Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 31-04PICKERING 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: 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: PF04E0004 and PF04E005; 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; 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; 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 Subject: Planning Reform Initiatives July 12, 2004 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. Report PD 31-04 Subject: Planning Reform Initiatives July 12, 2004 Page 3 2.0 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. Discussion 2.1 2.2 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. 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 Subject: Planning Reform Initiatives July 12, 2004 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 30years 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 Subject: Planning Reform Initiatives July 12, 2004 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. 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 Subject: Planning Reform Initiatives July 12, 2004 Page 6 2.3 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. 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 Subject: Planning Reform Initiatives July 12, 2004 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: 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 Subject: Planning Reform Initiatives July 12, 2004 Page 8 Prepared By: G-~r~{ McGregOr, M61~ RPP Principal Planner-Policy Approved / Endorsed By: Neit C. arro...~PP Director, Plan'~ng & Development Catherine Rose, MClP,~P~P Manager, Policy GM/SG/MD:Id:jf Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thoma~J. O"-~uinn, Chief Administrative Officer 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 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. #1-2. #1-3. #1.4. 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 faidy 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. Staff recommends that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and/or 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. 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. 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- #1-5. #1-6. #1-7. #1-8. 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. 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. 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. Staff recommends that stronger site plan/urban 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. 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. 53 -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. #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 GTA 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- #1-14. 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. 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. ADPS 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 REPORT NUMBER PD 31-04 57 STAFF COMMENTS ON PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT: DRAFT POLICIES 55 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: Staff recommends that the Province consider a 50-year planning horizon for its Golden Horseshoe Growth Management Plan and permit GTA 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. #2-2. #2-3. A provincial planning horizon of 30years 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 GTA 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. 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. 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. 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 expanding 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. 59 -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. 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- Provincial Policy Statement Draft Policies: Comparison of Selected Proposed Policies to Existinq Policies in Key Area-~ POlicy Areas CUrrent ;~PS ;ProPOSed i~ew pps staff comments onNew ; POliCies {;shall: POliCies { shall b,,e Pps POliCies Managing · Boundary expansions · Intensification, · Partially agree. The Growth & permitted onto redevelopment and infill proposed po/icy as written Promoting prime agricultural of employment, is inappropriate, as it Settlement lands, including residential and other would have the effect of Areas special~ crop lands prior to expanding restricting greenfield lands, with onto greenfields deve/oprnent until all other justification /ands are intensified and/or redeve/oped. It is · General policies recommended that the for managing and proposed PPS po/icy be directing growth clarified to ensure that greenfield development is not prevented. · Boundary expansions · Agree. The effect of the only at time of proposed po/icy is to comprehensive restrict privately initiated municipal review applications proposing urban boundary expansions. · Prohibit expansions onto · Agree with protecting specialty crop land specialty crop areas such as the Ho#and Marsh. · Upper-tier role to direct · Agree. However, local-tier growth including rnunicipa/ities must be allocating population, consulted on upper-tier housing and population, housing and employment projections ernp/oyrnent, and for lower-tiers employment projections. · Recognition of linkages · Agree. to provincial plans 62 POlicy Areas: Current PPS Pr°P°Sed New PPS staff comments on New POliCies (iiShalI ;POii~ies (!iShall be pps policies have ;regard toi, )co nsiStent ~ith,, :; ; ; proposed bY Bill ;26) Revitalizing · Provide · Identify brownfields as · Agree. Pickering's Official Brownfields / opportunities for opportunities for Plan already contains Intensification intensification and redevelopment poficies relating to redevelopment in redeveloping areas with contaminated sites. sufficient infrastructure, but not required prior to boundary expansions · Agree with proposed · Brownfields not · Intensification of existing policy flexibility of specifically built-up areas and permitting greenfield area recognized brownfields development development after due prior to expanding into consideration of existing greenfield areas where built-up areas and possible brownfield sites. · Agree. However, local-tier · Contaminated · Upper-tier municipality to municipalities must be lands viewed set targets for consulted on upper-tier mainly as hazards intensification / minimum intensification/minimum to human health densities densities. · Agree. Pickering's Official · No targets for · All municipalities to Plan already contains intensification / permit / facilitate all policies promoting and density forms of intensification / facilitating afl forms of redevelopment intensification and redevelopment. · Agree. · Plan infrastructure to support priority growth areas Transit- · Support · Promote transit- · Agree. Pickering's Official Supportive transit-supportive supportive land use Plan already contains Land Use densities patterns including policies promoting transit Patterns density / intensification supportive land uses · Support targets