Development
Services Committee
SUBJECT: Town
of
PREPARED BY:
Elisabeth Silva Stewart, Senior Policy Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
1)
That the report entitled “Town of
2) And that prior to approval, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be requested to make the modifications to the Region of York Official Plan, as discussed in this report and listed in Appendix ‘A’;
3)
And that the Region of York’s
4)
And that the Ministry and the Region be requested to
consult with the Town of
5) And further that staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On
Town Staff has completed a review of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), as adopted. Some concerns with the provisions of the document remain, and are identified in this report and attachments. Staff recommends that the Town seek modifications to several provisions of the ROP. The following is a short summary list of the modifications being requested by the Town:
- addition of passive cultural uses within key natural key heritage features and key hydrologic features,
- policy amendment regarding strategic employment lands,
- removal of policy permitting conversion of employment lands in regional centres and key development areas along regional corridors,
- policy amendment for development in special policy areas,
- policy amendment for transit integration opportunities,
- policy amendment for bicycle lanes or multi-purpose pathways,
- policy amendment regarding commuter parking in intermodal terminals or hubs,
- policy amendment for the interim airport protection area,
- correction
of the illustration of the Parkway Belt West Plan boundary in
This report outlines the Town’s concerns with respect to these items and provides suggested modifications to policy wording. The exact modification requests are listed in Appendix ‘A’. This report also identifies several policy items which require some clarification from the Region.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to identify specific policy
items in the new Regional Official Plan
(ROP) as adopted on
BACKGROUND:
York Region (the Region) has been
proceeding with a growth management undertaking entitled ‘
The Town of
On
The Town of
The York Region Official Plan was
subsequently recommended for adoption by Regional
The approval authority for the ROP is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). Changes to the ROP as adopted, may only be made by modification prior to approval by the Minister. Modification requests must be submitted to MMAH in order to be considered by the Minister and incorporated into the approval of the new Regional Official Plan. Staff has reviewed the ROP document and identified some requested modifications for the Minister’s consideration. Staff has also identified several policy items which require some clarification from the Region and are listed in this report document.
OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:
Modification Requests:
Staff has reviewed the new ROP document adopted by Regional
Council on
1.
Passive
Cultural Uses
Policy 5 of Section 2.2 Natural Features reads:
“That passive recreational uses, such as
trails, may be permitted within key natural heritage features and key
hydrologic features and their associated vegetation protection zones be subject
to the requirements of policy 2.2.4 of this Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.”
This is a new policy introduced
into the December edition of the Region’s Official Plan. Staff believes that this policy should also
include the possibility to permit passive cultural
uses related to places of cultural interest.
One example might be heritage
interpretation related to First Nations.
The modification requested is to
add the opportunity to permit passive cultural use as proposed and shown in
Appendix ‘A’.
2.
Strategic Employment
Policy 4.3.2 introduced in the December edition of the Regional Official plan identifies all employment lands within local official plans as strategic and vital to the Regional economy:
“To protect all employment lands identified
in local municipal official plans. These
lands are strategic and vital to the Regional economy and are to be protected
for employment land uses.”
Policy 4.3.4 of the Regional Official Plan identifies strategic employment lands on Figure 2 based on their proximity to existing or planned 400 series highways. There is also mention in this policy that strategic employment lands should be identified and protected in local municipal plans:
“To protect strategic employment lands,
as identified in Figure 2, including lands beyond the planning horizon of this
Plan. Strategic employment lands are
identified based on their proximity to existing or planned 400 series
highways. Strategic employment lands
should be identified and protected in local municipal official plans.”
Figure 2 (Strategic Employment
Lands) contains 2 shapes in
Extract
from Figure 2,
Although we raised this concern previously and edits were made in an attempt to address our issue, the concern remains that the text (Policy 4.3.4) refers to ‘strategic employment’ lands as being identified on Figure 2, including lands beyond the 2031 planning horizon. This provision could be interpreted as conflicting with Policy 4.3.2 which identifies all employment lands as strategic. Leaving policy 4.3.4 as currently drafted may result in confusion as to what is ‘strategic’ employment land and may imply less importance for the existing designated employment lands within the settlement area boundary not identified on Figure 2, which in turn may expose these employment lands to risk of applications for conversion to other uses.
The Town requests that Policy 4.3.4 be modified to refer to Figure 2 as ‘including’ strategic employment lands, and lands beyond the planning horizon, without inferring that the lands within the shapes are the only lands identified as Strategic Employment worthy of protection. The wording of the proposed modification is provided in Appendix ‘A’.
In accordance with the Markham
Council resolutions dated October 27th and
3.
Conversion of Employment Lands in Regional Centres
and Key Development Areas along Regional Corridors
Policy 1.2 4 of the Draft Regional Official
Plan identifies one of the Plan’s key elements as “the
protection of employment lands from non-employment uses.”
Policy 4.3.2 states that it is the policy of
Regional Council
“To
protect all employment lands identified in local municipal official plans.
These lands are strategic and vital to the Regional economy and are to be
protected for employment land uses”
Policy 4.3.6 states that it is the policy of
Regional Council
“That
the conversion of employment lands to non-employment land uses is not
permitted. For the purposes of this policy:
a. employment
lands are lands that are designated for employment uses including land
designated as industrial and business park in local official plans; and,
b.
uses not permitted on employment lands include residential, major retail and
non-ancillary uses.”
Policy 4.3.8 (a new policy introduced in
December 2009) states that it is the policy of Regional Council
“That
the conversion of employment lands within Regional Centres and key development
areas along Regional Corridors do not require a municipal comprehensive review
for mixed-use development that supports the policies of Section 5.4 of this
Plan”
Note: Section 5.4 relates to Regional Centres
and Corridors.
a. Policy 4.3.6. establishes that the
conversion of employment lands to non-employment uses is not permitted. This is
a fundamental policy to ensure the protection of all employment lands, which
are regarded as vital and strategic to the Regional economy, as identified in
Policy 4.3.2.
A significant amount of
While the Town recognizes that Regional
Centres and Key Development Areas in Regional Corridors are intended to be the
focus of the highest densities and the greatest mix of uses in the Region, the
conversion of vital employment lands within these areas to other uses is not
required to achieve the objectives of the Regional Official Plan regarding
Regional Centres and Corridors.
Where employment lands are
located within these areas, local policies are or will be in place for an
appropriate mix of complementary uses to employment activities. Conversion of already designated employment
lands for additional mixed use development without a comprehensive review, or
at least a Secondary Plan review as provided for in Policy 5.4.6, cannot be
supported.
It is also recognized that the variety of uses developing within the Centres and Corridors, particularly within the Regional Centres, may be mixed within the same development block, parcel or building. As a result, these areas may also include lands designated for mixed use development. If there is a need to provide for greater flexibility in the deployment of employment uses within an area designated for mixed use development, the Town staff suggest that an additional policy could be added under Policy 5.4.6 to reflect this. Staff have drafted suggested wording for such a policy. See Appendix ‘A’.
b. Policy 4.3.8 could also be interpreted as at
odds with Policy 5.4.6 which requires,
“That comprehensive Secondary Plans for Regional Centres and key
development areas along Regional Corridors be prepared by local municipalities
and implemented in co-operation with the Region and related agencies…”.
The preparation of a Secondary Plan is the
appropriate planning process to determine the preferred land use designations
and policies for the relationship of uses within one of these strategic areas,
including the appropriate accommodation of employment and other supportive land
uses. Policy 4.3.8 does not defer to Policy 5.4.6 and could therefore be argued
to preclude its application. The inclusion of Policy 5.4.6 effectively means
that Policy 4.3.8 is not required.
c. Policy 5.4.3 describes Regional Centres and
Corridors as “…vital to the long-term
prosperity and identity of communities in the Greater
In
4.
Special Policy Areas
The adopted ROP introduces a new policy
(5.3.14) dealing with existing Special Policy Areas in intensification
areas. The policy reads:
“That
intensification areas be planned to avoid special policy areas unless there
exists no other alternatives outside of the floodplain.”
This policy would potentially be applied to the
Given the existing planning approvals and the
Town’s current Special Policy Area policies which support Markham Centre,
alternative wording is recommended to ensure that the planning decisions made
since approval of Official Plan Amendment No 21 can be implemented in manner
that does not compromise population projections, urban design guidelines and
transit opportunities, while still addressing the provincial interest for
managed development in the approved Special Policy Areas.
The Town proposes that the
wording of Policy 5.3.14 be modified as shown in Appendix ‘A’.
