om .us. .in raising
awareness regardi falls prevention by proclaiming the week of
October 17-23, 20 4 as FALLS PREVENTION WEEK.
Yours sincerely,
4~,~N
d~/JJki:£;
Sandy White, RN, BScN, MScN
Public Health Nurse
Injury Prevention Program
Falls Prevention
(905) 723-5338 Ext. 31~
Carol Reilly, RN, BScN
Public Health Nurse
Injury Prevention Program
Falls Prevention
(905) 723-5338 Ext. 2220
100% Post Consumer
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Health Department
June 30, 2004
Mr. Bruce Taylor, Clerk
Clerk's Office, City of Pickedng Municipal Office,
1 The Esplanade,
Pickering, Ontario
Ll V 6K7
At:
, CITY
185
CLER!{'S
, , '-" ,.., \j
Dear Mr. Taylor,
Re: Proclamation of Safe Homes for Children Week. 2004
The Durham Region Health Department, Injury Prevention Program has a new
initiative called Safe Home Safe Play. It is funded by the Ministry of Health and
Long Term Care, Early Childhood Development program so that every child in
Durham Region 0-6 years of age reaches their full developmental potential, injury
free. Weare asking you to help us raise awareness regarding the injuries children
sustain in their homes, by briqging this to the attention of your municipal council.
Weare requesting that the coQ.ncil proclaim the week of October 4 - 10, 2004 as Safe
Homes for Children Week.
HEAD OFFICE
SUITE 210
1615 DUNDAS ST, E,
WHITBY ON L1N 2L1
CANADA
905-723-8521
Tor: 905-686-2740
1-800-841-2729 This will be the first year the Safe Homes Safe Play working group is planning a public
Fax: 905-723-6026 awareness campaign for the week of October 4 -10,2004. Part of the campaign is
www,region,durham,on,c!equesting the Regional Council and Local Councils to proclaim/declare "Safe Homes
for Children Week" in their municipalities. In addition, the campaign will include a
An Accredited d. I . d . I fì d"
Public Health Agency me Ia re ease, communIty events an resourcematena s or parents an caregIvers In
the community.
This week is important to decrease the number of children hurt in or around their
homes in Durham Region. Research shows that injury is one of the leading causes of
death during the first year of a child's life and is the leading cause of death and
disability in children I to 6 years of age. Two thirds of childhood injuries occur in
their homes, the main ones being: falls, burns, poisoning, drowning and choking
(Ontario Early Years, 2003). In 1999 unintentional falls resulted in over 3,436
Canadian children under 5 being admitted to hospital (ClliI, 2004). Many of these
injuries led to long term disabilities or death. In 1997-2001, 625 children in Durham
Region \vere admitted to local hospitals for these top five injuries.
Yvonne Kurz, RN, BScN, BPHE
Public Health Nurse
Injury Prevention Program
ce Safe Homes Safe Play
ities" (905) 723-5338 Ext. 3127
"
Children are naturally curious; and it can often be challenging for parents and
caregivers to keep them safe. Most injuries are predictable and preventable. A
childhood injury not only affe~ts the child and their family but also the entire
community. Please join the S . fe Home Safe PIa. y initiati. ve to increase awareness to
parents and caregivers by proc aiming the week of October 4 -10, 2004 as Safe
Homes for Children Week. .
Sincerely,
/f/~
~ Ontario
* Early Years
, 00% Post Consumer
Safe Play