include densities and multi-modal intensification targets. transportation systems · Protect · Direct new development · Agree. All of urban transportation to areas well-served by Pickering is well served by corridors transit transit including GO Transit. -2- (;3 ~ Ohcy Areas Current PPS PropOsed NeW PPS staff Comments on New POliCies ("Shall Poiicies (!iShall be PPS policies; : ave regard to ) consistent with ; proposed bY Bill 26) · Provide housing / jobs · Agree. Pickering's Official in close proximity to one Plan already contains another policies promoting mixed use development along main arterial roads. · Focus travel intensive · Agree. land uses on transit corridors · Link transportation and · Agree. Pickering's Official growth planning Plan already contains policies promoting the provision of local transit service to the high activity areas within the City. · Protect strategic future · Agree. Future arterial transportation corridors roads are protected by and preclude policy in local and regional incompatible uses within official plans. them · Upper-tiers to set · Disagree. There is no minimum densities for need for the Region to transit corridors establish minimum densities along transit corridors. Densities already established in local official plans. Employment · Long-term · Ensure adequate supply · Agree. City's Growth Lands (20-year) planning of land and Management Study horizon to include opportunities to provides long-term sufficient land for accommodate employment opportunites industrial, range/mix of industrial, for Pickering. commercial and commercial and other other uses to employment uses to promote meet long-term needs employment opportunities · Vitality and viability of · Agree. Pickering's Official downtowns and Plan already contains · Well-being of mainstreets to be policies relating to downtowns and maintained promoting the downtown mainstreets to be core as the City's main maintained focus for business, employment and residential activity. -3- p~oposed bY Bi!126) ,,~ · Maintain diversified · Agree. Pickering's Official economic base and Plan already designates range and choice of employment lands, which employment lands permit a broad range of uses. · Focused investment · Agree. The City's Growth through identification of Management Study has priority growth areas identified future growth and corresponding areas to accommodate coordination / allocation Pickering's population and of employment employment needs for the projections next 20 years. · Support jobs / housing · Agree. Pickering's Official balance in communities Plan a/ready contains policies that promote improved live/work relationships. Air Quality / · No policies on air · Transit supportive land · Agree. AI/ of the new draft Energy quality use patterns PPS policies under this section are a/ready · Support energy · Provide housing / jobs addressed in Pickering's conservation in close proximity Official Plan. · Focus travel intensive uses on transit corridors · Support urban greening · Support alternative energy systems and conservation Housing · Encourage · Require municipalities to · Agree. Pickering's Official housing forms and set minimum targets for Plan already contains densities designed the provision of housing policies relating to to be affordable to which is affordable to affordability and special moderate and Iow and moderate needs housing. lower income income households households · Define "affordable" · Agree. Pickering's Official · No target Plan already contains an · Permit and facilitate "affordable"definition. · No definition of special needs housing affordable -4- POliCy Areas current: PPS: : proposed New pps staff comments;on New ; , policies (!!Shall POliCieS (i!Shall be PPS pOliCies have reg~d toi,): consistent Withii : proposed byBill 26) : Preserving · Protect significant · Protect more significant · Agree. Pickering's open Greenspace natural heritage natural heritage features space system not only features including coastal includes significant natural wetlands, additional heritage features but also wetlands on Canadian major parks, recreational Shield and habitat of and conservation areas, endangered and major open space threatened species linkages and other major blocks of land that make up the City's natural core areas and corridors. · Suppod planning · Support urban greening for recreation · Support planning for recreation / tourism and natural heritage systems Water · Protect quality · Use watersheds as · Agree. Pickering's Official and quantity of basis f or planning Plan identifies areas of ground water and groundwater recharge and surface water and · Maintain watershed discharge. There are other function of integrity resource management sensitive areas policies including the · Protect surface and Resource Management ground water features, Schedule, which functions and drinking designates the various water supplies resource features and areas in the Official Plan. · Identify vulnerable areas Also, it is intended that the City's Official Plan be · Promote conservation amended in recognition of and appropriate the Duffins Creek and stormwater management Carruthers Creek Watershed Strategies and · Restrict development other watershed plans, and site alteration in where appropriate. sensitive areas · Address cross boundary impacts -5- POliCY Areas Current PPS Proposed New pPS staff COrn;merits;on New : P°licies (!!Shall P°iicies (!iShall be : PPS policies haveregard to,) consist~ntwith~ ; ; : ; proposed bY Bill 26) Agriculture · Protect prime · Strong protection for · Disagree. The Province agricultural areas specialty crop lands should be promoting and specialty crop including prohibiting economic opportunities for lands while non- growth expansion onto the agricultural community agricultural uses these lands and by permitting a wider array permitted when prohibiting non- of uses such as retail justification agricultural uses agricultural operations, provided agri-tourism and non- agricultural countryside · Protect prime agricultural uses. Also, the Province areas should consider recognizing two types of · Strictly limit re-designation rural areas -- the near- of prime agricultural lands urban countryside with to other uses greater diversity of uses and a more pure · Prohibit residential lot agricultural -- and creation on these lands establish separate PPS policies for each. -6- APPENDIX III TO REPORT NUMBER PD 31-04 STAFF COMMENTS ON ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REFORM 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: o can over rule or support decisions of elected councils; o is not accountable to the electorate; o often makes decisions that undermine local Official Plans created through considerable public consultation; o 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. 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 ?0 #3-2. #3-3. #3-4. #3 -5. #3-6. Staff recommends that OMB decisions be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. 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. 