5. Parking in Intermodal Terminals or Hubs
Policy 7.2.25.e. states:
“To achieve higher transit usage by
supporting improvements in service, convenient access and good urban design,
including the following:
…. e. creating
a system of parking and drop-off facilities for commuters;
f.
providing intermodal teminals or hubs;
g. ……
Staff identified that intermodal
terminals or hubs in Regional Centres and Corridors should not have a large
commuter parking supply, and that more commuter parking (if required) should be
provided outside of the Regional Centres and Corridors, and the Mobility Hubs
should focus on integrating transit modes rather than accommodating parking.
The rationale is that parking should be restricted within Regional Centres and
Corridors to discourage single occupant vehicle use and encourage the use of
interconnecting transit. Regional Staff’s response was that 7.2.25 e.
supports creating a system of parking and drop off facilities for commuters and
that both intermodal terminals and end of line stations will provide parking
facilities according to demand and need. Town staff still believes an
explicit policy limiting commuter parking in Mobility Hubs located within
Regional Centres and Corridors is required.
The ROP should also require any such limited parking to be accommodated
in parking structures, and designed to be physically integrated with adjacent
development to provide for shared parking opportunities.
The Town requests a modification to address commuter parking at intermodal terminals and hubs as shown in Appendix ‘A’.
6. Transit Integration Opportunities
Policy 7.2.35 reads:
“To provide accessible and integrated public transit to people with
disabilities.”
Policy 7.2.35 is requested to be modified to read as:
“To provide accessible and integrated
public transit, including services addressing the needs of people with
disabilities, new Canadians, and service providing access to social services,
cultural and recreational services, and tourism priority locations.”
The modified policy includes transit’s
role in the integration of new Canadians within our communities as well transit
as a means to access social services, health services, cultural and
recreational services and ensure effective transit access to the Region’s
primary tourism attractions (eg.
7.
Bicycle Lanes or Multi-Purpose Pathways
Policy 7.2.42 states:
“To require transit or high-occupancy
vehicle lanes and bicycle lanes within the right-of-way of 6-lane Regional
streets.”
As a comment on the draft ROP, the Town identified that it expects bicycle lanes or multi-use pathways on or adjacent to arterial roads regardless of whether the road is widened to six lanes or not. The other fundamental policy that governs this issue to a certain extent is that the Region currently doesn’t construct or maintain pedestrian or cycling facilities within the right-of-way. This then becomes a local government responsibility. The Region’s response is that policy 7.2.42 addresses this. Town staff does not agree.
The Town requests that a new
policy be placed in after 7.2.42 to include a provision that the Region will
work with area municipalities to develop segregated
cycling lanes, as per Appendix ‘A’.
8.
Policy 7.2.85 states that it is the policy of
Regional Council
“To
prohibit the development of residential and other sensitive land uses within
the Interim Airport Protection Area, as identified by the Greater Toronto Airports
Authority Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report, 2004”
The provisions of this policy are of concern to
the Town for several reasons.
a. The Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA)
Pickering Airport Draft Plan Report, 2004 has not been endorsed by the Federal
Government and has no status with regard to controlling land use. The Interim
Airport Protection Area identified in Figure 8-2 of the report is proposed as a
temporary measure pending a decision with regard to an airport by the Federal
Government and the formal establishment of an Airport Operating Area. There is
however, no timeline for a decision by the Federal Government regarding an
airport or the formal establishment of an Airport Operating Area. As such, the
application of Policy 7.2.85 is open-ended and may unreasonably restrict land
use.
b. The Interim Airport Protection Area, as
identified by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority Pickering Airport Draft
Plan Report, 2004 includes lands within the approved Cornell Secondary Plan
located, north of
The Town is relying on the development of these
residential lands to meet the population forecasts for the Town established in
the Draft Regional Official Plan. The proposed prohibition on the development
of these lands does not recognise their status as approved for development and
unreasonably restricts their development.
c. The Interim Airport Protection Area,
identified in the Greater Toronto Airports Authority Pickering Airport Draft
Plan Report, 2004 is defined using main roads. The lands that would actually be
impacted by noise from an airport are identified relative to the Noise Exposure
Forecasts Contours for the airport, in this case the 25 NEF. The proposed 25
NEF is also identified in Figure 8-2 of the Pickering Airport Draft Plan
Report, 2004 . All of the designated residential lands in Cornell located within
the Interim Airport Protection Area are located outside the proposed 25 NEF,
and would not be subject to noise sensitivity, impacts or mitigation
requirements, as contemplated in either the Provincial Policy Statement or
Federal Noise Guidelines. A prohibition on development of the Cornell lands is
not justified based on the proposed Interim Airport Protection Area or the
proposed 25 NEF noise contour.
The Town requests that Policy 7.2.85 be
modified to exempt the designated residential lands within Cornell or to exempt
these lands based on the 25 NEF contour as currently delineated in the GTAA
report.
9.
Illustration of Parkway Belt West Plan Boundary
The Parkway
Belt West Plan (PBWP) area was added to Map 1 of the ROP in the document which
went forward for adoption. However, the
PBWP area boundary is incorrectly illustrated within
The Town
requests that the PBWP area boundary be modified on Map 1 to illustrate only
those lands which are still within the Parkway Belt within
Clarification of Policy Matters
There are several matters which require clarification. Although these items are important to sort out, Town staff believe these can be clarified through more discussion with Regional Staff without the need to request further modification to the Regional Official Plan from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. These clarification matters are as follows:
1. In general, the Region’s Official Plan has
not addressed the issue of reconciling the potential differences in land
use projections to the various intensification areas throughout a municipality.
Although the total forecasted projection assigned by the Region to the
municipality may be the same, the distribution of the projected population and
employment to the approved intensification areas by the municipality could vary
significantly. One example in the Town is the Langstaff Urban Growth Centre
where the Town’s projected growth is significantly higher than the assumption
used in the Region’s models to assess the infrastructure improvement needed to
support the growth. It is important that consistent assumptions are assigned to
all the intensification areas as approved by the Town in order to determine the
appropriate regional and municipal infrastructure requirements to serve the
forecasted growth. In this regard, we would request the Region to confirm that
the Region will coordinate with the local municipalities to ensure consistent growth
projections assigned to various intensification areas, as approved by the local
Councils, are used in the respective regional and local Transportation and the
Water and Wastewater Master Plans to assess the future requirements of the
infrastructure
2. Policy 2.2.50 deals with the site alteration approval process. The site alteration approval process is a local municipal responsibility and should be left to the individual municipality to develop the appropriate policies for implementation. While we support the Region’s policy to require the local municipalities to adopt site alteration bylaws, the process of developing the criteria and requirements should be the responsibilities of the local municipalities.
3. Policy
2.3.38 requires the
owners and operators of the stormwater management works to provide periodic
inspection, monitoring and maintenance. These activities are the
responsibility of the local municipality in assumed subdivisions. In accordance
with this policy, will the municipalities be responsible to report these
activities to the Region? This policy also duplicates the policy of the M.O.E.
which already has stringent requirements under the M.O.E. certificate approval
process for these responsibilities.
4. Policy
5.2.17 requires local municipalities
to develop official plan policies and associated procedures for development on
contaminated or potentially contaminated sites. However, the Region will need
to discuss and consult with the local municipalities to establish the
guidelines in developing this policy, also having regard to any applicable MOE
policies and regulations.
5. In addition to the policies
identified in Section 7.2 of the ROP we would request the Region to confirm
that:
a.
the Region will work with local municipalities to
develop alternative Regional street design parameters (lane width, intersection
spacing, daylight triangle dimension, boulevard width, etc.) to encourage
walkability and urban context in nodes and along corridors, and
b. the Region will explore with the municipalities to identify funding mechanisms for transit infrastructure including Development Charges Act modifications.
Region of
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND TEMPLATE: (external link)
Not applicable at this time.
HUMAN
RESOURCES CONSIDERATIONS:
Not applicable at this time.
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
This report reflects
comments received from Town Departments regarding the draft ROP.
RECOMMENDED BY:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Valerie Shuttleworth M.C.I.P., R.P.P Jim Baird M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of
ATTACHMENTS:
APPENDIX ‘A’: Requested Modifications to the
APPENDIX ‘B’: Regional
Council Resolution re Approval of Regional Official Plan and Notice of Adoption
of the
Q:\Development\Planning\MISC\MI
528 Regional Official Plan\Region OP - DECEMBER 2009\DSC February 2 REPORT jan
11.doc