HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 06-05PICKERiNG
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 06-05
Date: January 11,2005
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Durham Regional Official Plan Review
"Recommended Directions Report, October 2004" respecting
the Natural Environment, Commercial Policy, and Rural Resources
Recommendations:
That Report PD 06-05 of the Director, Planning & Development be RECEIVED
as the City's comments on the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004"
dealing with environment, commercial and rural policy components of the
Durham Regional Official Plan Review;
That Regional Planning staff INCORPORATE the results of the City's
Growth Management Study and related amendment to the Pickering Official Plan
(Amendment 13) in the Durham Regional Official Plan in finalizing the
"Recommended Directions Report" for Population, Employment and Land Supply;
In formulating agricultural designations, that a vibrant and economically
productive "countryside" vision is more appropriate for Pickering's rural area than
the strict agricultural vision proposed in the "Recommended Directions Report,
October 2004", and accordingly;
a)
that the Region ESTABLISH a new designation to permit agricultural and
countryside uses (including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism and
non-agricultural countryside uses) that would apply to agricultural lands in
Pickering and other agricultural areas in the Region that are in similar
proximity to urban areas; and,
b) in addition to the above-noted agricultural and countryside uses, to also
INCLUDE the following:
· continue to permit severances for a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting
farm by amendment to the DROP;
· continue to permit severance of a farm retirement lot;
· permit as-of-right stand-alone farm-related commercial uses (such as
farm markets, auction barns) and associated lot-creation;
· continue to permit consideration of new country residential subdivisions,
by amendment to the Regional Official Plan;
· continue to permit golf courses by amendment to the Regional or local
official plan on agricultural lands of lower agricultural capability or on
open space lands;
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
Januaw 11,2005
Page 2
o
· continue to permit cemeteries by amendment to the Regional or local
official plan; and,
· establish provisions to restrict intensive livestock operations from locating
in proximity to urban areas.
That Pickering Council requests that the Region prepare policy amendments to
CLARIFY that the proposed "Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements
Table" would be used only:
when a regional official plan amendment is required; and,
where an area municipal official plan does not provide policy guidance on this
matter;
That Pickering Council requests the Region to consider and INCORPORATE the
detailed comments and suggestions provided in the table in Appendix I to
Report PD 06-05;
That in light of the incomplete Provincial initiatives relating to the greenbelt, the
golden horseshoe growth plan, and the revised provincial policy statement, that
Regional staff be requested to DELAY release of certain draft policies until such
time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed,
thereby allowing the incorporation of any necessary revisions into the draft policy
and avoiding the need to recirculate the draft policies;
That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-05 to the Region of
Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region.
Executive Summary: In October 2004, the Region released the "Recommended
Directions Report, October 2004" dealing with environmental, commercial and rural area
components of the Official Plan Review. Revised directions for population, employment
and land supply are to be addressed later, once the Provincial growth management
directives are confirmed through the "Places to Grow" initiative, to be released in March
2005. In addition, outstanding housing policy issues are to be addressed in a separate
Regional Housing Directions Study.
In October 2004, the Region also provided a "Regional Staff Response" to comments
received from area municipalities and other stakeholders on the four earlier Discussion
Papers (see extract for City of Pickering Attachment #1). City of Pickering comments on
the Discussion Papers were contained in Report PD 06-04, endorsed by City Council
March 1,2004, by Resolution #27/04, Item #2 (see Attachments #2 and #3).
The purpose of the "Recommended Directions Report" is to provide a basis for
amendments to the Regional Official Plan, anticipated in spring 2005. Detailed
comments are set out in Appendix I to PD 06-05: Detailed Staff Comments on Region of
Durham Official Plan Review "Recommended Directions Report, October, 2004".
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date: January 11,2005
Page 3
As noted earlier, the Region has not yet finalized its recommended directions on
population, urban land and employment land policies. The Region has now received
Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan for approval and the City's application to
amend the Regional Official Plan to implement the local amendment. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Region incorporate the results of the City's Growth Management
Study and related amendments to the Pickering Official Plan (Amendment 13) in
finalizing their Recommended Directions Report on population, urban land and
employment policies, and in the implementing amendments to the Durham Regional
Official Plan.
City staff is satisfied that, in general, the recommended directions for commercial policy
provide the basis for appropriate amendments to the Regional Official Plan.
City staff is satisfied with some of the recommended directions on rural resources but
disagrees with a number of the recommended directions including the following:
· to delete the current Regional Official Plan policy permitting severances for
surplus dwellings from a non-abutting farm, severances of farm retirement lots,
country residential subdivisions and cemeteries in the agricultural areas;
· to require amendments to the Regional Official Plan for stand-alone farm-related
commercial uses and associated lot-creation; and
· to merge the Region's two Agricultural Area designations into one land use
designation that would permit only agricultural and farm-related uses. Golf course
proposals would not be permitted in the newly merged Agricultural Area
designation.
City staff recommends that a new rural 'countryside' designation be established
permitting agriculture, agri-tourism, and non-agriculture countryside uses (spas, rural
theaters, etc.)in near-urban areas.
Similarly, City staff is satisfied with most of the recommended directions for achieving a
sustainable and healthy environment but requests that the direction requiring an
Environmental Impact Study (ELS) for development in proximity to natural heritage features
be clarified. The ElS table, which establishes distances from natural heritage features that
would trigger an ElS, should only be used when regional official plan amendments are
necessary and when local official plans have no rural area policies in place.
The Regional Official Plan Review is proceeding ahead of the Province's finalization of
the Greenbelt Act/Greenbelt Plan, Places to Grow Act~Plan, Ontario Municipal Board
Reforms, and revised Provincial Policy Statement. It is recommended that the Region
delay drafting official plan amendments that would implement the recommended
directions until such time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is
completed. This will allow the Region to incorporate any necessary revisions into the
draft amendments and thus avoid the need to recirculate the draft amendments.
Financial Implications: Not Applicable.
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
Januaw 11,2005
Page 4
Background:
1.0 Durham Reqional Official Plan {DROP) Review:
1.1 Regional staff releases the "Recommended Directions Report dated
October 2004" for review and comment.
The Regional Report recommends directions for the environment, rural and
commercial components of the Regional Official Plan Review, which will form the
basis for future amendments to the Regional Official Plan. In response to the
submissions that were received, the Region has indicated that a further review of
population forecasts and urban lands needs is being undertaken. The Region
has indicated that the results of that analysis may be further impacted by the
ongoing Provincial Growth Management initiative. Therefore, the recommended
directions relating to population, employment and urban land needs will be
presented to Regional Planning Committee subsequent to the confirmation of
Provincial Growth Management directives at a later date.
2.0 Discussion:
2.1
Staff acknowledges and appreciates that the "Recommended Directions
Report" largely respects the earlier City recommendation that the Region
pursue more strategic policies that do not unduly duplicate policies in local
official plans.
The "Recommended Directions Report" continues to propose that Natural
Heritage Features be shown on a new Schedule of the DROP. However, the
scale of the mapping on the proposed new Regional Official Plan Natural
Heritage Schedule allows for detailed mapping to be provided in local official plan
schedules. This retains an acceptable level of local municipal control over
detailed implementation of natural heritage policies. A number of other directions
have been revised to appropriately remove the duplication with local official plan
policies. The level of policy duplication had been a matter of concern in the
earlier Discussion Papers.
2.2
The "Recommended Directions Report" continues to propose an overly
restrictive policy approach for Pickering's rural area, whereas a
"Countryside" policy approach would be more appropriate.
The recommended directions for "Protecting our Rural Resources" continues to
view Durham's rural area as homogeneous, rather than recognizing that the rural
areas south of the Oak Ridges Moraine have different characteristics, contexts,
and influences than the more "pure" agriculture areas located north and well east
of Pickering. Countryside that is located close to urban areas is more typically
mixed and diverse.
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
Januaw 11,2005
Page 5
Rather than build on the differences, the Region is continuing to propose to
collapse the two existing Agricultural designations, "Permanent Agricultural
Reserve" and "General Agricultural Area", into one designation for agriculture and
farm-related land uses. The designations relate purely to soil capability and do not
consider social or economic influences on rural land.