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. 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. 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- #3-7. #3-8. 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. Staff recommends that standard information packages and education materials, in hard copy and electronic format, be available to the public. 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 AI'I'ACHUENT dr / TO REPOR'I' ~' PD .... 3,/ '~ Planning Reform Planning Act Reform and Im lementation Tools Consultation Discussion Pa June 2004 I~) Ontario ~T?ACHM£NT #,, / TO ?3 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. planningreform.ontario.ca. Comments must be received no later than August 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 fran(;;ais © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2004 2 /~TTACHMEN? # / TO 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 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 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 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 7? 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 Ontado 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 "/8 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.planningreform.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. plannin,qreform.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 ~1 -o4 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 Planning Guidelines. As you 1. read through this paper, please keep the following questions in mind. Do you believe any additional revisions are required to any existing provisions in the Planning Act to make the planning system more effective? Are changes needed to the Planning Act to meet the objectives of compact urban form, intensification, re-use of brownfleld lands, and effective environmental protection which would assist in strengthening Ontario's economy? Do you believe any changes are required to Bill 26, the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act, 2004 to make it more effective? Do you have any other suggestions for improving the land-use planning system in Ontario? 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? 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.planningreform.ontar o 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: Increasing the time that decision-makers have to review and make decisions on specific planning applications (i.e., 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. 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. 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 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 82 What information do municipalities require to make well-informed decisions within the expanded time-lines proposed by Bill 26? 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? Bonusing 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 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 8([ 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 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 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.gov.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 87 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 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 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 may or 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 A ct) 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 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 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.plannin,qreform.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 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. 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. 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. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the land-use planning system in Ontario? If yes, please explain. What changes to existing planning implementation tools would assist in building strong communities, providing more efficient land-use planning and discouraging urban sprawl? What new planning implementation tools are needed to assist in dealing with current and future land-use planning issues? Any other comments or questions? ATTACHMENT REPOR'I' ~' PD 93 Planning Reform Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies Provincial Policy Statement: Consultation Discussion Paper #2 June 2004 Ontario 94 ATTACHMENT d' ~-- TO REPORT ~' PD ~ i - to ~ This Consultation Discussion Paper contains the draft policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. 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. planningreform.ontario.ca. Comments must be received no later than August 31, 2004. It is 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 franc;ais © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2004 2 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 [he 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 REPORT # 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 govemment 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 Strong Communities ATTACHMENT #. ?- ,TO REFORT # 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. 9'7 5 98 ~?TACHMEI~gT # 2. _ TO 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.plannin.qreform.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 online questionnaire available at www. plannin,qreform.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 i00 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(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 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/HTML/nts 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.plannin,qreform.ontario.ca. 8 ATTACHMENT #___,_~ TO 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 i02 ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORI' # pD.~L.~_,.,~._ ..... · 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. 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. Current Proposed Shall have regard to Shall be consistent with less demanding test moro demanding test diroctory in naturo mandatory in naturo provincial policy statements must be considered as an important factor by decision-makers in land-use planning decisions applies to decision-maker and to process of making decisions provincial policy statements must be applied in planning decisions applies to outcome of the decision 10 ATTACHMENT#_ ~ TO REPORT # PD~ !03 Current PPS Policies Proposed New PPS Policies ("shall be consistent with" Policy Areas ("shall have regard to") proposed by 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 plans Revitalizing · Provide opportunities for · Identi~7 brownfields as opportunities for Brownfields I 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 · Notargets for growth areas intensification/density 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 ATTACHMENT #~TO R£POR'I' # PD_ .'