RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the staff report entitled “Comments on the
Provincial Planning Reforms Discussion Papers”, dated August 30, 2004, be received for information;
That Council receive the June 2004 Provincial
Planning Reform Initiatives discussion papers on Planning Act Reform and
Implementation Tools, a Provincial Policy Statement, and Ontario Municipal
Board Reform, and request the provincial government to finalize the provincial
planning reform initiatives, addressing Markham’s comments as outlined in this
report, including among other things:
1.
Amending the Planning Act to:
a)
require a proponent to
submit a “complete application”, as defined in a municipal official plan before
the timelines for an appeal to the OMB commence;
b)
allow municipalities to
bring a motion for dismissal of an appeal to the OMB on the basis that a
“complete application” has not been provided;
c)
introduce new provisions
under Section 41 to provide municipalities with greater control to direct
community built form and urban design, where a municipality has prescribed
urban design standards articulated through its official plan;
d)
eliminate the expedited
route to the OMB, by means of a Notice of Motion for direction to the OMB
(introduced by Bill 124), to resolve disputes over whether certain matters can
be dealt with by municipalities under Section 41 site plan approval;
e)
introduce new provisions
under Section 41 and 51 to require, as a condition of approval of a plan of
subdivision or site plan, conveyance, into public ownership, of valleylands and
woodlots and associated ecological lands, where a municipality has identified
such lands a part of a linked natural heritage system through its official
plan, at no expense to a municipality or conservation authority;
f)
introduce new criterion
under Section 51(24) to strengthen a municipality’s capability to conserve
cultural heritage resources and provide for their incorporation in developing
communities;
g)
harmonize the Planning Act
and Environmental Assessment Act processes;
h)
allow a municipality’s
planning decision to expand its urban settlement area boundary, made prior to
the introduction of Bill 26, to stand:
- where a municipality has completed a
comprehensive review, held a statutory meeting on
a specified
date, and made a final planning decision, with the full knowledge of the
delegated
approval authority, and with no objection for the delegated approval
authority;
and
- that the
delegated approval authority be allowed to make a decision on the application,
based on a comprehensive review in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Act
and the Provincial
Policy Statement in force at the time of the municipality’s planning
decision
approval;
i)
amend Section 28 to expand
the definition of Community Improvement Plan to allow for a broader range of
urban-intensification and to permit upper-tier municipalities to prepare
Community Improvement Plans to implement compact development forms and transit
supportive development in regional centres and corridors;
j)
amend the Development Permit
System regulation under Section 70.2 to allow all municipalities to develop and
use development permit system by-laws; and
k)
develop guidelines, in
consultation with municipalities, to support municipalities implementing
intensification and compact development;
2. Revising the Draft Provincial Policy
Statement to:
a) promote strategic
policies for accommodating future urban growth rather than procedures
that
place well-planned urban growth at odds with the loss of agricultural land;
b)
provide for urban settlement boundary
alterations concurrent with, and not contingent on fully utilizing,
opportunities to intensify and redevelop existing urban settlement areas;
c) ensure that policy
to maintain, rather than reduce, the supply of employment lands in a
municipality takes
precedence over policies that support the provision of housing in cases where
the supply of employment land in a municipality is inadequate to meet projected
need;
d) develop guidelines for affordable housing that more
clearly articulate provincial
expectations of affordable housing targets, and that are
flexible to accommodate local
circumstances (including regional market conditions and
household income distribution), to
support municipal efforts to provide diverse forms and
tenure of housing;
e)
provide a
clearer definition of “special needs” housing;
f)
encourage more
options for affordable housing that effectively use existing infrastructure,
such as second suites in houses;
g)
identify an
accountable coordinating body for cross jurisdictional planning and investment
at the regional
level;
h) provide a provincial environmental policy framework that would specifically
support protection of natural heritage system features and functions, including
hydrologic features and functions;
i)
establish
an overall guiding principle of “net environmental gain” to permit development
and site alteration on land adjacent to natural features and areas rather than
“no negative impact”;
j)
update
the provincial guidelines addressing compatibility of uses with a natural
heritage system;
k) provide more explicit standards for
development setbacks from natural features;
l)
prohibit
new or expanded agricultural operations on natural heritage system lands;
m) provide a provincial agricultural policy
framework that will provide municipalities with criteria to assess the
productive capability of agricultural lands and the economic viability of the
agricultural activities within the context of evaluating lands to accommodate
future urban growth;
n)
encourage and
support those municipalities that have been appropriately assessed for
settlement area boundary alterations;
o) link strategic provincial
planning priorities for growth management with strategic
provincial
priorities for investment in infrastructure;
p) provide a balanced policy
approach to the supply of employment and residential lands;
q) assist municipalities in
establishing a minimum target for employment lands supply;
r) ensure that municipalities
provide a supply of employment lands that is maintained and market ready; and
s)
broaden the definition of “alternative energy systems”
to reinforce conservation of energy resources;
3. Introducing Ontario
Municipal Board Reforms to:
a)further restrict the powers of the OMB to only review
local decisions based on a prescribed standard of review and/or failure of
process or in matters that involve a clear provincial interest;
b)
place the onus
of demonstrating an error or impropriety of decision-making or
failure of process on the appellant;
c)
eliminate the notice of
motion to appeal mechanism to the OMB for site plan control approval
(introduced by Bill 124);
d)
investigate an alternative
to the OMB review of Committee of Adjustment decisions;
e)
ensure a public
process of appointments to the OMB including the review and recommendation of
appointees to the provincial government by a non-partisan committee; and
f)
increase the length of
term of OMB members to 5-6 years with the requirement of a performance review
on an annual basis.
THAT Council
request the provincial government to review the current scope of the
Environmental Assessment Act particularly as it relates to minor infrastructure
improvements at the local municipal level (eg. traffic calming measures);
THAT Council request the provincial government
to bring forward concurrently for consultation with stakeholders and
municipalities, the provincial government’s definitive approach to planning
reforms and greenbelt protection within the context of a final Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe;
THAT Council submit this report to the Province
as the Town of Markham’s comments on the Planning Reform Initiatives discussion papers and
Environmental Bill of Rights Registry No. PF04E0003;
THAT Council authorize the Director of Planning
and Urban Design to submit this report with supporting comments to the Chair of
the provincial Agricultural Advisory Team;
AND THAT the Clerk be
directed to forward a copy of this report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, the Minister of Infrastructure Renewal, the Assistant Deputy
Minister for the Smart Growth Secretariat, the Chair of the Greenbelt Task
Force, York Region MPPs and the Region of York.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to outline three
provincial discussion papers on: Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools,
the Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies, and Ontario Municipal Board
Reform, and to provide comments to the Province on proposed improvements to the
land-use planning system in Ontario. This report also identifies,
from the Town’s perspective, preferences for changes in provincial legislation
and policies, and further actions required, by the Province to provide an
improved implementation framework for land-use planning at the municipal level.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Provincial Planning Reform Initiative
The
provincial planning reform initiative is intended to improve Ontario’s
land-use planning system: providing strong, clear planning policies, and
legislative changes and tools that accelerate and simplify the planning
process. As part of the planning reform
initiative, the Province is:
·
reviewing the Planning Act
and determining the need for more effective implementation tools for
municipalities and other decision-makers;
·
releasing draft policies of
the Provincial Policy Statement for review and comment; and
·
reviewing the role and mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board.
The planning reform initiative has implications
on the Town’s ability to implement local growth management initiatives and is
it in Council’s interest to express its views, and provide comments to the
Province (deadline September 2004) on the proposed planning reforms, in
particular, as they relate to other growth management initiatives.
Municipalities Need New
Planning and Fiscal Tools
The
Province must guide the overall framework or policy context for growth
management, and give municipalities the authority, legislative tools and
financial support needed to manage growth within their communities and to
establish proper infrastructure, urban design and development controls.
Current
and proposed provincial legislation, regulations, and procedures often pose
constraints on municipal authority and introduce impediments to appropriate
growth management.Currently,
·
the Planning Act provides limited authority for a municipality to
secure the long-term protection of a linked natural heritage system or unique
agricultural lands (ie. no requirement for conveyance into public ownership of
significant natural heritage system features) ;
·
there is certain redundancy in the requirements of the
Environmental Assessment Act and the Planning Act and the scope of a provincial environmental
assessment is often too broad and
onerous for relatively minor, local undertakings (eg. EA approvals to
install local traffic calming measures);
·
the draft Provincial Policy Statement policies place
well-planned urban growth at odds with the loss of agricultural land (ie.
Required and justified settlement boundary alterations may conflict with lands
in identified urban growth areas); and
·
the Ontario Municipal Board is authorized to deal with
local land use planning and urban design matters that have been legally and
properly dealt with by a municipal Council (ie. site plan control and minor
variance approvals respecting community design matters).
Furthermore,
municipalities require access to new sources of revenue to finance new
infrastructure (such as higher order public transit and municipal parking
structures, not currently enabled under Development Charges rules) to support
urban growth management and economic development through compact development
forms and transit supportive lands uses.
Through the provision of planning and fiscal tools complementary to the
proposed legislation, the provincial government can assist municipalities in
moving forward with compact urban growth, a diverse choice of housing and
employment opportunities, preservation of the natural and built heritage
environment, and optimization of transportation and municipal servicing
infrastructure.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Council request the
provincial government to finalize the provincial planning reform initiatives,
addressing Markham’s comments respecting amendments to the Planning Act, revisions to the
Draft Provincial Policy Statement, and Ontario Municipal Board Reforms, as
outlined in this report.
It is also recommended that Council request the
provincial government to bring forward concurrently, for consultation with
stakeholders and municipalities, the provincial government’s definitive
approach to planning reforms and greenbelt protection within the context of a
final Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
BACKGROUND:
Provincial Growth Management Initiatives
To support the
creation of strong communities and enhance the quality of life, environmental
protection and economic growth in Ontario, the Province has
initiated a set of provincial growth management initiatives:
1. Growth Plan and implementation
framework for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;
2. Planning Reform including Bill 26
amendments to the Planning Act, revisions to the Provincial Policy Statement,
and further reforms relating to the Ontario Municipal Board; and
3.
Greenbelt Protection including Bill 27 legislation to defer urban expansions and enable the government
to study where greenbelt protection should be implemented in the Golden
Horseshoe.
1.
Growth Plan
On July, 12, 2004, the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal released a discussion paper on a provincial plan for growth
and economic expansion in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The discussion paper provides a comprehensive framework for
managing population and employment growth in a way that promotes vibrant
communities, a strong economy, and enhanced environmental sustainability. A separate report outlining the discussion
paper and providing comments on the growth plan objectives, priorities for
infrastructure investment and greenbelt protection, and implementation
strategies will be on the August 30, 2004 Development Services Committee agenda.
2. Planning
Reform
On June 1, 2004, the Province
released three discussion papers on Planning Act Reform and Implementation
Tools; Provincial Policy Statement: Draft Policies; and Ontario Municipal Board
Reform. As part of the Planning Reform
initiative, the Province is:
·
Reviewing the land use
planning process;
·
Determining the need for
effective implementation for municipalities;
·
Releasing draft policies of
the Provincial Policy Statement for public review and input; and
·
Reviewing the need for the Ontario
Municipal Board.
3. Greenbelt Protection
At it
meeting of June 22, 2004, Council endorsed the general direction of the May
2004 Provincial Greenbelt Task Force Discussion Paper entitled “Towards a
Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt” and supported, in principle, the elements
considered by the Task Force, subject to the provincial government finalizing a
growth plan context for administering and implementing a permanent
greenbelt.
Request for Comments on Planning
Reform
At its meeting of June
15, 2004, the
Development Services Committee received a letter from John Gerretson, Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing, requesting input on the provincial planning
reform initiatives and referred it to staff for comment.
The
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, together with other provincial
ministries having land-use planning interests, held Town Hall meetings/public
information sessions in communities across Ontario in June and July.
These sessions provided an opportunity for stakeholders and municipalities to
participate in the planning reform process, find out more about planning
reform, talk to provincial officials, and provide comments and
suggestions. Town staff
were also invited to participate in a regional stakeholder workshop held
in Vaughan on June 12, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
The
provincial planning reform initiative is intended to improve Ontario’s
land-use planning system by providing strong, clear planning policies, and
legislative changes and tools that accelerate and simplify the planning process. As part of the planning reform initiative,
the Province is:
·
reviewing the Planning Act
and determining the need for more effective implementation tools for
municipalities and other decision-makers;
·
releasing draft policies of
the Provincial Policy Statement for review and comment; and
·
reviewing the role and
mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board
A. Planning Act
Reform – Bill 26
The Planning Act is the legislative framework
for land use planning. It identifies how
the planning system works, who makes planning decisions, how disputes are
resolved, and how the public can participate in the planning process. In December 2003, the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing introduced Bill 26 to strengthen the implementation
provisions of the Planning Act. On May 26, 2004, the proposed Strong Communities
(Planning Amendment) Act, 2003, (Bill 26) received second reading in the
legislature. If passed, Bill 26 will
give the Province and municipalities more control over growth management
through changes to the planning process such as:
·
Increasing the time
decision-makers have to review land use planning applications;
·
Changing the implementation
provisions of the Planning Act so that planning decisions must be “consistent
with” provincial policy statements issued under the Act;
·
Eliminating
appeals to the OMB relating to private proposals for urban boundary expansion;
·
Allowing Cabinet
to make a final decision on land use planning applications for “matters of
provincial interest”; and
·
Introducing new
powers for the Minister to deal with “in process” applications and appeals.
The Province 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 discussion paper on Planning Act Reform and
Implementation Tools identifies possible further changes for review and comment
including:
·
Requiring
additional information to be provided with land use planning applications;
·
Changing the
implementation provisions to make the planning system more responsive to the
needs of municipalities;
·
Requiring
municipalities to review and update their land use planning documents;
·
Harmonizing the
Official Plan and Environmental Assessment processes;
·
Clarifying the
transition provisions for implementing Bill 26; and
·
Introducing new
planning tools such as newly defined Community Improvement Plans, a Development
Permit System, and implementation support materials.
In principle, Staff support the
introduction of the new planning reforms contained in Bill 26 subject to the
following provisions:
Provisions for adequate
review of planning applications before an appeal to the OMB
The proposed increased time frames
will allow the Town more time to study and consider the full implications of
development applications, and consult with the public. However, in many instances, the information
requested under the current Planning Act provisions is not
adequate to properly evaluate applications, as municipalities
may require more detailed or technical information specific to the type of land
use or the context associated with the requested planning approval.
Enabling municipalities to define
in their Official Plan what constitutes a complete application, sufficient to
support a well-informed decision, and clarifying that the time lines for an
appeal to the OMB would not commence until a complete application is received,
would allow municipalities to complete a comprehensive review and
decision-making process on a complex proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council urge
the provincial government to provide further amendments to the Planning Act to
enable more timely municipal decisions by introducing provisions that:
·
require a
proponent to submit a “complete application”, as defined in a municipal official plan, before the timelines for an
appeal of a land use planning application to the OMB commence; and
·
allow municipalities
to bring a motion for dismissal of an appeal of a land use planning application to the OMB on the basis that a
“complete application” has not been provided.
Provisions to support
municipalities implementing provincial growth management initiatives
The introduction of a new implementation standard
requiring that planning decisions “shall be consistent with” rather than “shall
have regard to” provincial policy statements will assist municipalities in
implementing provincial growth management initiatives. However,
further changes are required to the Planning Act to provide municipalities with
the authority and legislative tools necessary to manage growth and establish
good urban design at the community level, reflecting local needs and interests.
The recent
success of Markham’s growth management initiatives respecting intensification and
compact communities has a direct relationship to good urban design. Municipal design and site plan matters have a
clear role to play in community building as these objectives directly influence
and impact on the quality of life within the community. Staff believe it is
essential to articulate urban design standards through its Official Plan, and
planning approvals processes, to assist in achieving both provincial and
municipal growth management initiatives.
Section 41 of the Planning Act currently restricts the ability of a
municipal council to uphold its community design standard. Bill 124 (BRAGG) proposes further changes to
Section 41which are contrary to the stated intent of Bill 26 in that it:
·
specifically excludes the
colour, texture and types of materials, window detail, construction details and
architectural detail from site plan control; and
·
provides landowners with an expedited route to the OMB regarding the
applicability of site plan control, through a notice of motion to the Board.
Markham
Council is active in the designation and pursuit of conservation easements for
all properties of cultural heritage value or interest in Markham. In this regard, an important growth
management objective is to ensure that cultural heritage resources are managed
in a manner which perpetuates their functional use while maintaining their
heritage value and benefit to the community.
Section 51 of the Planning Act currently does not address the
conservation and incorporation of, and mitigation of adverse effects to,
significant cultural heritage resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council urge the
provincial government to provide further amendments to the Planning Act to
allow municipalities to implement provincial growth management initiatives
respecting:
·
intensification and compact
development by introducing new provisions under Section 41
to provide municipalities with greater control to direct community built form
and urban design, where a municipality
has prescribed urban design standards articulated through its
official plan, and to eliminate the
expedited route to OMB, by means of Notice of Motion for direction to the OMB
introduced by Bill 124, to resolve disputes about whether certain matters can
be dealt with by municipalities under Section 41 site plan;
·
environmental
protection of a linked natural heritage system by introducing new provisions under Sections 41 and 51 to require, as a
condition of approval of a plan of subdivision or site plan, conveyance, into
public ownership, of valleylands and woodlots and associated ecological lands,
where a municipality has identified such lands as part of a linked natural
heritage system through its official plan, at no expense to a municipality or
conservation authority; and
·
conservation of cultural heritage resources by
introducing new criterion under Section 51(24) to strengthen a municipality’s
capability to conserve cultural heritage
resources and provide for their incorporation in developing communities.
Provisions to Harmonize Official Plan and
Environmental Assessment Processes
Environmental consideration and study are an
essential component of the land use planning process. However, they can often be governed by two
distinct legislations – the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act. In obtaining approvals for infrastructure and
transit projects under these Acts there is more often than not duplication and
delays in the degree of study and public consultation, in comparing the
Official Plan and plan of subdivision process with Phase 1 and 2 of the
Environmental Assessment Process. The
current scope of the Environmental Assessment Act is often too broad and onerous (eg.
environmental assessment approval requirements to install local traffic calming
measures.)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council request
the provincial government to further amend the Planning Act and the
Environmental Assessment Act to harmonize the processes and to exempt
infrastructure approvals from Phase 1 and 2 of the Environmental Assessment Act
where considered as part of an approval under the Planning Act.
It is recommended that Council request
the provincial government to review the current scope of the Environmental
Assessment Act particularly as it relates to minor infrastructure improvements
at the local municipal level (eg. traffic calming measures.)
Transition provisions to deal with
applications in process
If passed,
Bill 26 would be deemed to have come into force on December 15, 2003. This would require planning
decisions made after December 15, 2003 to be in
accordance with the changes proposed in Bill 26 including the proposed “shall
be consistent with” implementation standard with provincial policy
statements. It is unclear whether the
proposed implementation standard will come into effect with the existing
provincial policy statement or at a later date to coincide with the approval of
a revised Provincial Policy Statement.
In July 2003, Markham Council adopted OPA No.
113 – 404 North Planning District, to designate certain lands for future urban
use. The decision to amend the Town’s
urban boundary followed a comprehensive planning process, initiated by the
Town, in accordance with the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement,
and planning policies of the Region of York.
Since that time, Bill 27 has become legislation placing a moratorium on
the approval of urban uses on lands outside designated urban settlement areas
until it is repealed in December 2004.
As a result, the Region of York cannot amend its urban settlement
boundary in the Regional Official Plan in support of OPA No.113 or approve the
amendment.
The principle that should be adopted in the
transition provisions is that matters should be governed by the policy and
procedural regime that governed at the time the process was initiated. In this
regard, where a municipality has completed a comprehensive review for an urban
boundary expansion, held a statutory meeting on a specified date, and made a
final planning decision, the legislation based on that decision coming into
force, should be governed by the policy statement and the Planning Act as it
reads now.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is
recommended that Council request the provincial government to provide further
amendments to the Planning Act respecting the transition provisions of Bill 26
to allow a municipality’s planning decision to expand its urban settlement area
boundary, made prior to the introduction of Bill 26, to stand:
- where a municipality has completed a
comprehensive review, held a statutory meeting on
a
specified date, and made a final planning decision, with the full knowledge of
the
delegated
approval authority, and with no objection for the delegated approval authority;
and
- that
the delegated approval authority be allowed to make a decision on the
application,
based on a comprehensive review in accordance with
the provisions of the Planning Act
and the Provincial
Policy Statement in force at the time of the municipality’s planning
decision
approval.
Provisions for new or revised implementation tools
·
review urban
boundary alterations within the context of a comprehensive review;
Efficient Development and Land Use
Patterns
·
plan to
accommodate employment and residential growth on a time horizon of up to 20
yrs;
·
provide a
minimum 10 year supply of designated and available land for residential
development;
Housing
·
provide a full
range and mix of housing types and densities including housing affordable to
low and moderate household incomes;
·
establish
development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new
residential development which facilitates compact form;
Infrastructure
·
support
efficient use of existing infrastructure in planning for growth before
developing new infrastructure;
Coordination with Other Municipalities
·
coordinate and integrate a
comprehensive approach to land use planning matters which cross municipal
boundaries.
Markham faces a challenge in that there is not enough vacant
land in the existing urban settlement area to accommodate projected future
urban growth. Markham’s last comprehensive growth management review was
undertaken in 1991/92 and identified an urban area sufficient to accommodate
growth to 2011 (20 years). Even with
projecting additional long-term growth within the current urban area, there is
insufficient vacant land within the current urban area to accommodate currently
approved projected growth.
For Markham, additional greenfield
growth can only be contemplated on lands that have traditionally been employed
and designated for agricultural use and which exhibit prime soil
characteristics. The policies of the
draft PPS fail to account for circumstances such as these and continue to place
the prospect of essential, well-planned and managed greenfield growth at odds with conventional notions of
protecting prime soils. A more current,
balanced approach to approval of greenfield growth is required.
Staff is aware that the provincially appointed
Agricultural Advisory Team is also attempting to deal with specific growth
management issues of concern to the agriculture sector. It is recommended that the Director of
Planning and Urban Design be authorized to make a submission to the advisory
team building on the comments identified in this report.
To respond to different growth
management objectives and market conditions, urban boundary expansions must
also be considered concurrent with, and not contingent on fully utilizing,
opportunities to intensify and redevelop existing urban areas. Growth within and beyond a current urban
boundary must respond to market demand and will serve different market segments
at different times. Lead times to bring
forward land to the market are significant, whether internal or external to an
urban area, given the significant investment and infrastructure required. In this regard, urban boundary alterations
should be reviewed within the context of a broad comprehensive review taking
into account projected future growth, opportunities for intensification and
infill, infrastructure which available and suitable for development, as well as
any implications on prime agricultural lands.
Markham would like to increase the supply of employment lands
to continue to accommodate a range of job opportunities. To support this growth management initiative,
the Province needs to provide a balanced policy approach in the PPS
encompassing the supply of both residential and employment lands.
The draft PPS contemplates
municipalities providing opportunities for affordable housing for low and
moderate income households. Definitions
within the proposed PPS do not distinguish between low and moderate income
households. Combined, these households
are defined to include the lowest 60% of the total households, by income, in
the regional market area.
It is difficult to understand how
the definition of low and moderate incomes can be applied equally to all municipalities
across the Province. The approach and
definition requires greater specificity to be applied, in a meaningful way, at
a municipal level. For Markham, it may be more appropriate to define low and
moderate income households separately, with incomes in the lowest 30% of the
income distribution for the regional market area defined as low income
households. Also, the proposed
definition of “special needs” housing, meaning housing, in whole or part, that is used by people with special needs, is inadequate
and should be clarified.
Linking strategic planning for
infrastructure with strategic investment in infrastructure is a supportable
growth management policy.
It is not clear from the draft PPS
policies what body will be accountable for cross jurisdictional planning and
investment at the regional level (ie. who will coordinate, integrate and ensure
a comprehensive approach to land use planning matters of the upper-tier
governments).
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council
request the provincial government to revise the draft policies of the
Provincial Policy Statement to:
·
promote strategic policies
for accommodating future urban growth rather than procedures that place
well-planned urban growth at odds with the loss of unique agricultural land;
·
provide for urban settlement boundary alterations concurrent with, and
not contingent on fully utilizing, opportunities to intensify and redevelop
existing urban settlement areas;
·
ensure that policies to maintain, rather than
reduce, the supply of employment lands in a municipality, take precedence over
policies that support the provision of housing in case where the supply of
employment lands in a municipality is inadequate to meet projected needs;
·
develop
guidelines for affordable housing that more clearly articulate provincial
expectations of affordable housing targets, and that are flexible to
accommodate local circumstances (including regional market conditions and
household income distribution), to support municipal efforts to provide diverse
forms and tenure of housing;
·
provide a
clearer definition of “special needs” housing;
·
encourage more
options for affordable housing that effectively use existing infrastructure,
such as second suites in houses; and
·
identify an accountable
coordinating body for cross-jurisdictional planning and investment at the
regional level.
It is recommended that Council authorize the Director of Planning and Urban Design to submit
this report with supporting comments to the Chair of the provincial
Agricultural Advisory Team.
Protecting the Environment
The draft PPS policies respecting wise use and management of resources are intended
to, among other things, guide municipalities to:
Natural Heritage
·
recognize the linkages
between and among natural heritage features (systems approach);
·
direct
development away from natural heritage features and areas by not permitting
development and site alteration 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;
·
direct
development away from lands adjacent to natural features by not permitting
development and site alteration on adjacent lands unless it has been
demonstrated that there will not be negative impacts;
Water
·
identify restrictions
on development and site alteration to protect all municipal drinking water
supplies, and to protect, improve and restore sensitive surface and ground
water features, hydrologic functions and natural features and areas;
Agriculture
·
protect prime agricultural
areas for long term use for agriculture;
·
prime agricultural areas are
areas where prime agricultural lands (Canada Lands Inventory Classes 1, 2 and 3
soils) predominate;
Cultural Heritage
·
conserve significant built
heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes;
·
permit development and site alteration on adjacent land to designated heritage
property where it can be demonstrated through evaluation that the heritage
attributes of the designated heritage property will be conserved.
There is
limited authority for municipalities such as Markham to protect
significant natural features, valleylands, middle reaches of watersheds and
woodlots including the ability to identify and protect significant adjacent
lands to support these features and their ecological functions.
Requiring no “negative impacts” on the natural features or the
ecological functions for development and site alterations to be permitted in
certain areas may be too restrictive and discourage development and site
alterations that over time have a net beneficial gain to the natural heritage
system.
Other than the long-established Canada
Land Inventory soils classification system, there is no up-to-date provincial
assessment or analytical process for classifying agricultural lands or the
agricultural industry that would support the identification of unique and
irreplaceable lands for long-term protection. In Markham, most of the rural area is comprised of Class 1,
the highest class, prime agricultural lands.
The current policy being proposed is too narrow, as the classification
system for prime agricultural soils can generate conflicts relating to areas
identified in the provincial plan for future urban growth, thus setting up
conflicting growth management objectives.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council request
the provincial government to revise the draft policies of the Provincial Policy
Statement to:
·
provide
a provincial environmental policy
framework that would specifically support protection of natural heritage system
features and functions including hydrologic features and functions;
·
establish
an overall guiding principle of “net environmental gain” to permit development
and site alteration on lands adjacent to natural features and areas rather than
“no negative impact”;
·
update
the provincial guidelines addressing compatibility of uses with a natural
heritage system;
·
provide
more explicit standards for development setbacks from natural features;
·
prohibit
new or expanded agricultural operations on natural heritage system lands; and
·
provide a provincial agricultural policy framework that
would provide municipalities with criteria to assess the productive capability
of agricultural lands and the economic viability of the agricultural activities
within the context of evaluating lands to accommodate future urban growth.
Supporting a Strong Economy
The draft PPS policies respecting supporting a strong economy are
intended to, among others things, guide municipalities to:
·
ensure an adequate supply
of residential and employment lands and opportunities;
·
recognize that
long term economic prosperity depends on a diversified economy;
·
integrate planning for infrastructure with planning
for growth so that new infrastructure is directed to support priority growth
areas;
·
provide opportunities
for generation and use of alternative energy systems;
To ensure an adequate supply of
employment lands over time, Markham may have to increase its supply of employment land at a higher rate
than the supply of residential land to maintain a population/employment target
ratio of 2:1. Upon completion of an
appropriate assessment, changes to the municipal settlement area boundary
should be supported and promoted on this basis.
Markham would like to increase the supply of employment lands
to accommodate a range of job opportunities.
To support this growth management initiative, the Province needs to
provide a balanced policy approach in the PPS to the supply of residential and
employment lands.
The proposed PPS policies require
municipalities to make provision to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of
industrial, commercial , institutional, employment,
residential, recreational and open space uses to meet long term needs. Currently, the PPS does not require
municipalities to maintain at all times, the ability to accommodate employment
growth for a minimum of 10 years through the supply of lands which are
designated and available for use.
Markham District Energy Inc. a
subsidiary of Markham Energy Corporation, is working with the Town to incorporate
district energy into the Markham Centre development using a centrally located
energy plant to meet the heating and cooling needs of buildings, large and
small, within a new compact community.
The proposed PPS definition of “alternative energy systems” is too
narrow and should be broadened to reinforce the notion of conservation of
resources such as energy. The PPS policies should also emphasize the value of
supporting land uses and concentrations of compact, mixed use developments that
are focused on district energy systems and similar approaches to electricity
generation that reduce dependence on the provincial electricity grid.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council
request the provincial government to revise the draft policies of the Provincial
Policy Statement to:
·
encourage and
support those municipalities that have been appropriately assessed for
settlement area boundary alterations;
·
link strategic provincial planning priorities for growth management
with strategic provincial priorities for investment in infrastructure;
·
provide a balanced policy approach to the supply of employment and
residential lands;
·
assist municipalities in establishing a minimum
target for employment lands supply;
·
ensure that municipalities provide and maintain
a supply of employment lands that is market ready; and
·
broaden the definition
of “alternative energy systems” to reinforce conservation of energy resources.
C. Ontario
Municipal Board Reform
The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)
plays an important role in ensuring a credible, efficient land-use planning
system. However, in recent years, there has been increasing concern that OMB
decisions are overriding municipal planning decisions and threatening
legitimate community based planning.
The OMB’s jurisdiction is too broad and the holding of “de novo”
hearings in cases respecting local land use planning and urban design matters
that have been legally and reasonably dealt with by a municipal council is not
appropriate. In addition to the
accountability of the OMB’s role in the land use-planning system, other issues
include:
·
the time frames
for responding to planning applications before an appeal to the OMB;
·
the public’s
ability to participate in OMB hearings;
·
the breadth and
appropriateness of the OMB mandate;
·
the role of the
OMB as an independent and fair tribunal; and
·
the qualifications of OMB members and
their length of tenure.
OMB Reform seeks to ensure cases
are decided on planning merits in a fair and accountable way. The proposed
Planning Act Reform restricts certain powers of the OMB and increases the time
municipalities have to review and make decisions on specific planning
applications before appeals may be made to the OMB. The stated intent is to protect broader public
interests, support municipal growth management, and give the public a stronger
voice in the planning decisions that affect their communities by:
·
enabling the
Minister to declare a provincial interest in any OMB matter and permit Cabinet
to determine a final decision on matters of provincial interest;
·
eliminating the
right to appeal mechanism for private applications to expand the urban boundary
of a municipality and restrict the OMB from overruling or pre-empting a
municipality’s ability to implement local growth management; and
·
increasing the time
available for municipalities to review planning applications and consult with
stakeholders before a proponent may appeal to the OMB.
From Markham’s
perspective, the role of the OMB should be articulated more clearly by the
Province to be restricted to that of a review court, rather than a trial
court. Under this scenario, the Board
would only hear appeals from municipal planning decisions based on a prescribed
standard of review (ie. acting unreasonably) and/or a failure of process (ie.
acting in bad faith) or matters of provincial interest. A municipality’s expressed interests and
policies should not be “second-guessed” by the OMB; rather the OMB should
confirm that the municipality is, or is not, acting reasonably. In this regard, where a municipality has
developed an official plan and policies in accordance with the Planning Act,
the PPS and a provincial Growth Plan and develops its own set of rules to guide
local growth management then it is the OMB’s role to determine if the
municipality followed its set of rules in reaching a decision, not evaluate the
appropriateness of the rules.
The OMB should
continue to be charged with holding hearings de novo especially where matters
of public interest require a full review of provincial and municipal policy and
decision-making based on planning merits.
However, de novo hearings should be the exception not the rule and the
onus of demonstrating the error or impropriety of decision-making or failure of
process should be placed on the appellant.
The current scope of the OMB is
that they are the final arbitrator on all Planning Act decisions. As
outlined earlier in this report, Markham Council has recommended that the
Planning Act be amended to eliminate the notice of motion to appeal mechanism
for site plan control applications (as proposed in Bill 124). It is also recommended that the provincial
government investigate an alternative to the OMB review of
Committee of Adjustment decisions.
Appointments to the OMB should be
by way of a public process. In this
regard, positions should be advertised.
All appointees should have to apply.
Successful appointees should demonstrate that they have the relevant
experience and qualifications to serve on the OMB. All applicants should be reviewed by a
non-partisan committee that would make recommendations to the provincial
government, and the Province would then accept the recommendations of such
committee.
In order to maintain independence,
OMB members should be appointed for a longer term of 5-6 years. A probationary period of 6 months would be
reasonable in order to further assess a member’s ability to perform the
required task efficiently and with competence.
Notifications of renewals or non-renewals should be given to members at
least 3 months prior to the expiry of a member’s term (this is currently not
the practice). A longer notification
period may reduce uncertainty surrounding OMB appointments and allow members a
more reasonable transition into other career opportunities should their term
not be renewed. This in turn would
assist in attracting more qualified members to the OMB.
Performance evaluation of members
should be conducted on an annual basis.
This could be done by the Chair of the Board or a committee. Key performance indicators should be developed
for this purpose. Past performance
should be taken into account when considering renewals.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council
request the provincial government to introduce additional reforms to the Ontario Municipal Board to:
·
further restrict
the powers of the OMB to only review local decisions based on a prescribed
standard of review and/or failure of process or in matters that involve a clear
provincial interest;
·
place the onus
of demonstrating an error or impropriety of decision-making or
failure of process on the appellant;
·
eliminate the notice of
motion to appeal mechanism to the OMB for site plan control approval
(introduced by Bill 124);
·
investigate an alternative
to the OMB review of Committee of Adjustment decisions;
·
ensure a public
process of appointments to the OMB including the review and recommendation of
appointees to the provincial government by a non-partisan committee;
·
increase the length of
term of OMB members to 5-6 years with the requirement of a performance review
on annual basis.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
It is anticipated that
implementation of the provincial planning reform initiatives in support of
urban reform by the provincial government should result in financial support to
the Town in the delivery of local initiatives related to growth management,
housing choices, protection of the environment, transit/transportation, water
and wastewater management, intensification and infrastructure development.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The
proposed Bill 26 amendments to the Planning Act and the proposed revisions to
the Provincial Policy Statement have the potential to create a complementary
provincial policy framework that will result in improved protection of Markham’s
natural features and green spaces as components of the natural heritage system.
ENGAGE 21ST CONSIDERATIONS:
It
is anticipated that the new provincial planning reforms will assist Markham in
achieving its 20-year vision with a concerted focus on strategic plan
initiatives and projects. It is also
anticipated that the new legislation will assist Council in guiding growth
management, environmental protection and Official Plan policy.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND
AFFECTED:
Staff from
the Legal Department were consulted on the recommendations/actions
outlined.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix ‘A’ - Provincial
Discussion Paper #1: Planning Act Reform and Implementation Tools
Appendix ‘B’ - Provincial Discussion Paper #2: Provincial Policy
Statement: Draft Policies
Appendix ‘C’ - Provincial Discussion Paper #3: Ontario Municipal Board
Reform
|
|
|
|
|
Valerie Shuttleworth, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning and Urban Design
|
|
Jim Baird, M.C.I.P, R.P.P.
Commissioner of Development Services
|
Document:Q\Development\Planning\MISC\MI485\DSCPlanningReformsAug30-2004