While not abandoning agriculture, a somewhat more relaxed land use approach
should be considered for these near-urban areas. This is consistent with the
Pickering's Official Plan policy and the City's Growth Management Study to
foster a healthy and vibrant rural economy. In keeping with this approach, a new
Countryside Area designation and associated policies is recommended for
inclusion in the Regional Official Plan that reflects the distinction between the
near-urban countryside and the more pure agricultural areas in north and east
Durham Region. The Countryside designation would permit a broader range of
complementary uses beyond traditional agriculture including retail agricultural
operations, agri-tourism, and non-agricultural countryside uses.
As well, it is appropriate to restrict the location of intensive agricultural operations
adjacent to Pickering's urban areas that are only subject to the minimum
distance separation (MDS) formulae. Instead, staff is recommending that the
Region provide significant buffers for intensive livestock operations thereby
reducing the potential for adverse dust, odour and noise impacts on nearby
urban residents.
Lot Creation Policies
Despite Pickering Council comments in favour of retaining the policy to permit
severance of a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment to the
DROP, the "Recommended Directions Report" proposes to delete this current
provision of the DROP.
Further, despite Pickering Council comments to continue the policy that permits
consideration of one farm retirement lot from a total farm holding, the
"Recommended Directions Report" recommends deletion. Further, despite of
Pickering's support for the earlier Regional position to permit 'stand-alone'
farm-related commercial uses, including severances, for this purpose on an
as-of-right basis, the "Recommended Directions Report" now recommends
continuation of the current policy to permit such uses only by amendment to the
DROP.
Hamlet Growth Policies
The "Recommended Directions Report" proposes a new direction to guide the
growth of hamlets. The earlier Discussion Paper proposed detailed guidelines
for the onerous settlement capacity studies required to justify hamlet growth. The
"Recommended Directions Report" now proposes a firm limit of 25 percent to the
growth of each hamlet and that hamlet development may proceed within this limit
if technical studies (hydrogeological and environmental) conclude that private
services will be sustainable. Staff generally supports this approach.
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date: January 11, 2005
Page 6
2.3
3.0
Golf Courses
The "Recommended Directions Report" proposes to prohibit golf courses on al...JI
agricultural lands. While staff agrees that golf courses should not be permitted
on prime agricultural lands (class 1, 2 & 3 soils) that are designated Agricultural
Area or Major Open Space System in the Regional Official Plan, we propose that
golf courses should be permitted on lands with lower capability soils with either
designation, by amendment to the local official plan. This approach is consistent
with the policies in the Province's Draft Greenbelt Plan for 'Rural Area' lands.
Country Residential Subdivisions
Despite Pickering Council recommendations to the contrary, the "Recommended
Directions Report" continues to recommend the prohibition of any new country
residential subdivisions in the rural area. Staff recommends that Pickering
Council request the Region to retain the existing policy to permit consideration of
new country residential subdivisions by amendment to the Regional Official Plan.
Council should request the Region to address the City's comments on the
Recommended Directions prior to initiating amendments to the ROP.
A copy of staff's detailed comments on the recommended directions is provided
for Council's review and endorsement (see Appendix I). Further, as the Table
shows, City staff is satisfied with most of the recommended directions. However,
staff is recommending a number of minor revisions to the recommended
directions and, in some cases, requiring further clarification.
It is recommended that Council request the Region to address the City's
comments raised in this Report on the Recommended Directions of the Durham
Regional Official Plan Review prior to preparing amendments to the ROP.
Council should request that Regional staff incorporate policy changes from
the various proposed Provincial Government policy initiatives in the
proposed amendments to the Durham Region Official Plan before they are
circulated for comment.
The Greenbelt Act, 2004, the Draft Greenbelt Plan, the Places to Grow Act, Plan
and Regulations, Ontario Municipal Board Reform, Planning Act Reform and a
revised Provincial Policy Statement (under the Planning Act) may each include
new directions to govern municipal official plan policy not anticipated by the
recommended directions of the Regional Official Plan Review.
While not proposing that the Region defer further consideration of all aspects of
the DROP Review until details of the emerging policies are available such as the
commercial review, it is recommended that the Region delay drafting official plan
amendments until such time as final consideration of the related provincial
initiatives is completed. Proposed amendments on rural, environmental and
urban policies would be affected. Delaying release of these key draft
amendments would avoid the need to recirculate multiple revisions to the policy.
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
January 11,2005
Page 7
APPENDIX
Detailed Comments on the Region of Durham
"Recommended Directions Report" dated October 2004
Official Plan Review
Attachments:
1. Regional Staff Response to Pickering Comments Provided in Report PD 06-04
2. Text of Report PD 06-04
3. City Council Resolution #27/04, Item #2
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Steve Gaunt, MClP, RPP
Senior Planner
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Policy
N~'il (~a~'r~:~4Cl~, RPP
Director, F~mSing & Development
SG:Id
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
(Acting) Chief Administrative Officer
Division He~ Projects and Policy
pR~cCkOe~ nm e n d~ff~ r t h ~ ~tion of
[T_,homas J~C/hief/~drCnistrative Officer
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT PD 06-05
DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS
ON
REGION OF DURHAM
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
"RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS REPORT
OCTOBER 2004"
Region of Durham
Official Plan Review
Recommended Directions
Towards a
sustainable
and healthy
environment
Protecting Watershed Planning
Water
Resources That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. Staff supports the
clearly support the preparation and recommended direction to not require a
implementation of watershed plans watershed plans as a prerequisite to
as an effective land use planning development. However, previous comment
tool in the protection of the recommending that the Region should also
Region's natural resources, consider existing and future watershed plans
Watershed plans shall be prepared in reviewing development proposals or
in accordance with currently infrastructure projects was not incorporated.
accepted practices.
It is recommended that additional wording be
That the ROP be amended to included as follows:
acknowledge that the
municipalities will work with the "That the ROP be amended to
conservation authorities to ensure acknowledge that the municipalities will
that the appropriate policies to work with the conservation authorities to
implement specific watershed ensure that the appropriate policies to
plans are incorporated into the implement specific watershed plans are
respective official plans, incorporated into the respective official
plans, and that the Region consider
watershed plans and local
implementation strategies in their review
of development proposals and
infrastructure projects."
Water Quantity Protection
That the ROP be amended to Requires clarification.
require that applications for
development (excepting wetland The types of development applications that
restoration projects and domestic requires a study should be specified (e.g. LD,
usage and livestock operations) C orA, OPA, and ZBL). As well, the issue of
that require a Permit to Take peer reviews and any required monitoring
Water, or that have the potential to imposed, as a condition of approval
impact water quantity, be previously raised by Pickering, has not been
accompanied by a study verifying satisfactorily addressed by Regional staff.
that there is sufficient water supply
to support the proposed use and,
on a cumulative basis, confirm that
there are no impacts on
surrounding water users and the
natural environment.
Page 1
pa~e~
Protecting That the ROP be amended to Agree. However, need toreviewRegiona/
Water include policies that promote and po/icy in order to determine how it would be
Resources support water conservation, implemented at the local level.
(continued)
Infiltration (recharge)
That the ROP be amended to Agree. However, need to review Regional
require development in the rural po/icy in order to determine how it would be
area to maintain and where implemented at the local level.
possible enhance infiltration and
recharge functions. Within urban
areas, the policy should seek to
minimize hard surfaces through the
review of development applications
and the use of alternative
municipal standards where
practical.
Aquifer Vulnerability Areas
That the ROP be amended to: Partially Agree. However, it appears that ali
· add a figure in the form of a map development proposals abutting or in
that illustrates high aquifer proximity to a high vulnerability area would
vulnerability areas; be required to carry out a hydrogeological
· require that area municipalities study. The sca/e/type of development
incorporate high aquifer applications that would be required to
vulnerability area mapping into undertake these studies in the rural and
their respective official plan, and urban areas requires clarification. Also, it is
that the mapping be refined unclear as to why applications for
through the preparation of more development in high aquifer areas within
detailed studies such as urban areas require a contaminant
watershed studies; management p/an while app//cat/ons within
· require applications for the rural areas do not.
development abutting or in
proximity to a high aquifer
vulnerability area to carry out a
hydrogeological investigation
verifying the degree of
vulnerability of the site;
· require applications for
development in high aquifer
vulnerability areas within urban
areas, be accompanied by a
contaminant management plan
that defines the approach to the
mitigation of impacts;
· restrict land uses in high aquifer
vulnerability areas within the
rural area that have the potential
to contaminate groundwater
unless it can be verified through
an appropriate study that the site
is not considered to be a high
aquifer vulnerability area; and
Page 2
Protecting · encourage existing land uses
Water that have the potential to
Resources contaminate groundwater in
(continued) these areas to develop best
management practices such as:
safe storing/handling waste;
restriction on volumes of
chemicals/material stored on
site;
routine inspections;
- spill contingencies; and
- road salt management plans.
Abandoned Wells
That the DROP be amended to Agree. However, the policy should require
include a policy that abandoned the landowner to be responsible for
wells and boreholes be properly decommissioning abandoned wells and
decommissioned, boreholes.
Groundwater Discharge Area
That the ROP be amended to add a Agree. However, the scale/type of
general policy requiringdevelopment development applications that would be
applications in areas where subject to this policy requires clarification.
groundwater discharge could be
significantly impacted, to
demonstrate that alteration to
groundwater flows will be minimized.
Regional Wellhead Protection
Areas
That the ROP be amended to: There are no Regional wells in Pickering.
· illustrate the capture zones and
associated time of travel zones
for the wellhead protection
areas on an appropriate map;
· prohibit the following uses with
respect to land in wellhead
protection areas:
storage, except by an
individual for personal or
family use of:
· petroleum fuels;
· petroleum solvents and
chlorinated solvents;
· pesticides, herbicides
and fungicides;
· construction equipment;
· inorganic fertilizers;
· road salt;
Page 3
Protecting · contaminants listed in
Water Schedule 3 (Severely
Resources Toxic Contaminants) to
(continued) Regulation 347 of the
Revised Regulations of
Ontario, 1990; and
· any other use that could
adversely affect the
quality and quantity of
groundwater reaching a
well;
· prohibit the following uses with
respect to land in the zero to two
year time of travel zone within
every wellhead protection area:
storage of animal manure,
except by an individual for
personal or family use;
- animal agriculture, except by
an individual for personal or
family use; and
- storage of agricultural
equipment, except by an
individual for personal or
family use;
· require every person who
carries on a restricted use listed
as owner or operator, prepare
and maintain a site
management and contingency
plan that is aimed at reducing or
eliminating the creation of
restricted materials and their
release into the environment;
· require that once a
preferred location for a new
municipal well has been
determined, the ROP should
illustrate the capture zones
and include policies to
protect these zones; and
· require area municipal
official plans to incorporate
wellhead protection areas
and associated time of
travel zones, as well as
policies restricting uses that
have the potential to
negatively impact
groundwater quality and
quantity reaching the well.
Page 4
Protecting Hydrogeological Studies
Water
Resources That the Region develop a Agree. However, the development of the
(continued) hydrogeological study guideline on hydrogeo/ogical guidelines should a/so be
how to hydrogeological studies prepared in consultation with local
should be prepared, study municipalities and conservation authorities.
components and matters that
should be confirmed through the
study to ensure adverse impacts
are minimized.
Enhancing Natural Heritage System
Natural
Heritage That the ROP be amended to: Agree with recognizing a Natural Heritage
Features System consisting of a number of features.
· recognize a Natural Heritage Pickering staff agrees with the Region
System for the Region, identifying only Provincially and/or regionally
consisting of: significant features.
significant wetlands;
significant areas of natural
and scientific interest;
fish habitat (including all
permanent and intermittent
streams);
significant habitat of
endangered and threatened
species;
- significant wildlife habitat;
- significant valleylands; and
- significant woodlands;
· delete the environmentally
sensitive areas illustrated on
Map A and replace it with a
separate map illustrating a
Natural Heritage System;
· require that where environmental
features, such as significant
wildlife habitat and valleylands
have not been identified on the
Natural Heritage System
mapping, these areas be
identified through watershed
plans or through the review of
development applications in
consultation with the appropriate
conservation authority;
· require area municipal official
plans to detail mapping of the
natural heritage system and
allow for the exact boundaries,
or refinements to boundaries, of
the Natural Heritage System to
be determined through
watershed plans or site
investigations prepared for
development applications.
Page 5
Enhancing · in order to provide guidance to
Natural how they are identified, the
Heritage definitions of the natural
Features heritage system components
(continued) should be included in an
appendix of the ROP;
· prohibit development and site
alteration within the Natural
Heritage System, with the
exception of the following
permitted uses, provided the
environmental integrity is
maintained:
forest, fish and wildlife
management;
conservation and flood or
erosion control projects;
- transportation, infrastructure
and utilities;
- Iow intensity recreational
uses; and
- existing agricultural
operations;
· recognize that, with the
exception of provincially
significant wetlands or
endangered and threatened
species, aggregate extraction
and agricultural related
structures may be permitted in
the Natural Heritage System,
provided the environmental
integrity is maintained; and
· require that in the event that
portions of the Natural Heritage
System are damaged or
destroyed, there should be no
adjustment to the boundary of
these areas, and the Region
should require replacement or
rehabilitation of the ecological
features, functions and/or
landforms.
Vegetative Setbacks
That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. The recommended direction
require that in the consideration of should be clarified to indicate that the ElS
development located in proximity to Requirement Table, which establishes
a Natural Heritage feature, the distances from natural heritage features that
ROP require an Environmental would trigger an Environmental Impact
Impact Study, which shall, among Study, should only be used when
other matters, establish an amendments to the Regional Official Plan
undeveloped vegetative setback, are required and when local official plans
Proximity shall be defined as have no policies for its rural areas in place.
outlined in the table below.
Page 6
Enhancing An ElS may be scoped to suit It should be noted that the Pickering Official
Natural individual circumstances. Plan a/ready includes a chart outlining the
Heritage conditions under which an Environmental
Features Report may be requested for development
(continued) (see Natural Heritage Features ElS applications not requiring an amendment to
Requirements Table in Attachment #1 the Regional Official Plan.
to this Appendix)
It is recommended that additional wording be
added as follows:
"That the ROP be amended to require that in
the consideration of applications for local
official plan, draft plan or zoning
amendments within an area municipality
whose official plan does not contain rural
policies, or applications to amend the
Regional Official Plan proposing
development located in proximity to a
Natural Heritage feature, the ROP require an
Environmental Impact Study, which shaft
among other matters, establish an
undeveloped vegetative setback. Proximity
shall be defined as outlined in the table
be/ow. An ElS may be scoped to suit
individual circumstances."
Woodland Target
That the ROP be amended to Partially agree with increasing wood/and
establish a target for woodland coverage. It is more appropriate for the
coverage of 30% of the Region's various watershed plans to establish
land area. Studies such as wood/and coverage targets for each
Watershed plans may vary the watershed than establishing a genera/target
woodland target for a watershed of 30% for the entire Region.
that is in keeping with the overall
target of 30%. The use of It is recommended that the ROP not
indigenous tree species to achieve establish a woodland coverage target of
this target is encouraged. 30% for the entire Region and, instead
require watershed plans to establish
appropriate targets for each watershed.
Corridors and Linkages
That the Major Open Space Agree with protecting linkages and corridors
System designation be examined at the Regional sca/e. However, need to
to confirm that all corridors and review Regional policy in order to determine
linkages that should be recognized how it would be implemented at the local
at the Regional scale are level.
appropriately designated. Further,
that the existing policies of the
ROP be strengthened to
encourage the protection of
linkages and corridors in the
consideration of development
applications and the formulation of
more detailed policies in the area
municipal official plans.
Page 7
paper
Enhancing Urban Tree Strategy
Natural
Heritage That the ROP be amended to Agree.
Features encourage the preparation of area
(continued) municipal tree strategies that will
advance the implementation of the
woodlands coverage target.
Land Securement Strategy
That the ROP be amended to: Agree. The recommended direction
expands on the previous proposed direction
· require an indication of the in terms of the Region's role in land
Region's support for the use of securement and the tools that may be used
land securement tools such as in securing lands. Pickering had previously
acquisition, stewardship and requested that up to two severances be
conservation easements as a considered for the severance of land for
means of enhancing the natural heritage conservation purposes
Region's natural environment, where acquisition is sought by municipalities,
Securement efforts should focus conservation authorities or non-profit
on areas identified as part of the entities.
natural heritage system,
including the targeted areas; It is recommended that:
· require the following factors to
be considered when determining "...Two severances may be permitted for
Regional involvement in land this purpose where it adjusts a property
securement efforts, but not boundary or creates a lot, provided that the
severed parcel is rezoned to permit only
limited to:
natural heritage conservation uses."
damaged or degraded lands;
nature and immediacy of
threats to the land;
proximity to existing property
in public ownership; and
the overall cost of purchase
and long term management
of the lands; and
permit the acquisition of land
in appropriate locations by
municipalities, conservation
authorities or non-profit
entities for natural heritage
conservation purposes. A
severance may be permitted
for this purpose where it
adjusts a property boundary
or creates a lot, provided that
the severed parcel is rezoned
to permit only natural heritage
conservation uses.
Trails
That the ROP be amended to Agree. It should be noted that Pickering
indicate that the Region will work staff is participating in the Regional Trail
with the area municipalities and Coordinating Committee for the purpose of
other stakeholders to develop a developing a Regional Trail network.
Regional Trail Network.
Page 8
;;Areas
Enhancing Lake Iroquois Shoreline
Natural
Heritage That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. This is a new direction
Features identify the Lake Iroquois Shoreline recommended by Regional staff. However,
(continued) on the Natural Heritage Schedule, need to review Regional po/icy in order to
and general policies be added to determine how it would be implemented at
maintain and enhance the the local level. It should be noted that the
significant landforms and Pickering Official Plan recognizes the former
environmental integrity of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline by both policy and
lands, designation.
Improving Air Air Quality
Quality
That appropriate amendments to Agree.
the ROP addressing air quality be
implemented through the
Transportation Master Plan.
That the ROP be amended to:
· acknowledge the potential
implications of climate change,
and indicate an intent to
respond as knowledge and
understanding of what can be
done from a planning
perspective to mitigate impacts
emerges;
· require that in the planning and
development of the Region,
consideration be given to
improving air quality;
· indicate the Region's intent to
reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and other air
pollutants generated by its own
activities and functions; and
· include a policy supporting
alternative renewable, green
energy sources.
Measuring the Health and Sustainability
Health and
Sustainability That the ROP be amended to: Agree.
of the Region's
Communities · add a new goal to encourage
community planning and design
that enhances public health and
safety; and
· encourage the inclusion of
policies in the area municipal
official plans that promote
healthy and safe living
environments.
Page 9
; Recommended:Directions S~ff ~o e i
~aper Areas
Environmental Contaminated Sites
Policy
Considerations That the P, OP be amended to: Agree.
· encourage area municipalities to
include provisions in their
Official Plan to outline the
process that must be satisfied
prior to development proceeding
in areas where soil
contamination is known or
suspected; and
· include a general policy that
prior to considering an approval
for development, proponents
shall ensure that contaminated
sites are cleaned up such that
there will be no adverse effect,
in accordance with provincial
guidelines. It is also
recommended that the P,OP
include a provision that the
P,egion support the remediation
of contaminated sites through
various programs and initiatives
Light Pollution
That the P, OP be amended to Agree.
encourage local municipalities to
incorporate policies in their official
plans and to adopt lighting
standards to minimize light
pollution.
Page 10
Commercial
Policy
Review
Planning for Commercial Planning
Future
Commercial That the ROP be amended to Agree. A more general commercial
Development establish criteria to define Regional framework in the ROP is appropriate.
interest in commercial planning as However, the policy should be clarified to
follows: indicate that the Region's interest in
commercial planning should be focused on
· any commercial proposal of proposals that would have the potential to
56,000 m2 or larger, on an negatively impact the planned function of
individual or cumulative basis; Main Central Areas/Regional Centres
· any commercial proposal instead of all CentralAreas.
requiring a market population of
75,000 or more; and It is recommended that the wording in the
· any commercial proposal that third point be revised as follows:
would have the potential to
negatively impact the planned "any commercial proposal that would have
function ofCentralAreas, the potential to negatively impact the
planned function of Regional Centres."
Commercial Central Hierarchy
Hierarchy and
Central Area That the ROP be amended to Agree. More general principles relating to
require that Sub-Central Areas will the role, scale and form of Central Areas in
be designated in area municipal the ROPisappropriate.
official plans similar to Community
and Local Central Areas (policy
9.3.1).
Floor Space Floor Space Allocations
Allocations for
Central Areas That the ROP be amended to Agree. The removal of the retail floor space
delete the policy allocating allocations in the ROP as a means of
floorspace to Central Areas (policy directing and controlling commercial growth
9.3.3). is appropriate.
Requirements Market Studies
for Market
Studies It is recommended that the ROP be Agree. The removal of the retail impact
amended to: study requirement is appropriate. However,
minor expansions to existing regional
· require a retail impact study for 'centres' should be exempt from the
applications which would result in requirements for a retail impact study.
the expansion of an existing
Central Area that would be of
"Regional Interest" (policy 9.3.6);
· delete the policies directing area
municipal councils to require
retail impact studies (policies
9.3.7 and 9.3.8); and
· add a new policy to require a
retail impact study for any retail
commercial development proposal
that is of "Regional Interest".
Page 11
Nodes and Centres and Corridors
Corridors
That the ROP be amended to:
· provide a clear policy framework Agree. However, the po/icy framework at
for "Centres and Corridors", the Regional/eve/should provide direction to
including policies to establish local municipalities to provide detail policies
Regional corridors as areas of and designations promoting these areas for
intensive mixed-use mixed-use development.
development and to encourage
similar direction for local
corridors;
· amend the Regional Structure
Map 'A' to designate "Regional
Corridors"; and
· delete policies related to Special
Purpose Commercial uses.
Commercial Pending the completion of No comment.
Uses in Employment Lands Study.
Employment
Areas
Urban Form Pending completion of Arterial No comment.
Road Corridor Design Guidelines
Study
Retail Growth Retail Growth
and Location
of New That Policy 9.3.6 be further Agree.
Commercial amended to:
Areas
· delete the requirement for the
Region to require the
preparation of a retail impact
study for the designation of a
new "Centre", unless it is
determined to be of "Regional
Interest";
· specify that area municipalities
shall be responsible for
designating new "Local
Centres", having regard to
Policy 9.3.2; and
· require that the designation of
any new Regional Centres shall
be by amendment to the ROP.
Page 12
Protecting
Our Rural
Resources
Rural Consent Surplus Farm Dwellings (Non- Disagree. There is no need to change the
Policies Abutting Farms) current ROP po/icy.
That the ROP be amended by It is recommended that the Region retain
deleting policy 12.3.12, which policy 12.3.12 that permits consideration
provides for the consideration of of the severance of a surplus dwelling
the severance of a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment.
from a non-abutting farm by
amendment.
Retirement lots
That the ROP be amended to Disagree. There is no need to change the
delete policy 12.3.13, which current ROP, as the po/icy is a/ready
permits the consideration of one restrictive.
farm retirement lot from the total
farm holding. It is recommended that the Region retain
policy 12.3.13 that permits consideration
of one farm retirement lot from the total
farm holding.
Farm-related Industrial Uses Agree.
That the ROP continue to provide
the current general framework for
the consideration of farm-related
industrial uses in Agricultural Areas
and the Major Open Space system,
but be amended to:
· provide policies to guide the
consideration of lot creation for
such uses; and
· require area municipalities to
provide details in their
respective official plans.
Farm-related Commercial Uses Disagree. The ROP should provide genera/
policies for these uses and local OP's provide
That the original proposed direction the detailed policies for "stand a/one" farm-
to permit "stand-alone" farm- related commercial uses. Amendments to
related commercial uses in the local OP's are the most appropriate
Agricultural Areas and Major Open mechanism to evaluate these uses as
Space System, as-of-right, not be opposed to amending the ROP.
)ursued.
It is recommended that:
"That the ROP be amended to indicate that
"stand-alone" farm-related commercial uses
in the Agricultural Areas and Major Open
Space System may be considered by
amendment to the ROP or an area municipal
official plan where appropriate policies are
in place."
Page 13
Rural Consent Lot Line Adjustments
Policies
(continued) That the ROP be amended to Agree.
clarify policy 12.3.15, wh ich
provides for the consideration of
severances for minor lot line
adjustments.
Rural Hamlets
Settlement Partially agree. The recommended direction
Policies That the ROP be amended to: to limit the scale of ham/et growth to 25% of
existing development is reasonable and
· clarify the policies to reflect the would be consistent with the Oak Rides
form, type and limited scale of Moraine Conservation P/an and draft
development intended for Greenbelt Plan relating to ham/et growth.
Hamlets; However, it should be recognized that, sim#ar
· incorporate policies that to the ORM Conservation Plan and Draft
establish a firm limit to Hamlet Greenbelt Plan, the size limit for any
development of 25% of existing particular hamlet could be reviewed when
development or the current future comprehensive reviews of the Regional
development potential identified Official Plan are undertaken.
in area municipal planning
documents, whichever is
greater; and
· clarify that Hamlet development
may only proceed if required
technical studies conclude that
development on private
individual services will be
sustainable.
Country Residential Subdivisions
Disagree. There is no need to change the
That the ROP be amended to: current ROP policy as it permits country
residential subdivisions subject to meeting
· delete the polices that provide stringent criteria.
for the consideration of new.
Country Residential It is recommended that the Region retain
Subdivisions; and the current policy that permits
· add policies to clarify that no consideration of country residential
new Country Residential subdivision proposals by amendment to
Subdivisions will be permitted to the ROP.
locate in the rural area.
Rural Clusters
Residential
Infllling That the ROP be amended by No comment.
deleting those pads of policy
13.3.14 that permit the
identification of new clusters. The
remainder of policy 13.3.14, which
)ermits lot creation within clusters
already identified in planning
documents, will be retained.
Page 14
Rural 1 O-Acre Lots
Residential
Infilling That the ROP be amended by No comment.
(continued) deleting policy 13.3.16, which
provides for the consideration of
severances for rural residential
infilling within concentrations of 4
hectare (10 acre)lots.
Rural Rural Employment Areas
Settlement That the ROP be amended: No comment.
Policies
· to permit limited Rural
Employment Areas only in the
Townships of Brock, Scugog
and Uxbridge and the
Municipality of Clarington,
subject to the preparation of a
comprehensive industrial study
for the municipality; and
· to provide guidance, by adding
specific study requirements that
must be followed to establish
the need and location of new
Rural Employment Areas.
Rural Golf courses
Non-farm Use
Policies That the ROP be amended to: Partially agree. Pickering had
recommended that golf courses be
· prohibit golf courses in ~)rohibited from prime agricultural areas but
Agricultural Areas; should be permitted by amendment on/ands
· require all proposed new golf of lower agricultural capability. In Pickering,
courses and golf course there are limited opportunities for golf
expansions in the Region be courses in the urban areas due to land
considered by amendment to constraints and in the open space system
the ROP or an area municipal due to natural heritage features. The
amendment where appropriate Countryside Area designation proposed by
policies are in place; Pickering would permit tourism and
· require that all amendment recreational uses. Golf course proposals
applications for new or would be assessed through the current
expanding golf course be official plan amendment process.
accompanied by the required
technical studies including: It is recommended that:
- a hydrogeological study; and
- a Best Management "Golf courses may be considered by
Practices report that amendment to the Countryside Area
addresses design, designation to the ROP or an area
construction and operational municipal official plan where appropriate
considerations, including ~olicies are in place."
traffic; and
Page 15
Rural In the event that the Countryside Area
Non-farm Use designation is not endorsed by the Regional
Policies Planning Committee, it is recommended
(continued) that the Region permit the consideration
of golf course proposals in the
Agricultural Areas and Major Open Space
System subject to an amendment to the
ROP or an area municipal official plan
where appropriate policies are in place."
· limit the scale of clubhouses and
other associated uses in rural Agree.
areas to ensure such uses wilJ
be secondary to the primary use
of the golf course.
Regional Nodes
That the ROP be amended by: Agree.
· deleting the policies and
designations as they pertain to
Regional Nodes in Urban Areas;
· deleting policies pertaining to
the consideration and
establishment of new Regional
Nodes in the rural area; and
· adding policies to "grandfather"
existing rural Regional Nodes in
order to allow for their continued
recognition and planning status.
Aggregate Resources Areas
That the ROP policies be amended:
Protection of Significant Aggregate No comment.
Resource Potential Areas
· to reflect new (current)
geological, socio-cultural and
environmental constraint
information and license status of
aggregate resource extraction
areas (Map 'A', Map 'C' and
Schedule 4);to delete the study
requirements contained in
policies 19.2.2 and 19.2.4, but
retain the policy intent of
protecting such
features/resources;
Page 16
Rural Assessment of Potential Impacts
Non-farm Use from A~reqate Operations
Policies
(continued) * to specify that Site Plans and
technical reports, as required by
the Provincial standards
established under the Aggregate
resources Act and Regulations,
should be submitted, where
appropriate, at the time aggregate
related amendment applications
are being considered, to address
the requirements of the ROP;
· to require an assessment of
operational aspects of pits and
quarries; such as exhaust
emissions and lighting impacts,
and that the Plan require that
mitigation measures be provided
for all potential impacts of the
operation, at the time aggregate
related amendment applications
are being considered;
· to clarify policy 19A.3.9 (b)(v) by
indicating that the required
assessment of potential impacts
on residents in the vicinity of
proposed resource extraction
areas or aggregate-related
industrial uses, should address
the considerations and concerns
identified in the remainder of
policy 19A.3.9:
Rehabilitation of Pits and Quarries
· revise policy 19A.3.7 to require No comment.
that, in addition to the site-by-
site rehabilitation programs,
specified in the Aggregate
Resources Act, that
rehabilitation plans, which are
submitted in support of ROP
amendment applications, be
reviewed in conjunction with the
Environmental Impact Study in
accordance with policy 2.3.17;
and
· that such rehabilitation plans be
considered in conjunction with
adjacent and/or groups of
operations in an area, in order to
provide for a more
comprehensive rehabilitation
program;
Page 17
Rural · to provide that the Region take
Non-farm Use the lead role in coordinating
Policies cross-jurisdictional matters and
(continued) identifying opportunities to
provide linkages and corridors
with natural heritage features
when reviewing rehabilitation
plans;
· to require that:
progressive rehabilitation be
undertaken in a timely
manner in accordance with
the approved site plan;
the site be restored to blend
in with land form patterns of
adjacent land; and
rehabilitation sites be
restored to either the same
soil capability as pre-
excavation, or to a vegetative
state using native species;
· to add a policy to encourage
area municipalities to continue to
participate in the Management of
Abandoned Aggregate
Properties (MAAP) Program, to
facilitate the rehabilitation of
abandoned pits; and,
ROP Policy 19A.3.4 and 20.2.6
Conflict
· to resolve the policy conflict
between Policies 19A.3.4 and
20.2.6 by no longer requiring an
amendment in order to make
changes to Map 'C'.
Peat
That the ROP be amended by Agree
deleting policies relating to the
regulation of peat extraction
activities.
Gas Stations and/or Gas Bars
That the ROP be amended by Agree.
deleting policy 16.3.34, which
~ermits the consideration of gas
stations/gas bars in the Agricultural
Area and Major Open Space
System.
Page 18
Rural Other Non-Farm, Non-residential
Non-farm Use uses
Policies
(continued) That the ROP be amended by Agree.
deleting cultural and health
facilities as permitted uses from
policy 5.2.1. Such uses would
continue to be permitted in Urban
Areas and Hamlets.
Cemeteries
That the ROP be amended to Disagree. Pickering had recommendedthat
prohibit the establishment of new the establishment of cemeteries be subject
cemeteries in Agricultural Areas. to an amendment to either the ROP or local
OP's.
It is recommended that the Region retain
the current policy that permits
consideration of cemeteries subject to
the amendment process.
Non-Agricultural Uses
That the ROP be amended: See comment on One Agricultural
Designation below.
· to permit non-agricultural uses,
such as riding and boarding
stable, kennels, allotment
gardens and fur and sod farms
in the Permanent Agricultural
Reserve designation on existing
lots; and
· to provide for area municipal
official plans to contain Iocational
criteria for such non-agricultural
uses in Agricultural Areas.
Major Open Spa~e System
That the ROP be amended to Agree.
require area municipalities, in their
respective Official Plans, to
distinguish between recreational
uses which are compatible with the
character of the open space land in
urban, hamlet and rural areas.
Page 19
Agricultural One Agricultural Designation
Areas
That the ROP be amended by: Disagree with the recommended direction to
merge the "Permanent Agricultural Reserve"
· merging the "Permanent and "Genera/Agricultural Area" designations
Agricultural Reserve" and into one designation.
"General Agricultural Area"
designations on Map 'A' into one Pickering had recommended that the Region
land use designation for the consider two types of rural areas - the near-
purpose of agriculture and farm- urban countryside with greater diversity of
related uses; and uses, and the more pure agricultural area in
· revising the text accordingly, north and east Durham. A Countryside
designation would permit a wider array of uses
such as retail agricultural operations, agri-
tourism and non-agricultural countrys/de uses.
The Countryside Area designation would be
consistent with the Rural Area policies of the
draft Greenbelt Plan. These Rural Area
policies support a range of recreational,
tourism, and resource-based commercial
and industrial and would a/so permit a furl
range of agricultural, agricultural-related and
secondary uses
The City's GMS agricultural analysis
concluded that to support the principle of a
vibrant countryside in Pickering that a broad
range of uses beyond traditional agricultural
would be appropriate. The recommended
direction does not reflect the reality that the
near-urban countryside is truly different from
the more pure agricultural areas in north and
east Durham. Further, the consideration of
intensive agricultural operations adjacent to
urban areas, subject only to the minimum
distance separation (MDS) formulae is
wholly inadequate. These operations should
be appropriately buffered from the urban
areas to reduce the potential for adverse
dust, odour and noise impacts on nearby
urban residents.
It is recommended that a new
Countryside Area designation and
associated policies be included in the
Regional Official Plan that reflects the
distinction between the near-urban
countryside and the more pure
agricultural areas of Durham Region.
Further, it is recommended that the
Countryside and Agricultural policies
include provisions to restrict intensive
livestock operations from locating in
proximity to existing and future urban
areas.
Page 20
Areas
Agricultural Accessory Farm Uses
Areas
That the ROP be amended to: Agree.
(continued)
· provide a general framework to
guide the consideration of
accessory farm uses; and
· direct area municipalities to
include detailed policies in their
official plans to address
accessory farm uses, including
scale, number and potential
impacts on surrounding uses.
Non-Conforming Uses
That the ROP be amended by Agree.
clarifying the non-conforming use
policy 20.4.4 by adding provisions to
prohibit lot creation associated with
non-conforming uses.
Other Rural Basis, Goals and Directions for the
Issues Rural Area
That the ROP be amended by: Agree.
· clarifying the "Basis, Goals and
Directions" (Section 1), to
recognize the distinction
between urban and rural areas;
and
· adding policy to the "Basis"
section, to acknowledge that
natural resources are non-
renewable and limited.
Housing Policies for Rural Area
That the ROP be amended by Agree.
clarifying the "Housing" policies
(Section 4 and policy 3.3.8 d), to
recognize the distinction between
urban and rural settlement areas.
Rural Population Targets
That the ROP be amended by: Partially agree. The rural forecast should
represent the capacity planned for Durham's
· deleting references to rural rural area to 2031. It is appropriate to
population "targets" and consider changes at the next comprehens/ve
replacing the term with review of the ROP.
"forecasts";
· disassociating the rural forecast
from the ROP's planning time
horizon; and
· clarifying that the rural forecast
represents the maximum
capacity planned for Durham's
rural area.
Page 21
~aper
Commercial Wind Turbines
That the ROP be amended to: Agree. However, including commercial wind
turbines under Section 5.2.6 of the ROP that
· include commercial wind relates to public electric power facilities is
turbines as an electric power questionable. A new policy may be more
facility under Section 5.2.6 of appropriate for commercial green energy
the ROP; and enterprises. Commercial solar farms, as a
· encourage areamunicipalitiesto form of green energy, should also be
include policies in their official permitted in any designation.
plans, to ensure that commercial
wind turbines are located It is recommended that commercial solar
appropriately, farms be permitted in any designation.
I:\RegionalOPreviewVRecomrnended Directions 2.doc
Page 22
Attachment #1 to
Appendix I
Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements
Feature
Wetlands (evaluated and
unevaluated)
Endangered & Threatened Habitat
Woodlands
ElS Requirement
120m. from edge of feature as
determined by CA or MNR
50m. from edge of habitat as
determined by CA or MNR
50m. from the edge of the feature
Significant Valleylands 50m. from top of bank
50m. from edge of earth science
ANSI's 120m for life science
Fish Habitat, permanent and
intermittent streams
Significant Wildlife Habitat
Greater of:
- hazardous land limit
- meander belt limit;
- 30m from stable top of
bank, or as otherwise determined
through an ElS
50m from edge of feature as
determined by CA or MNR
~...-,
0 ·
___8
0.9
0
t-'- '~
ATTACHMENT #__ / TO
REPOR1 ~ PD 6 ~ - (~3"'
E
Ez
AT'I'ACHMEN? t¢~ / .TO
REPOR!'# PD ~(~ -~.~""
AT?ACHP,4ENT
REPOR1 # PD (g~
Ez
=0'60
~B~o
~ ~
0 ~
ATTACHMENT#_ / TO
REPORI ~
ATTACHMENT #/___~_._TO
REPOR1 # PD (S)/-)- 0.5~ _ .....
· -1 0
-~'0 '""
0 0 ~
'~ R~
CD C~
0 '- (D -~
~o
0
r-
E
. . REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Discussion Papers- "Proposed Directions"
Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2
Recommendations:
That the comments in Report PD 06-04 of the Director, Planning & Development
be ENDORSED as the City's comments on the "Proposed Directions" of the
Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2 Discussion Papers.
That the Region of Durham be REQUESTED to address the City's comments in
Report PD 06-04 before initiating amendments to the Regional Official Plan,
including revising the "Proposed Directions":
· to identify a 30-year urban land supply for growth in Durham Region;
· to restructure the Durham Plan as a more strategic policy document that
recognizes the comprehensive area municipal official plans and the increased
planning capabilities at the local level;
· to eliminate the duplication of official plan policies on matters addressed in
area municipal official plans; and
· to differentiate between parts of the Region, including using separate rural
policies for near-urban countryside and agricultural areas well-removed from
urban settlements.
That the .Commissioner of Planning be REQUESTED to provide an "early release"
of at least three weeks for the Report to Regional Planning Committee on
"Revised Directions" for the Durham Regional Official Plan Review.
That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-04 to the Region of
Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region.
Executive Summary: In June 2003, the Region's consultation for Phase 2 of the
Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) Review began with the release of four Discussion
Papers. The papers analyze main policy areas identified through Phase 1, including:
the environment; the commercial structure; population and employment growth; urban
land needs; rural/agriculture areas; and the transportation system. Transportation
issues were dealt with through the Region's recent Transportation Master Plan.
Report PD 06-04
'ATTACHMENT
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 2
The Discussion Papers are simple to read and most of the "Proposed Directions" are
easy to understand. The Papers present data on many facets of development in the
Region. Regional staff met with City staff on several occasions to discuss the
"Proposed Directions". The efforts of Regional staff to produce the Discussion Papers
is acknowledged, and their willingness to meet is appreciated.
City Planning & Development staff support the intent of the "Proposed Directions":
v' to redefine the Region's role in commercial developments to large centres having
floor areas of greater than 60,000 square metres;
v' to change the time frame of the Regional Official Plan to 203'1, forecasting a
population of about 215,000 persons and employment of about 88,000 jobs for
Pickering;
v' to require conservation of the natural environment through sustainable land use
and development practices; and
v' to require conservation of the rural land resource.
However, Planning & Development staff does not support the general approach of the
"Proposed Directions":
x to wait until at least 2007 to address the identified urban land shortage, in
Pickering, and other area municipalities;
x to increase the detail of policies on the natural environment, thereby duplicating
local official plan policies; and
x to add more restrictions to the use of all rural lands throughout the Region,
despite the near-urban countryside having a different context than north Durham.
The cumulative result of the "Proposed Directions", if pursued, would be greater
regional control in local matters. Increased regional involvement is unnecessary given
the sophistication of local official plans and the increased planning capabilities of area
municipalities. Further, the role of local decision-making on planning issues would be
weakened. The "Proposed Directions", if followed, would duplicate local official plan
policies on matters currently and more appropriately addressed in area municipal plans.
Also, the "Proposed Directions" would complicate local planning roles and
responsibilities, and delay the current planning process in Durham.
The "Proposed Directions" do not provide enough urban land for growth in Durham and
Pickering to the year 2031. Also, the urban land analysis did not take account of the
natural heritage system of the Seaton lands as identified by the City's Growth
Management Study. The effect is a significant shortfall of urban land to accommodate
Pickering's 20-year growth targets. This ROP Review needs to establish an urban
boundary with a 30-year land supply (not wait until the ROP Review in 2007 as
suggested), so area municipalities can complete required secondary plan studies in a
timely manner.
It is recommended that the "Proposed Directions" be revised to address the City's
comments in Report PD 06-04, and that a "Revised Directions" report be prepared, prior
to the Region starting amendments to the ROP.
Report PD 06-04
ATTACHI~,~E~,tT #. 2 ]'0
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 3
Financial Implications: Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
1.0 Durham ReRional Official Plan Review:
1.1
Regional Council initiated a two-phased approach to reviewing its Official Plan
with the first phase completed in 2001.
On April 5, 2000, Regional Council endorsed a two-phased approach to reviewing
the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP). Part of the first phase involved releasing
a background report, which included a summary and status of the ROP changes
that have occurred in the Region since 1991, and an outline of five policy areas
suggested for review in the ROP. The background report was circulated to local
municipal and other interested stakeholders for review and comment.
On December 18, 2000, City Council endorsed Report PD 46-00 (Revised) and
requested that the Region of Durham address the issues raised in the City's
Report in the review of the ROP. The City supported the review of the policy
areas suggested by the Region and identified other issues for review including:
· the review and update of housing policies to reflect changes to Provincial
legislation and programs;
· consideration of removing urban separator designations from the major open
space system;
· specific designations for a future extension of Clements Road in Ajax,
Finch Avenue west of Altona Road and Townline Road north of Finch,
Dixie Road, and the freeway to freeway connector between Highways 401
and 407; and
· a number of technical issues.
Subsequently, Regional Council considered the results of the consultation
process undertaken for Phase 1 of the Official Plan Review and endorsed the
following policy areas for review:
· environment/open space policy;
· commercial structure;
· population and employment growth;
· urban land requirements;
· rural/agriculture policy; and
· transportation system.
Report PD 06-04
ATTACHMENT
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
Februaw 5,2004
Page 4
1.2
1.3
Durham's Planning Committee authorized Regional staff to consult on the
"Proposed Directions" of the Phase 2 ROP Review Discussion Papers.
On June 24, 2003, Regional Planning Committee authorized staff to initiate the
consultation process for Phase 2 of the Official Plan Review. Regional staff
released four Discussion Papers with "Proposed Directions", as follows:
Towards a Sustainable and Healthy Environment
Directions on environmental issues propose significant detail and
restrictions; main topics focus on water resources, natural heritage
features, air quality and the health and sustainability of the Region's
communities.
Population, Employment and Urban Land
- Directions on growth management policies do not address land supply
shortage; main topics include updated population, household, dwelling unit
and employment forecasts to the year 2031, and urban land supply.
Commercial Policy Review
Directions on retailing and commercial issues relax Regional role in
commercial matters; main topics discussed include the commercial
hierarchy and Central Area definition, floor space allocations, nodes and
corridors, and urban form.
Protecting our Rural Resources
- Directions on rural and agricultural issues propose more detail and severe
use restrictions; main topics addressed include the agricultural land base,
fragmentation, incompatible uses, rural settlements and non-farm uses.
These four Discussion Papers were focused on the analysis of the policy areas
identified in Phase 1 of the ROP Review. The transportation system was
reviewed as part of the Region's Transportation Master Plan (TMP). On
December 17, 2003, Regional Council adopted the Transportation Master Plan
(TMP) including specific revisions to address the City's concerns.
Pickering Council received Report PD 29-03 regarding consultation process
underway for Phase 2 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) Review.
On July 4, 2003, Pickering Council considered Report PD 29-03 regarding the
consultation process for Phase 2 of the ROP Review.
Report PD 06-04
ATTACHMENT #~=~,~....T0
REPORT # PD
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
Februaw 5,2004
Page 5
1.4
2.0
At that time, City staff advised that the "Proposed Directions" included major
changes to the natural environment and other policy areas in the ROP, and that
the rationale for these "Proposed Directions" required clarification and discussion
with Regional staff and other agencies. In addition, the implications of
the "Proposed Directions" on the Pickering Official Plan and the
Growth Management Study were being reviewed.
As part of the Region's consultation process, a Public Information Session
was held in Pickering to solicit input on the "Proposed Directions" in the
Region's Discussion Papers.
Public Information Sessions were held across the Region (one for each of the
local municipalities) to solicit input on the "Proposed Directions". Four people
attended the Pickering session, held on September 17, 2003, in the Central
Library auditorium. Also, Regional staff met three times with Pickering staff to
discuss issues.
DISCUSSION:
2.1
Staff supported a ROP Review that would result in a more strategic and
visionary document for growth and development in Durham to 2031. The
"Proposed Directions" do not build upon the important role of local
Councils to make decisions on planning issues.
City staff suggested during Phase 1 of the ROP Review that the new Plan set
long-term strategic directions for Durham, as six of the eight local municipalities
now have comprehensive official plans. By focusing on a streamlined Regional
Plan, area municipal official plans would be able to refine the broad long-term
directions into detailed policies and designations that reflect local conditions.
The consultants retained by the Region to undertake the commercial review also
shared this view. They concluded:
The level of detail for retail commercial planning in the current Plan
continues to reflect the Region's historic role as having the primary
responsibility for planning in the Region. Many aspects of this role
are now capably performed by the area municipalities, often
creating a perceived duplication in the work done at the Region.
The Region's continued role in the development approval process
which includes reviewing and commenting on applications for
developments which are not regional in their scale, role or function
is dated and is not in keeping with the objective of downloading
responsibilities to the area municipalities where there is no clear
regional interest.
Report PD 06-04
~TTACHrvlENT # 2 TO
tR£POR7 # PD ~ - 0
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5,2004
Page 6
2.2
Currently, the Region provides only technical comments on local applications
circulated by area municipalities. However, the Region has approval power on
local official plan amendments. The Region should be providing more substantial
comments and analysis on local applications in place of proposing more detail in
their Plan and requiring more uses to be established only by amendment to the
Regional Official Plan. Only fundamental challenges to strategic Regional Plan
matters (such as urban area boundaries) should require a Regional Plan
Amendment. A more strategic Regional Plan would build on the well-developed
local official plans and the increased planning capabilities of area municipalities.
A more strategic Regional Plan could be achieved by removing policies that
duplicate local official plans. Alternately, certain Regional Plan policies could
apply only where no approved local official plan is in place.
The "Proposed Directions" do not reflect differences within the Region,
resulting in an overly detailed and restrictive policy approach for the
environment and the rural area,
The "Proposed Directions" in the Discussion Papers, if pursued, would duplicate
local official plan policies, complicate municipal planning roles and
responsibilities, and impede the quality and efficiency of the current planning
process in Durham. The value of requiring more amendments to the ROP,
especially where comprehensive local official plans are in place, is questionable.
The "Proposed Directions" would effectively remove much of the responsibility for
local planning issues from local Councils to the Region.
Specifically, the Discussion Paper on "Protecting our Rural Resources" considers
Durham's rural area as homogeneous, rather than recognizing the differences
that are reflected in local official plans. The Region is proposing to collapse the
two existing Agricultural designations, "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" and
"General Agricultural Area", into one designation for agriculture and farm-related
land uses. The rural areas south of the Oak Ridges Moraine have different
characteristics, contexts, and influences than the more "pure" agriculture areas
located north and well east of Pickering. Countryside that is located close to
urban areas is more typically mixed and diverse.
While not abandoning agriculture, a somewhat more relaxed land use approach
should be considered for these near-urban areas. This is consistent with
Pickering's Official Plan policy to foster a healthy and vibrant rural economy.
This could be achieved by permitting a broader range of complementary uses
beyond traditional agriculture including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism,
and non-agricultural countryside uses. It would be appropriate for the
"Proposed Directions" to be revised to establish two different 'rural areas' for
inclusion in the ROP, which better recognizes the diverse rural conditions.
Report PD 06-04
,~TI'ACHMENT #~TO
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date: February 5, 2004
Page 7
Also, Regional staff proposes using the policies contained in the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) as the basis for many of the
"Proposed Directions" on the natural environment. Justification for using an
approach based on the ORMCP is required, given that the Oak Ridges Moraine
is so unique and significant. The proposed Direction to establish 'standard'
setbacks from natural heritage features in the rural area is inappropriate.
Setbacks are typically established through detailed environmental reports at the
local level through site-specific review.
City staff agrees with the importance of conserving the environmental system.
However, the detailed policies are more appropriate in local official plans. The
Region should build on those policies, and local decisions, in a collaborative
manner.
2,3
The "Proposed Directions" in the rural discussion paper are proposing that all
new golf course proposals and golf course expansions be considered by
amendment to the ROP. The current ROP policy permits the establishment of
golf courses within urban areas, Major Open Space System and Waterfront
designations, subject to an amendment to either the ROP or local official plans.
There is no value to the planning process by duplicating local planning efforts.
The ROP should provide broad strategic directions for golf course proposals and
rely on local official plans to provide detailed implementation policies.
Regional staff has indicated that many of the "Proposed Directions" are primarily
for the benefit of the Townships of Brock and Uxbridge where there is no local
official plan coverage for the rural areas. The Region should consider a two-tier
planning document that prescribes broader strategic policies for local
municipalities with comprehensive official plans and more detailed policies for the
municipalities without rural official plan coverage. This is in keeping with the
current ROP where some policies are not to be applied where local official plan
policies are in place. It is unnecessary and confusing to include detailed policies
and maps on the same topic in both regional and local official plans.
This Official Plan Review needs to address Pickering's urban land needs in
light of the area of natural heritage features on the Seaton lands.
The "Population, Employment and Urban Land" Discussion Paper identifies most
of Seaton, with the exception of the areas designated Open Space System in the
current Pickering Official Plan (POP), as being developable (see Attachment #1
-Regional Official Plan Designations with POP Open Space Overlay). The
Discussion Paper includes a summary of land surplus or deficit for the period
from 2001 to 2031 for Pickering. The Region estimates a shortfall of urban land
for Pickering of 112 hectares at 2026.
Report PD 06-04
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 8
2.4
A more recent analysis of the Seaton lands, as part of the City's on-going
Growth Management Study (GMS), has found that a significant portion of the
Living Area and Employment Area in the Regional Map is part of a natural
heritage system (see Attachment #2 - Region Designations with Pickering
Growth Management Study Natural Heritage Overlay). Further, the Main Central
Area in the Regional Map is located within the Urfe Environmental Sensitive Area
(ESA), a large core environmental area. It is estimated that approximately
330 hectares of Living Area and §00 hectares of Employment Area would be lost
to this expanded natural heritage system.
The Discussion Paper assumes 50% of the land designated Living Area remains
to be developed as residential. The other 50% is used for roads, schools, parks,
commercial, and stormwater management facilities. By contrast, the City's
Growth Management Study assumes only 35% of the Living Area for residential
development. There is a concern that the assumption in the Discussion Paper
over estimates the number of houses that can be built on the land designated
Living Area.
With updated information on the Seaton lands, and different assumptions about
lands required for other community services and facilities, the urban land shortfall
for Pickering occurs sooner than 2021. Pickering's 20~year growth targets cannot
be accommodated within its current urban area boundary.
The "Proposed Directions" do not provide sufficient lands for growth in
Durham and Pickering. The shortfall of urban land needs to be addressed
now instead of reviewing adjustments to the urban area boundaries as part
of the next comprehensive 5-year ROP Review in 2007.
Despite significant growth in Durham Region projected by 2021 and 2031, the
"Population, Employment and Urban Land" Discussion Paper is proposing to
maintain the current urban boundaries, and to give consideration to adjustments
to the urban area boundaries as part of the next comprehensive 5-year
Regional Official Plan Review in 2007.
According to the Paper, there is no basis for changing Durham's urban area
boundary and there is no need to require additional lands until 2026. However, as
discussed in section 2.3 of this Report, the analysis of Pickering's land inventory
based on new information identifies a land shortfall in less than 20 years.
The Provincial Policy Statement establishes a 30-year time frame for regional
official plans in the Greater Toronto Area. The Policy Statement also provides
local municipalities the opportunity to designate sufficient land for urban uses and
for an appropriate range and mix of housing, to accommodate growth up to a 30-
year planning horizon.
Report PD 06-04
Ai"fACHMENT #. 2. TO
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5,2004
Page 9
2.5
Pickering has insufficient urban land for a 20-year planning horizon (the year
2021). The urban land shortage is more severe for the 30-year planning horizon
(the year 2031). The Region needs to establish an urban boundary framework
for the next 30~years, which would enable local municipalities to undertake their
planning reviews. Waiting until the next review in 2007 (considering that the
current ROP Review has taken over three years so far) could mean that local
municipalities are not in a position to have approved secondary plans for nearly
10 years from now.
Regional staff has indicated that if Pickering's 20-year growth forecast cannot be
accommodated within its current urban area boundary, any remaining share
could be transferred to Oshawa and Clarington. Any transfer of Pickering's share
elsewhere potentially impacts the City's long-term finances, derived in part from
growth and development, to support community infrastructure and services. The
shortfall of urban land should be addressed in this comprehensive review.
Council should request Regional staff to revise the "Proposed Directions"
in light of the City's comments on the Discussion Papers, prior to initiating
amendments to the ROP,
A copy of staff's detailed comments on the "Proposed Directions", as set out in
the Discussion Papers, is provided for Council's review and endorsement
(see Attachment #3). Clarification, duplication, and deficiencies relating to the
"Proposed Directions" have been noted. The "Proposed Directions" relating to
the commercial policy review are appropriate.
Further, the issues previously endorsed by City Council in Report PD 46-00
(Revised) on Phase 1 of the Official Plan Review are listed in a chart attached to
this Report (see Attachment #4). As the Chart shows, the Discussion Papers have
not addressed all of the issues raised previously by the City in Report PD 46-00
(Revised).
It is recommended that Council request Regional staff to address the City's
comments raised in Report PD 06-04 on the Durham Regional Official Plan
Review - Phase 2 and issue a "Revised Directions" paper, prior to preparing
amendments to the ROP.
Attachments:
Map 1 - Regional Official Plan Designations with POP Open Space Overlay
Map 2 - Regional Official Designations with Pickering Growth Management Study
Natural Heritage Overlay
Chart 1 - Staff Comments on "Proposed Directions" in Discussion Papers
Chart 2 - Staff Comments on Phase 1 of the ROP Review
Report PD 06-04
~ ?I'AGHMENT
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date: February 5, 2004
Page 10
Prepared By:
ORIOINAL SIGNED BY
Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner- Policy
Approved / Endorsed By:
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Neil Carroll, MClP, RPP
Director, Planning & Development
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Catherine Rose
Manager, Policy
GM:Id
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Division Head, Corporate Projects and Policy
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer
ATTACHMENT# '~ TO
REPOR'I' # PD ~:~ ~ O ~'
Appendix I
Executive Committee Report
EC 20O4-3
(I) ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of February 16, 2004
Special Meeting of February 23, 2004
(111) RESOLUTIONS
Resolution #27/04 - Appendix I
Moved by Councillor McLean
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
That the Report of the Executive Committee dated February 16, 2004, be adopted with
the following consideration:
Recorded Vote:
Yes: Councillors Brenner, Holland, McLean, Pickles and Mayor Ryan
No: Councillors Ashe and Johnson
CARRIED
That the Executive Committee of the City of Pickering having met on February 23, 2004,
presents its third report to Council and recommends:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 06-04
DISCUSSION PAPERS- "PROPOSED DIRECTIONS"
DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW, PHASE 2
That the comments in Report PD 06-04 of the Director, Planning &
Development be ENDORSED as the City's comments on the "Proposed
Directions" of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2 Discussion
Papers.
That the Region of Durham be REQUESTED to address the City's comments
in Report PD 06-04 before initiating amendments to the Regional Official
Plan, including revising the "Proposed Directions".
· to identify a 30-year urban land supply for growth in Durham Region;
REPOR1 ~ PD (::)¢= -C~,.~"'. ...... Excerpts from
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, March 1, 2004
7:40 PM
to differentiate between parts of the Region, including using separate rural
policies for near-urban countryside and agricultural areas well-removed
from urban settlements.
That the Commissioner of Planning be REQUESTED to provide an "early
release" of at least three weeks for the Report to Regional Planning
Committee on "Revised Directions" for the Durham Regional Official Plan
Review.
4. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-04 to the Region of
Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region.
-2-