~ i -0 ? _,, · 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 Iow 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 12 105 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PART II PART III PART IV PART V 1,0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.1) PREAMBLE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY HOW TO READ THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT VISION FOR ONTARIO'S LAND USE PLANNING SYSTEM POLICIES BUILDING STRONG COMMUNITIES 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Efficient Settlement Patterns 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 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 !06 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 I1: 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 Planning Act requires that decisions affecting land use planning matters shall be consistent with~ 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 II1: 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 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. !07 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 well-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 !98 effectiYe decision-makin~ re~arding de¥~lopment. It ~so requires a clear recognition that strong communities, a clean and healthy environment, ~nd a strong economy are inextricably linked. 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 EFFICIENT SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 1.1.1 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2 1.1.1.3 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 service facilities. 1.1.1.4 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 b) the infrastructure and pubfic service facilities which are planned or available are suitable for the development, and protect public health and safety over the long-term; and 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. 109 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 RURAL AREAS 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. 1.1.3.2 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 !10 1.1.3.3 1.1.3.4 1.1.3.5 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. 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 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 A'rTACHIVIENT #--~~0 0 i) iii) iv) v) 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. 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, transportation/transit 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. 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 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 facilities 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 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. 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 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 Iow and moderate income households; 20 b) c) d) 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; ii) 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; 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 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. !13 1,5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3 INFRASTRUCTURE 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. 1.5.4 1.5.4.1 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 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 prevision of such services; d) water conservation and water use efficiency is promoted; and e) 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 less 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 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS All planning authorities will provide for a comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to planning for transportation so that: a) b) c) d) e) transportation systems are provided which are safe, energy efficient, facilitate the movement of people and goods, and are appropriate to address expected growth; efficient use is made of existing and planned infrastructure; connectivity within and between transportation systems and modes is maintained or improved, including connections which cross jurisdictional boundaries; a land use pattern, density and mix of uses is promoted which reduces growth in the length and number of motorized journeys, and creates viable choices of public transit and other alternative transportation modes; and transportation and land use considerations are integrated at all stages of the planning process. 115 1.5.6 1.5.6.1 1.5.6.2 1.5.6.3 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. 1.5.7 1.5.7.1 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 1.5.8 1.5.8.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT 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 1.6.1 LONG-TERM PROSPERITY AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING 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 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. !17 2.1.2 2.1.2.1 2.1.2.2 2.1.2.3 2.1.2.4 2.1.2.5 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. 2.1.3 2.1.3.1 Existing Agricultural Uses Nothing in policy 2.1 is intended to limit the ability of existing agricultural uses to continue. 2.2 WATER 2.2.1 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 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. 2,3 2.3.1 2.3.2 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. 2.3.3 2.3.3.1 2.3.3.2 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 Lot Creation And Lot Adjustments 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. 119 2.3.5 2.3.5.1 Redesignation Of Prime Agricultural Areas An area will only be excluded from prime agricultural areas for: a) b) c) an expansion of settlement areas in accordance with policy 1.1.1.4; extraction of mineral resources, in accordance with policies 2.4 and 2.5; and 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. 2.4 2.4.1 MINERALS AND PETROLEUM Minerals and petroleum resources will be protected for long-term use. 2.4.2 2.4.2.1 2.4.2.2 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 1_20 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. 2.4.3 2.4.3.1 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. 2.4.4 2.4.4.1 Extraction In Prime Agricultural Areas Extraction of minerals and petroleum resources is permitted in prime agricultural areas, provided that the site is rehabilitated. 2.5 2.5.1 MINERAL AGGREGATES Mineral aggregate resources will be protected for long term use. 2.5.2 2.5.2.1 2.5.2.2 2.5.2.3 2.5.2.4 2.5.2.5 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 resoumes, 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 Pianninq 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 c) issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. 2.5.3 2.5.3.1 2.5.3.2 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 A~qre~ate Resources Act, rehabilitation standards that are compatible with those under the Act should be adopted for extraction operations on private lands. 2.5.4 2.5.4.1 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. 2.5.5 2.5.5.1 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 Planning 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 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. 3.0 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 - St. 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 smafl 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 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 PolicyArea 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 floodproofing 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 floodproofing 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 floodproofing 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; vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion and other emergencies new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and no adverse environmental impacts will result. b) c) d) 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. 1_23 31 124 4.0 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>) In accordance with Section 3 of the Planning 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 appreval authority approves, modifies and approves or refuses to approve all or part of the plan, whichever is earlier; 2. 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 appreval authority approves, modifies and approves or refuses to approve the amendment, whichever is eadier; 3. a zoning by-law, on the day council passes the by-law; 4. a zoning by-law amendment, on the day that council passes or refuses to pass the amending by-law; 5. a holding by-law, on the day that council passes the by-law applying the holding symbol; 6. a minor variance, on the day the committee of adjustment makes its decision; 7. a site plan, on the day the council gives or refuses to give its approval; 8. a draft plan of subdivision, on the day the approval authority makes its decision (draft approval or refusal); 9. 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); 10. a consent, on the day the council or the Minister gives or refuses to give a provisional consent; 11. 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 Ontado Municipal Board from the council's neglect, refusal or failure to make a decision, on the day the Ontado Municipal Board makes a decision disposing of the application, matter or proceeding in whole or in part. 32 o 10. 11. Since the policies in the Provincial Policy Statement focus on end results, the official plan is the most important vehicle for its implementation. 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 Planning Act, and may assist in the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement. There may be cases where a proposal requiring approval under the Planning Act may also require approval under other legislation or regulation. In addition to land use approvals under the Planning 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 Energy Board Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, and the Safe Drinking 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 Planninq and Development Act, 1994, the Niagara Escarpment Planninq and Development Act, or the Oak Ridges 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 34 6.0: DEFINITIONS !27 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 Iow and moderate income households; or ii) 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; 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 Iow and moderate income households; or ii) a unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area. 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 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 Herita.qe 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 1:100 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 ~ PD ~i -Oq !29 Planning Reform Ontario Municipal Board Reform Ontario Municipal Board Reform: Consultation Discussion Paper #3 June 2004 Ontario !30 ATTACHMENT #~TO This Consultation Discussion Paper contains a general description of the Ontario Municipal Board. 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. planningreform.ontario.ca. Comments must be received no later than Au.qust 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 fran~:ais © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2004 2 ATTACHMENT #~'r0 REPORT # PD., ~ i - 0~ J. 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 !32 ATTACHF~'ENT #- '~ TO REPORI # PD .~ -05~ 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#_ ~ TO REPORT # PD ~ i - ~ 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 lO-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. 133 5 134 ATTACHMENT#_ .~ 'r0 REPORT # PD .~ t ~ ~ 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. planningreform.ontario.ca to check for further information on dates and locations, or call us at 1-866-751-8082. 6 ATTACHMEI',IT #_ .~ TO REPOR'[ # PD J~ ~ --c3~ 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.planningreform.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 1_.36 ATTACHMENT # .~ TO REPORT ~' PD .~5i - 05/ 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 (OMB) 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 municipalities 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 !37 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. plannin.qreform 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 councillors 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 ~TTAC:.i!.,iEi~ri ,~. 3 'FO REP(JR] # PD ,~I i .- o q 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 afl 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 OMB's ability to substitute its decision for that of an elected council be modified? 10 ATTACHIVlENT # ~.---...~TO REPORT ,,;',' PD__ .~ I - O,z/ !39 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 !40 REPORT 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 OMB 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 OMB 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 ATTACHiViENT #_ ~ REPOR'I # PD ~'~ 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 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 ATTACHi~,D~T #. 3 .TO REPOR'I' # PD ~i -o~ , 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 OMB? 2. Accessibility of the OMB 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 OMB? 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 !.44 ATTACH~f,£NT # 3 ,TO REPORT # PD 3;i ..o~ 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 REPORT # PD 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 counsel or 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 OMB 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 ATTACHMENT#_ -~ _TO REPORT # PD_ 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.planningreform.ontar o 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#_ ~ TO REPORT # PD ~-c~z( , __ J. 47 Are there other reforms of the Ontario Municipal Board that you believe should be considered? Do you have any additional comments or questions? Comments and Suggestions: