Report to: Development Services Committee Date: April 20, 2010

SUBJECT: Recommended Markham Growth Alternative to 2031

PREPARED BY: Planning and Urban Design Department

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Report entitled “Recommended Markham Growth Alternative to 2031” dated April 20, 2010, including the attached Figures and Appendices, be received;

And that the Compact Disc prepared by the Town Clerk, containing the submissions and emails relating to the Public Information Meeting held on February 16^th and 17^th, 2010, be received;

And that the recommended growth alternative to 2031, as described in the report of November 17, 2009 (Appendix A, to this report) and further discussed in this report, be endorsed as the basis for completing implementing studies, and for preparing a new Town of Markham Official Plan;

And that Staff report on the following studies, when finalized based on the growth alternative to be endorsed by Council:

· Markham Strategic Transportation Plan;

· Markham Master Servicing Study;

· Financial Analysis;

· Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study;

· Employment Lands Intensification Study; and

· Affordable and Special Needs Housing Strategy Study.

And that Staff report back on possible options to assist Council in a decision regarding commencing a formal process to review adding lands to the Provincial Greenbelt;

And that Staff report back on work and public consultation to be undertaken in preparing a new Town of Markham Official Plan

And that copies of this report and the decision of Council with respect to a preferred growth alternative for Markham, be forwarded to the Region of York and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing;

And that Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

CONTEXT:

Following two years of review, study and consultation, the Development Services Committee received, in November 2009, a Staff report recommending a preferred growth alternative for Markham to 2031. To augment the extensive public consultation program undertaken in 2009, the Committee directed that another public information meeting be held in February 2010, to receive further comment on several alternatives for growth and

“Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”. Staff was directed to report back, providing

a final recommended Growth Management Strategy for approval by Council as input to the Region of York Official Plan and for preparation of a new Town Official Plan, commencing in 2010.

A well-attended public information meeting was held on February 16^th and 17^th, 2010. Diverse opinions and interests were expressed in the submissions made to the Committee. Strongly held views and genuine best intentions were expressed. The submissions point to the choices and challenges involved in arriving at a decision on how the Town should grow, in the context of a range of interests and established senior government policy considerations.

Submissions to the meeting and the Town have been reviewed by Staff. The comments and opinions expressed, and the information provided has been considered. This includes both general comments around the themes of growth, and comments specific to focused issues and study initiatives in the context of the extensive public commentary received throughout the consultation process extending back to 2007.

This report comments on the submissions received and provides a recommendation by Staff regarding a preferred Markham growth alternative to 2031.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Based on a review of the public submissions and taking into account the strategic priorities of “Building Markham’s Future Together”, the body of work completed by the Town and the professional advice (from Staff and consultants) provided in support of growth management, Town Staff is in a position to recommend a Markham growth alternative to 2031. The alternative is based on the planning context established in senior government Plans and legislation, and the recommendations provided to, and endorsed by Council to date. Staff concludes that the growth alternative identified in the report of November 17, 2009 (Appendix A) remains our best advice and recommendation to Markham Council, as the preferred Town growth alternative to 2031.

The recommended alternative outlined in the report of November 17, 2009 represents a balanced approach to managing sustainable growth. The recommended alternative:

· accommodates Markham growth to 2031, consistent with the Provincial Growth Plan and new Regional Official Plan,

· in keeping with Council’s preference, emphasizes intensification within the current settlement area and limits additional outward growth,

· provides for a diversified Town housing stock to 2031, to serve the growing population, including intensification at appropriate locations (Figure 2) supporting transit,

· provides for employment intensification at appropriate locations supporting transit, (Figure 2) and land to competitively accommodate employment growth,

· provides a mix of housing and jobs supportive of improved live-work opportunities,

· provides for continuing environmental protection and a Town Greenway System, (Figure 1) integrated with lands for growth and agriculture,

· provides an enhanced context for continued agricultural activity in Markham,

· incorporates an extension to the current settlement area (Figure 3) of approximately 900 hectares to be phased over the forecast period to 2031; the limited extension relies on accommodating about 80% of the forecast residential and employment growth within the current settlement area,

· provides the opportunity to accommodate more than 600,000 residents and jobs, over 90% of the 2031 combined total, within the current settlement area,

· supports the further application of sustainable community design, transit investment, infrastructure improvement, a diversity of housing and employment opportunities, contributing to a vibrant and resilient economy;

· aligns with the transportation initiatives proposed by Metrolinx and the Region,

· provides the basis for infrastructure and financial analysis and the opportunity to relate these to development phasing, and,

· provides the basis for completion of other Town BMFT initiatives including preparation of a new Town Official Plan.

The growth alternative recommended by Staff represents a balanced and realistic approach to achieving Markham’s forecast growth to 2031, in the context of senior government policies and forecasts, and the Town’s housing and business markets. The alternative endorsed by Council must be justifiable, and capable of withstanding scrutiny at the Region, the Province and potentially at the Ontario Municipal Board.

“Building Markham’s Future Together”, requires that Markham’s plan for sustainable community growth must be “Made in Markham”. This plan must therefore work, and be viable in Markham. A fundamental principle of viability is that the vision for managing growth in Markham should be supported by implementing programs, including the delivery of infrastructure, sustainable community development and a financial program. The vision should not be constrained by the current or potential limitations of these programs, as defined today. Partnerships and funding arrangements with other levels of government and the private sector will be required to ensure that infrastructure keeps pace with development. The release of lands for development will need to be monitored and phased.

Staff is recommending that market performance and housing preferences be carefully monitored over time to permit the Town to evaluate, and adjust as needed, the planning policy context, the target for residential intensification, and the phasing of land development for new housing. Similarly, the Town will need to monitor trends in the accommodation of employment and the competitive position of the Town’s supply of employment lands. The Town faces a significant challenge in maintaining a supply of market-ready lands for employment.

Understanding the accommodation patterns of population and employment growth, achieved through intensification and greenfield development, will assist in decisions regarding the phasing of development approvals and delivery of infrastructure. The recommended growth alternative maximises opportunities for the Town to respond to the requirements of the housing and business markets while monitoring and adjusting as needed.

1.0 PURPOSE:

As directed by the Development Services Committee and Council, this report provides:

· a follow-up to the Staff report of November 17, 2009, including comments relating to the public consultation undertaken on February 16 and 17, 2010 regarding Town growth alternatives and “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”, and,

· a Staff recommended growth alternative for the Town to 2031, to be used as the basis for finalizing studies supporting the Town growth management strategy and for preparing a new Town of Markham Official Plan.

The report also provides information for the Committee relating to the Notice of Motion regarding reducing the Town’s forecast population growth, consideration of which was deferred by Council on February 23, 2010, “…until such time as the Markham’s Growth alternatives to 2031 is [sic] considered by Council”.

2.0 BACKGROUND:

2.1 Staff Report of November 17, 2009: Preferred Markham Growth Alternative

to 2031

On November 17, 2009, the Development Services Committee (DSC) received a Staff report entitled Preferred Markham Growth Alternative to 2031. The report summarized work completed during 2008 and 2009 in support of identifying a preferred growth alternative for the Town to 2031, and described and recommended to the Committee, a preferred growth alternative, accommodating forecast growth in population and employment to 2031. The recommended alternative, to guide implementing analysis and the preparation of a new Town Official Plan, was one of four alternatives considered. The principal differences between the alternatives included the amount of assumed intensification, the mix of housing and employment types and the limited extension, or not, of the Town’s current settlement area. This report will refer to the report of November 17, 2009 (Appendix A), as necessary.

The Committee received the November 17^th report and directed that Staff report back, following further public consultation, providing a final recommendation on a growth alternative, refined in response to public comment and input from other applicable Town studies, for approval by Council as input to the Region of York Official Plan (subsequently adopted on December 16, 2009) and preparation of a new Town Official Plan, commencing in 2010 (Appendix B).

2.2 Development Services Committee and Council Directions Subsequent to

November 17, 2009

On December 1, 2009, Council directed Staff to undertake a series of actions arising from the endorsement of recommendations relating to the Agricultural Assessment Study (Appendix C) including, that “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”, submitted to Council on that date by Councillors Shapero and Burke, be included and presented as part of the public consultation, relating to Markham’s Growth Management Strategy.

As a result of further directions of the DSC and Council, Staff has also:

1. provided a Report to the DSC on February 2, 2010, incorporating Staff comments on “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal – Blue Ribbon Task Forces” (Committee Resolution, Appendix D);

2. provided an Information Report to DSC on March 2, 2010 regarding Growing the Greenbelt (Committee Resolution, Appendix E);

3. arranged a Public Information Meeting of the DSC for January 12, 2010 regarding Markham’s Agricultural Strategy and Rouge Park’s draft agricultural policy and guidelines; Minutes of this meeting were received by the DSC on February 2, 2010 (Minutes, Appendix F);

4. arranged a Public Information Meeting of the DSC for February 16 and 17 2010, regarding Markham’s Growth Alternatives and “the Markham Permanent Foodbelt” proposal; Minutes of this meeting were provided to the DSC on March 2, 2010 (Appendix G); a CD of the submissions has been prepared by the Town Clerk, the content of which will be available on-line;

5. provided a Report to the DSC on March 23, 2010 regarding establishing a Markham Agricultural Advisory Committee (Committee Resolution, Appendix H); and,

6. provided this report for consideration by the Committee.

2.3 “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”

“Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal” was introduced in December 2009 by Councillors Burke and Shapero. Council directed that the proposal be included in further public consultation regarding growth (Appendix C) to be held early in 2010. Recognizing the public comments received regarding the proposal, Staff wishes to ensure that our understanding of the proposal, relative to growth alternatives considered by Council and the public, is included here.

The proposal appears to be predicated on a growth alternative that accommodates all forecast Town growth to 2031 within the current settlement area, commonly referred to as “the no urban boundary expansion” alternative. The principal difference between “the no urban boundary expansion” alternative, and “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”, appears to be that the latter also proposes that all the lands outside the current settlement area be designated as “Foodbelt” as a permanent land use in Markham. The proposal also recommends, as a next step, “That Council request the Province of Ontario to expand the Greenbelt to include permanent protection for all Markham’s Foodbelt Class 1 agriculture lands….” Staff understands that Council has not endorsed, or otherwise taken a formal position with regard to the proposal, other than to receive public comment on it as part of the consultation identified above. Matters pertaining to protecting agricultural lands in Markham are discussed further in Section 3.1.

2.4 Notice of Motion Relating to Reduction of Markham Population Forecast and No Change to Boundary of the Current Settlement Area

On February 9, 2010, Council was given a notice of motion by Regional Councillors Heath and Virgilio regarding reducing the forecast of population growth to 2031 for Markham, and to not include any extension of the current settlement area in a new Town Official Plan. Consideration of this motion came forward to Council on February 23, 2010 and was deferred “until such time as the "Markham's Growth Alternatives to 2031" is [sic] considered by Council” (Appendix L).

The notice of motion proposes requesting the Province and the Region of York to reduce the 2031 population forecast for Markham in the new Region of York Official Plan by 40,000. The basis for the motion indicates that:

· “…at least 90,000 new residents can be accommodated within the existing urban boundary in…proximity to anticipated higher order transit...

· …neighbouring municipalities in the [GTA]… have excess [population] capacity in areas already served by higher order transit…

· …food security, the potential loss of Class #1 agricultural farmland… and climate change are priority factors for Markham in planning its growth…

· …residents in the ‘white-belt’…which may not be served by higher-order transit…will add unmanageable additional traffic to Markham’s gridlock and infiltration…”

The motion also proposes directing that no change in the current settlement area boundary be incorporated into a new Markham Official Plan.

In regard to the notice of motion, Staff notes that since January 2007, the Committee has been regularly updated on growth forecasts by Town and Regional Staff. Similar information about the Region’s forecasts has been provided to Regional Council, throughout the Region’s “Planning for Tomorrow” exercise. Regional Council formally approved the forecasts to be used in the new Regional Official Plan, including those for Markham, in January 2009. On December 16^th 2009, Region of York Council declined to consider a similar motion by Regional Councillors Heath and Virgilio, to reduce the forecast population increase for the Town of Markham by the year 2031 from 150,000 to 127,000.

Town Staff has advised Council that the approved growth forecasts for Markham established by the Region are reasonable, and reflect the Region’s responsibility and authority under legislation, to distribute and assign growth to local municipalities. Good planning is based on the equitable distribution of growth to locations that have the capability to accommodate the growth and to where it can be appropriately managed, based on sound planning principles. This is the basis for the forecasts established in the Provincial Growth Plan and the forecasts for local municipalities in York Region, assigned through the Regional Official Plan.

These approved forecasts are relied upon by municipalities, public agencies and the development industry to plan for and deliver public infrastructure and community services to meet the needs of new residents and businesses in a coordinated manner. Council has not questioned the forecasts, and Staff has therefore proceeded on the understanding that the Town is working toward compliance with the Region’s growth forecasts for Markham. On this basis, the forecasts have been used as a reference in all supporting studies and analyses relating to growth, and in other BMFT initiatives.

Staff has also previously advised that the Region’s new forecasts for Markham represent an increase relative to the forecasts established in the Regional Official Plan, commencing in 1994. Overall, the increase in the 2031 population for Markham in the new Plan is in the order of 50,000, spread over the approximately 20 year planning timeframe. With regard to land for urban purposes, the ROP always included a policy to identify additional urban areas in Markham, beyond the urban area designated in that Plan, consistent with accommodating the forecasts in the Plan for Markham.

For the further information of the Committee, Staff notes that:

· the motion is silent in regard to forecast employment growth. As employment forecasts relate in part, to population forecasts, a change in one would be expected to affect the other. The proposed restriction on extending the current settlement area also impacts planning for employment growth;

· the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has advised at least two GTA Regions seeking to depart from the forecasts established in the Provincial Growth Plan, to revise their forecasts to demonstrate conformity with that Plan; the Ministry position indicates that departure from the Growth Plan forecasts will not be supported by the Province; and

· with regard to the portion of the motion dealing with the current boundary of the settlement area not being altered, this would impact assumptions relating to the future land budget and compliance with Provincial and Regional growth forecasts and policies affecting Markham. In addition to the consideration of a Town growth alternative, previous Council resolutions have indicated support for an easterly extension of the settlement area boundary in the vicinity of Cornell to Reesor Road, and to consider further extending the boundary easterly in the area of Cornell, east of Reesor Road, and in the vicinity of Steeles Avenue, east of 9^th Line.

2.5 Growing the Greenbelt

In response to the direction of the Committee, Staff provided an information report on March 2, 2010 regarding the Committee’s request for comments on the potential for “Growing the Greenbelt”. In that report, Staff outlined possible options, anticipated issues and challenges, and the need for thorough processes of technical review and public consultation, if Council chooses to undertake a review of options for growing the Greenbelt. Staff concluded that such a review would be premature in the absence of an approved Growth Management Strategy and new Official Plan framework, and Staff identified key determinations that Council should make before embarking on consideration of such a significant and controversial policy initiative.

The Committee received the report and recommended “that the report be referred to the Growth Management Strategy study”. Staff proposes to report back on this matter to the DSC once Council has endorsed a preferred growth alternative. This is discussed further in Section 3.2.

2.6 The Public Information Meeting of February 16 and 17, 2010.

Based on the directions received from the DSC and Council, the purpose of this meeting was to present information about growth alternatives for Markham. Three growth alternatives were presented:

1. the alternative proposed by the Region of York, accommodating a portion of the forecast growth through intensification within the current settlement area, and a portion in an extension of the settlement area; this alternative is referred to as “the 52% alternative” based on the amount of residential intensification it proposes within the built boundary,

2. the alternative, directed by Council to be considered as part of the financial analysis, based on accommodating all forecast growth within the current settlement area; this alternative is referred to as the “no urban boundary expansion alternative”. This alternative is sometimes referred to as the “100% alternative”. In fact the actual intensification would be in the order of 80% as measured within the built boundary, established for determining intensification through the Provincial Growth Plan. The balance of the growth would be located on designated vacant greenfield lands within the current settlement area.

3. the alternative, preferred by Town Staff, accommodating a portion of the forecast growth through intensification within the current settlement area, and a portion in an extension of the settlement area; this alternative is referred to as “the 60% alternative” based on the amount of residential intensification it proposes within the built boundary. The balance of the residential growth would be located on vacant designated greenfield lands within the current settlement area (estimated to be approximately 22%), and in an extension of the current settlement area, accommodating approximately 18% of the growth.

“Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”, which most closely aligns with the “no urban boundary expansion alternative” plus the addition of lands to the Greenbelt, was also presented. Public comments were received regarding the alternatives and the Foodbelt Proposal.

2.7 Region of York Official Plan

The Region of York adopted a new Official Plan (ROP) on December 16, 2009. The Town commented to the Region on the June, 2009 draft of the Plan in October, 2009, and forwarded comments on the adopted Plan in February, 2010. Provincial approval of the Plan is expected in 2010, but is subject to appeal to the OMB.

On March 3, 2010, the Region’s Planning and Economic Development Committee received a report recommending that amendments to the ROP be brought forward for lands to be added to the current settlement area in Vaughan, East Gwillimbury and Markham, consistent with the intent of the adopted ROP. The Report was received and the proposed amendments have been scheduled for consideration by the Region at a Public Meeting in June, 2010.

The boundaries of the lands proposed by the Region to be added to the current settlement area in northwest Markham, to be included in the draft amendment to the ROP, are based on the Region’s land budget research. The boundaries match the corresponding proposed extension of the settlement area, forming part of the preferred growth alternative recommended by Town Staff, in the November 17, 2009 report. Town Staff’s recommendation is therefore, consistent with the proposed amendment to the ROP recommended by Regional Staff.

2.8 Outline of Comments Received at the Public Information Meeting, February 16

and 17, 2010

On November 17, 2009 Council directed staff to schedule an additional public information meeting of the Committee to obtain public comment on growth alternatives being considered by the Committee. Notification for this meeting included:

· Advertisements in local newspapers,

· Notice on the Town’s website,

· Email/mail out to individuals and stakeholders who requested notification, and,

· Notice to First Nations Groups.

The meeting was held on February 16, 2010 at the Markham Hilton Suites. Due to the number of requests to speak, the meeting was extended to February 17, 2010, in the Council Chambers. A handout (Appendix I) was prepared outlining three growth alternatives and the Foodbelt proposal.  This handout was posted on the Town’s website and distributed at the meeting.

The meeting on February 16th was attended by over 1000 people.  The continuation of the meeting on February 17^th was attended by approximately 150 people. Over the two meetings there were 61 deputations, including a variety of power point presentations, a YouTube video and a commercial.  To date, Staff has received over 420 submissions from residents and interest groups. These include:

· 81 individual submissions,

· 309 standard format e-mails, routed to the Town from Environmental Defence Canada;  approximately half of these e-mails appear to be from individuals located within Markham,

· 30 standard format e-mails,

· a petition from the Muskoka Landowners Association, and,

· an information package from a researcher.

Several submissions included attachments.

The presentations, written submissions and attachments have been compiled on a Compact Disc by the Town Clerk and made available to members of Council.  One copy of the CD will be included with this report when it is submitted to the DSC, so that the Committee may receive it as part of the public record. The contents of the CD will also be made available online. Any additional comments received will be forwarded to the DSC with this report.

2.9 What Was Said on February 16, and 17, 2010

The key summarized themes/points that were raised at the Public Information Meeting and through written submissions included:

Growth Targets

· Growth Plan only works if every municipality accepts its fair share of growth

· Revisit government assigned targets and request exemption and reduction

· Before accepting more development – infrastructure must be improved

· Unsustainable growth allocation for Markham

· Growth is positive and contributes to economic prosperity and diversity

· Intensification beyond 52% places too much emphasis on high density forms of development and threatens the Town’s ability to attract the people it needs to meet its economic development objectives

Neighbourhoods/Housing

· Protect existing neighbourhoods

· Encourage intensification within the existing urban envelope

· Provide new communities for families

· Every municipality needs a continuum of housing supply and employment choices

· Continue to produce residential projects for families, of similar quality (eg. Cornell and  Angus Glen)  

Agricultural Lands/Farming

· Greenbelt has already identified the most significant areas for permanent agriculture and environmental preservation in the GTA

· Protect the lands north of Major Mackenzie for agriculture (possible permanent protection)

· There is no future in farming

· Protect property rights of farmers

· Equitable compromise (farmers/future generations)

· A sustainable economy starts with a sustainable food system

Urban Sprawl

· Growth must be managed properly and linked to the provision of infrastructure

· Increase in population will lead to more congestion and sprawl

· Urban expansion increases flooding, erosion and compromises water quality

· A controlled extension to an urban boundary is not sprawl

· Vertical sprawl is not an acceptable alternative to horizontal sprawl

Youth

· Consideration has to be given to future generations

· Provide leadership by supporting the local food movement

Certain key topics are touched upon further in the focused discussion in this report.

3. OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:

3.1 Protecting Agricultural Lands and Supporting a Viable Agricultural Sector in

Markham

Lands outside the current settlement area, comprising approximately 40% of the total Town land area, reflect a rural landscape typical of urban edge conditions including a variety of agricultural operations (fruit and vegetables, cash crops, nurseries, sod farms, hobby farms), equestrian uses, golf courses, places of worship, day camps, park uses, rural residential and other non-agricultural uses. Atypically, the vast majority of these lands are in senior government and non-farmer ownership, resulting in most of the land being farmed on a rental basis. Senior government lands are not being sold, and privately owned rural lands in Markham are no longer being purchased by farmers.

As described in previous reports, the Town completed an Agricultural Assessment Study prepared by a team of qualified consultants in support of the Growth Management Strategy, for the purpose of developing a qualitative approach towards agricultural sustainability and viability. The Study provided direction on potential growth areas in the Town, consistent with accommodating some additional urban development, but also outlined a policy approach and a number of initiatives to help the Town to support and enhance the viability and sustainability of agriculture.

The Study recognized that protection of agricultural lands in a near-urban setting will not guarantee a successful agricultural industry, but that supportive government policies and programs, in concert with leasing arrangements that mitigate the vulnerability of farming on leased land, are necessary to address challenges of near-urban, tenant agriculture, faced by most of the farming community. Council has endorsed the Study’s recommended Strategy (Appendix C) and is considering an important step in its implementation by creating a Markham Agricultural Advisory Committee. (Appendix H) This Committee is expected to assist the Town in addressing policies, programs and initiatives relating to the future of sustainable agriculture in Markham.

“Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal” was introduced as a concept following Council endorsement of the recommendations of the Agricultural Assessment Study. It reflects a different approach toward agriculture. The Agricultural Strategy endorsed by Council identified an integrated, multi-faceted program to support sustainable urban-edge agriculture, reflecting consultation and cooperation with the Markham farming community. The “Foodbelt Proposal” seeks permanent Provincial control over the use of agricultural land, through extension of the Provincial Greenbelt and the policies of the Greenbelt Plan. A number of Markham farmers expressed concern regarding restrictions on agriculture under the Greenbelt Plan at the recent public information meetings.

Although the public information meetings identified virtually unanimous agreement on continued support for farming in Markham, there was a sharp divide in opinion centred on including more Markham farmland in the Greenbelt. Many speakers supported farmers’ rights to use and dispose of their lands as they wish. Some speakers argued that such rights are secondary to broader public interests.

Support for including more Markham farmlands in the Greenbelt, as a means to preserve agricultural land and support agriculture, came from individuals and interest groups who do not farm in Markham. Opposition to this proposal came primarily from farmers and landowners who own and/or lease land for farming in Markham. Comments on the matter of growing the Greenbelt in support of agriculture are summarized below.

Summary of Comments from Proponents and Opponents of Growing the Greenbelt in Support of Agriculture

In addition to support for agriculture, proponents of growing the Greenbelt also argued that adding lands would result in a larger area of open space to buffer the Greenbelt, support biodiversity, provide wildlife habitat, and accommodate “wilderness parks”. Others argued that increasing the area of the Greenbelt would preclude further development and address perceived negative impacts of urban growth, notably traffic and air and water quality.

Proponents sometimes linked Greenbelt expansion to the production of local food and to food security, although it was not agreed by all speakers that this linkage was legitimate, or how it could actually work (Appendix J, Item 1). In fact, some submissions seemed to acknowledge that there remains a need to determine how agriculture would be improved by making it subject to the Greenbelt Plan.

Submissions in opposition to the portion of “the Foodbelt Proposal” involving growing the Greenbelt, focused on perceived flaws in the imposition of the Greenbelt Plan as a means to support agriculture. Farmers pointed to their long history of farming in Markham and that although challenged, most have been able to continue to successfully farm under the prevailing policy regime established by the Province. They questioned the need to put more farmland into the Greenbelt and asked what value has been added to farming by the imposition of the Greenbelt Plan on other lands. Recent studies, documenting unanticipated negative impacts of unduly restrictive Provincial policies on agriculture, were noted.

Strong sentiments were expressed regarding the loss of property rights and value through any imposition of the Greenbelt Plan and that under the provisions of the Plan agriculture may assume a secondary status relative to environmental protection. Experience regarding the practical difficulties of mixing agricultural and environmental activities was highlighted. The issue of compensation for lost production and land value was identified, and some farmers explained the possibility of contributing to the long term future of agriculture in Ontario through relocation to larger, fully-owned farm holdings, particularly in support of facilitating long term capital investment and continuing multi-generational family-run operations. The question of why it is necessary to put more Markham farmland into the Greenbelt, in order to support Markham farming, was a central theme for farmers. There was much discussion of Markham agriculture in relation to local food production; some matters relating to this topic are addressed in Appendix J,

Item 1.

* * * * *

In reviewing the submissions expressing support for the “Foodbelt Proposal”, and in assessing the rationale underlying the argument that growing the Greenbelt will support agriculture, the nature of the existing agricultural industry in Markham must be considered. Although strongly argued by well-intentioned supporters, it cannot be concluded that adding more lands to the Greenbelt, in order to protect them for farming, has been demonstrated to be necessary, relative to the arguments in opposition. Nor is there any apparent planning rationale for extending the Provincially controlled Greenbelt on to agricultural lands in Markham that can already be regulated through the Town Official Plan and zoning.

The viable elements of the “Foodbelt Proposal”, which include environmental protection, can be addressed through the establishment of the Town’s proposed Greenway System and the implementation of the Agricultural Strategy, both of which have been endorsed by Council. The Greenway System might support some limited additions of land to the Greenbelt, reflecting System enhancements to improve linkages.

The preferred growth alternative recommended in the report of November 17, 2009 incorporates the Greenway System and the Strategy of the Agricultural Assessment Study. Agricultural lands will continue to be an integral part of Markham’s landscape in that alternative, and contribute to the business and culture of the Markham community. The Greenway System and Agricultural Strategy are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and will fully implement the Provincial Greenbelt Plan. The Town’s agricultural lands will be protected through Provincial, Regional and Town policies.

3.2 Growing the Greenbelt

On March 2, 2010 Council referred a Staff report on Growing the Greenbelt to the Growth Management Study. The report outlined possible options, anticipated issues and challenges, and the need for thorough processes of technical review and consultation, should Council choose to undertake a review of growing the Greenbelt. Staff concluded that a review is premature, in the absence of an approved Growth Management Strategy and new Official Plan framework, and identified key determinations that Council should make before embarking on consideration of such a significant and potentially controversial initiative.

Growing the Greenbelt is a program established by the Province to allow municipalities to identify lands, and a rationale to add the lands to the Greenbelt, for consideration by the Province prior to the scheduled review of the Greenbelt Plan by 2015. The program does not replace the scheduled review. The program is not mandated and has no set timeframes. However, the Province has prepared criteria for considering additions to the Greenbelt which need to be addressed in any municipal submission.

The extension of the Greenbelt across all lands in the rural area in support of agriculture, is understood to be a key component of “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”, and dominated the commentary at the recent public information meetings. The submissions received are indicative of the diversity of opinion regarding this aspect of the proposal (see Section 3.1) and has confirmed the sensitivity associated with advancing consideration of growing the Greenbelt.

There is no urgency or advantage to Markham to initiate consideration of growing the Greenbelt at this time. Indeed, having confirmed that Markham will establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee to work with Markham farmers in support of agriculture, it could be perceived as inconsistent to concurrently initiate a process to grow the Greenbelt, the most contentious issue identified by Markham’s farming community. With the benefit of the public commentary, Staff continues to regard active consideration of growing the Greenbelt as premature at this time.

3.3 Establishing a Sustainable Natural Environment

The Town’s proposed Greenway System (Figure No. 1) has been identified through the Town’s Environmental Policy Review and Consolidation Study. This study included over five years of comprehensive review and consultation regarding a complete range of environmental policies. The Study encompasses Markham’s growth planning principle of “Environment First”. Study recommendations were endorsed by Council in June 2009. The recommended Greenway System encompasses 35% of the total land area of the Town and includes all the lands forming part of the Greenbelt Plan. The Greenway System identifies Greenbelt agricultural and natural heritage protection lands that are not available for urbanization.

Few, if any of the submissions received at the February meetings, address the Study or the proposed Greenway System. Some touched on more general topics such as protecting the natural environment and biodiversity, in the context of “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”, rather than the Greenway System. The limited recent comment on the Greenway System may reflect the extensive consultation that has already taken place through the Environmental Policy Review and Consolidation and earlier public meetings. The recommendations of the November 17, 2009 Staff report pertaining to the Greenway System together with Council’s endorsement, provide the basis for incorporating the System into the Town’s Official Plan.

3.4 Markham’s Housing and Employment Markets

Public comments regarding future growth in Markham tended to focus on a preference for one of the identified alternatives. The alternatives differ in the extent to which Markham would intensify within the current settlement area, and the extent to which any outward extension of the settlement area should take place, to accommodate new residential communities and business parks. The growth alternatives therefore vary, in their implicit assumptions regarding the market for housing and business accommodation in which Markham operates. While the comments provided were generally silent in regard to the market supply and demand factors, these matters and financial implications for the Town, must be considered by Council.

In expressing support for “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”, it is assumed that the alternative involving full build out of the forecast growth to 2031, within the current settlement area, was being supported. Representatives of the development industry generally supported the 52% intensification alternative proposed by the Region of York or the 60% intensification alternative, recommended by staff. Some submissions did not directly address any alternative in detail.

With the exception of submissions on behalf of the development industry, it was not apparent that many submissions had taken account of the marketplace, or the market viability of the alternatives, to meet the growth forecasts to 2031. Some supporters of the alternative involving no expansion of the current settlement area did express the view that because of an aging population, demand for higher density housing forms will increase, but did not critically address the unprecedented shift in market preference, well beyond any reasonable “demographic demand”, that this alternative must achieve to be viable. Some supporters of the “52% and 60% intensification” alternatives commented on the significant challenge of achieving the shift in housing preferences that even these alternatives would require. The market for housing and business accommodation in Markham is discussed further in Appendix J, Items 5 and 6).

Notwithstanding the forecast of 240,000 workers in Markham by 2031, little consideration of the ongoing accommodation needs and preferences of different employment sectors was apparent in the submissions. In the case of the alternative involving no expansion of the current settlement area, some submissions apparently assumed that employment requiring accommodation in industrial settings, can simply be replaced by office employment. Markham’s already dominant role in the Region’s office market, and the unrealistic shift in the market required to support this assumption of new employment in office space was not addressed. (Appendix J, Item 6)

With the exception of a submission highlighting the need to align housing types with the housing preferences of employees working in economic sectors the Town is seeking to attract (in support of Markham’s Economic Development Strategy), the lack of comment on the Town’s future economic well-being, a key component of sustainability, was notable. Given the positive benefits of improving the Town’s live-work relationship by accommodating sought-after jobs in close proximity to the Town’s resident work force, and the significant forecast growth in working residents and employees, a stronger expression of support for accommodating Markham’s future employment is warranted.

Throughout the growth strategy work by the Town in regard to housing mix (Housing Stock Analysis) and employment land (Employment Strategy Study), Staff has stressed the priority of working within a market context to ensure that growth, and the management of growth, remain viable. Staff remains of the opinion that marketability is an essential priority in selecting a growth alternative. Furthermore, the ability to justify underlying market and economic assumptions to the Region and Province, and potentially to the OMB, will be key to the success of implementing a Town growth alternative.

3.5 Managing Housing to Accommodate Population Growth

3.5.1 Diversifying the Housing Stock

Managing achievable change in the Town’s housing stock is central to accommodating the housing needs of Markham’s residents. Those who choose to live in Markham are seeking a mix of housing that accommodates the lifestyle needs of family and non-family households. Today, Markham’s residents live in predominantly family households, preferring ground-related, rather than multi-unit, housing types.

In 2006, the number of families as a percent of occupied private dwelling units exceeded 95%. Only 11% of the Town’s 2006 housing stock was apartment units, with the balance comprised of single detached, semi-detached or townhouse units. The growth alternative recommended by Staff anticipates a significant market shift in the share of apartment type units from about 11% of the total Town housing stock in 2006 to approximately 32% by 2031. The 2031 share would need to increase to approximately 42% apartments by 2031 in the alternative based on no boundary expansion.

The table below compares the estimated mix of housing that would be added to Markham between 2006 and 2031 for three alternatives, one proposed by the Region of York, one recommended by Town Staff in the November 17, 2009 report, and one based on no

Residential Housing Mix within Current Settlement Area 2006		Comparative Estimates for Residential Intensification Alternatives & Housing Mix
		Estimates Relate to Total Units Added to Town, 2006 to 2031 in each alternative	52% Region of York	60% Recommended by Town Staff	100% No Urban Boundary Expansion
Total Units	100%	Proportion of Additional Units Added within Current Settlement Area	80%	82%	100%
Ground Related Units	89%	Proportion of Additional Ground Related Units *	54%	46%	27%
Apartment Units	11%	Proportion of Additional Apartment Units	46%	54%	73%

* single detached, semi-detached and townhouse units

extension of the current settlement area boundary. The reliance on market acceptance of additional apartment units, compared to ground related units, is significantly different between the Staff recommended and no urban boundary expansion alternatives.

As the projected age structure of Markham’s households will continue to include a large component of residents at the stage in their lives of forming families, there will continue to be a demand for ground-related housing types of sufficient size to accommodate growing and multi-generational families. Markham is well positioned to accommodate more intensive forms of housing, specifically apartments, well-suited to non-family households.

However, Markham’s continuing strong market orientation to accommodating family households in compact, ground-related housing forms should also be recognized for its contribution to creating the diverse family communities that Markham is known for today. The policies of the Provincial Growth Plan, as expressed through the new Region of York Official Plan, rely on the provision of sufficient lands to accommodate a full range of new housing, including as required, lands outside the current settlement areas of local municipalities, including Markham.

Reflecting the housing needs of current and future residents, and therefore the need to achieve both diversity and balance in the future Town housing stock, the growth alternative recommended in the November 17, 2009 report includes the addition of approximately 600 hectares of residential land to the current settlement area. The 600 ha will need to incorporate land for housing, plus essential associated uses such as parks, schools, roads etc. in addition to local retail and service uses, incorporated into mixed used development. The housing mix assigned to this land will need to ensure a range of ground-related forms suitable to families, contributing to an overall 2031 Town housing stock that meets the needs of Town residents.

Many of the residents, speaking at the recent public meetings, expressed strong sentiments about the character of the community in which they have chosen to live and their pride in the diversity and mix of households that are able to live in their neighbourhoods. Development industry representatives, familiar with the Markham housing market, confirmed the need to address both the family and non-family housing markets in Markham. Resident comments also addressed the benefits and concerns relating to residential intensification, and the potential impacts of the form that may characterize new communities on services and traffic.

Staff is recommending a balanced approach to managing the housing stock to accommodate population growth. The approach assumes housing an increasing number of non-family and smaller family households within higher density apartment and multiple dwellings units, while continuing to accommodate family households in ground-related units within an expanded settlement area. Under the growth alternative recommended by Staff in the November 17^th 2009 report, approximately 50% of the Town’s households are assumed to be occupying apartment and townhouse forms of housing in 2031, compared to some 30% today. The total number ground-related dwelling units will increase to 2031, but will decrease as a proportion of the total stock to less than 70%, from about 88% today.

3.5.2 Accommodating Affordable Housing Options

There is a growing need for housing accommodation within the Town, accessible to households that are challenged to afford rising costs and rents. Markham has a relatively high proportion of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs (the Provincially defined threshold for measuring relative affordability). In 2005, over half of renter households and 30% of owner households in Markham were spending more than 30% of their income on housing. This percentage of households matches or exceeds all other York Region municipalities, the GTA Regions and the Provincial 2005 percentages of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing. This circumstance stems from Markham land values and housing prices, in relation to the incomes and accommodation choices available for Markham’s households, and has contributed to the increasing preference amongst families for medium density, ground-related, housing types and small single detached units.

Some non-family households are able to find smaller apartment units that suit their lifestyles and are relatively affordable. However, apartments of sufficient size to accommodate families are seldom available and, if available, rarely affordable. Construction costs make apartments inherently more expensive to build per square metre of floor area. With few buyers able to afford larger apartment units, few builders will provide them. Unit prices, relative to size, make apartments a less practical option, and potentially a less attractive investment for families, than ground-related housing types.

Although affordable housing was not a prominent topic in recent submissions it has been noted in earlier forums. Residents have spoken of the need for more affordable housing across the range of residents’ housing needs by age and lifestyle. Challenges to affordability will continue for a significant proportion of the Markham population. Maintaining a diverse housing stock in the design of new communities, suited to the widest number of residents, will be one way in which the Town can address the challenge. For this reason the growth alternative recommended in the November 17^th 2009 report proposes to continue to provide a balanced and diversified range of housing choices, but with an increased emphasis on medium and high density housing forms. The resulting Town housing mix will continue to deliver housing for the family market, but also housing for non-family households who may, as their lifestyles change, free-up ground-related units that can be taken up by families.

3.5.3 Increasing Live/Work Opportunities

Increasing the number of people who both live and work in Markham is a key objective in managing Town growth. As the number of resident workers increases, it is expected that the average length of work trips will decline, and the proportion of trips by means other than autos will increase. This can in turn benefit the community through reduced travel time and improvements in air quality and the quality of life. In 2006, 36% of workers in Markham also lived in Markham. An increase in this proportion is considered desirable; a key requirement is new housing stock suited to workers’ needs. Meeting workers housing preferences is also a factor in keeping the Town attractive to new businesses that rely on attracting and retaining employees.

As Markham’s housing stock continues to diversify, there are increased opportunities to increase the proportion of people who both live and work in the Town. A strong live/work ratio is an important indicator of the balance in the jobs the Town offers and the skills of residents that live in the Town and the availability of housing in the Town to accommodate Markham work force employees.

3.6 Accommodating Intensification in the Current Settlement Area

Markham Council, through the course of workshops and discussions on growth, has expressed the preference to accommodate as much growth as may be reasonable within the current settlement area in order to reduce the need to extend the settlement area. The Town has completed principles and a framework for an intensification strategy to guide Markham’s vision for its intensification areas (Figure No. 2). The strategy will provide overall direction on where intensification should occur, the amount of development that is appropriate, and the anticipated phasing of development.

The strategy is intended to address the policy requirements for intensification established by the Province and the Region, in a Town context, and to guide further work in support of ensuring that intensification in Markham:

· is directed to preferred locations, supportive of Town growth objectives,

· is not directed to established residential areas, except in the case of compatible minor infill and second suites where permitted, consistent with Town policies,

· involving residential development, does not occur on lands for exclusive employment use, consistent with Town policies,

· is consistent in intensity and form with the Town’s intensification principles and hierarchy, and community design objectives for each location, and

· can be served by required infrastructure and services.

The Town has worked with stakeholders on a variety of intensification projects within Markham Centre and more recently along the Avenue 7 and Yonge Street corridors, including the Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway, the Galleria, Cornell Centre, and the Yonge Steeles Corridor. Through the on-going planning of Markham’s intensification areas, and more recently through public consultation on Markham’s future growth, a diverse range of opinions have been expressed over the impact of increased intensity and height of new development on existing communities.

It is clear that Markham residents have strong views and opinions on the potential impact of more intense development in the Town’s centres and corridors, and in particular, how it will impact their existing neighbourhoods in terms of height, density and character, traffic congestion, the impact on the delivery of adequate community services and infrastructure, and the associated timing and costs.

To be successful and meet community expectations, increases in building height and density must be paired with good urban design, demonstrating appropriate gradation of density. Accommodating more intense development will require transitions in scale and form that are sensitive to the characteristics of existing neighbourhoods. To ensure that new development in intensification areas will be appropriate in scale to the Town’s existing residential areas, Council will endorse a comprehensive set of guidelines on built form, massing and height that will be incorporated into the intensification strategy. The strategy will identify policies relating to transition and urban design that can be introduced through secondary plans or local area studies, to ensure that development adjacent to existing neighbourhoods respects their character and scale. Additional site or area specific development controls, appropriate for each intensification area, will be addressed through site specific review and development proposals.

Some residents feel that the pace of growth has resulted in intensification issues within the local community and that there is need for a phased approach to intensification to ensure that new development is coordinated and linked with the delivery of key infrastructure and services needed to support the development.

To ensure that the elements to create a complete community are included at every stage of development, the intensification strategy will identify requirements for phasing new development in intensification areas where benchmarks, triggers, pre-requisites and other performance measures must be satisfied at each phase of development, prior to moving on to the next phase of development. As part of detailed secondary plans or local studies to refine intensification potential, a determination of key actions relating to infrastructure investment, delivery and phasing of development will be required.

Staff is recommending a preferred growth alternative that incorporates, among other things, an intensification strategy comprising a set of intensification principles, a hierarchy of intensification locations, urban design and development guidelines and a set of residential and employment intensification targets.

3.7 Managing Employment Growth

The Staff report of November 17, 2009 identified the forecast growth in employment, and the Region’s reliance on the Town as a significant employment centre. The Town has demonstrated a long-standing commitment to a strong economy, to economic development and to the importance of planning for employment, which positions Markham well to comply with the policy context for employment lands established in recent Provincial and Regional policy documents. Reference was made in the November 17, 2009 report to the approved 2008 Economic Development Strategy, “Markham 2020”, and the Town Employment Lands Strategy (ELS) (Phase 1) endorsed in 2009.

The preferred growth alternative recommended in the November 17, 2009 report is based on continued employment growth within the current settlement area, both through development of remaining lands and intensification. The recommended growth alternative also includes the addition of approximately 300 ha of land north of the current settlement area to accommodate future business park employment growth. The objective is to locate approximately 80% of the employment growth between 2006 and 2031 within the current settlement area, and to ensure sufficient opportunity for the Town to remain competitive in attracting new business development.

Employment planning and the relationship to the Town’s Economic Development Strategy was not the subject of much comment at the information meetings. Most proponents of “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal” did not speak directly to the subject other than in relation to agricultural jobs. The restriction on new employment lands inherent in the proposal, and the significant impact this would have on the Town’s management of future employment growth and economic competitiveness was not addressed. Some of the submissions also demonstrated a possible misunderstanding that employment such as that in factories and office buildings, and their respective accommodation requirements, are interchangeable. (Appendix J, Item 5). In fact the employment forecasts assigned to Markham include growth in specific employment types that the Town is expected to accommodate.

One submission challenged the recommendations of Staff relative to the Employment Lands Strategy in regard to the requirement for expansion of the current settlement area. (Appendix J, Item 2). Another submission emphasized the need to align the Town’s future housing stock with the preferences of employees in economic sectors the Town is seeking to attract, to support of Markham’s Economic Development Strategy. This submission directly addressed the need to be competitively attractive in accommodating not only companies, but their employees as well, reinforcing the importance of a growth alternative that addresses market preferences. Submissions on behalf of the development industry did not generally address employment, however expressions of support for the Region or Staff growth alternatives could infer support for the employment planning inherent in these alternatives.

Notwithstanding the limited comments received through the information meetings, Staff remains of the opinion that managing employment growth is an important Provincial and municipal public policy matter, and that the growth alternative recommended by Staff appropriately addresses a balanced and diverse range of future Town employment. Staff intends to continue to monitor employment growth and the accommodation requirements of businesses in Markham and to report to the DSC.

3.8 Markham’s New Communities

The Staff report of November 17, 2009 (Appendix A) described some of the initiatives that will go into designing new communities and employment areas on lands in the proposed 900 hectare extension of the settlement area. The submissions received from the general public reinforced support for further improvements in the design of new communities, in particular improving support for pedestrian travel and transit accessibility. A number of speakers support new community development as a continuation of the attractive, family oriented neighbourhoods that currently make Markham a great place to reside.

The submissions also highlighted the need for new communities developed through intensification to be subject to a complete community approach to design, similar to that which would apply to new Greenfield communities, to ensure that community infrastructure and facilities are adequately provided for. Although the discussion in the earlier report had focussed on new Greenfield communities, it is intended that the matters to be considered in relation to community design and infrastructure planning should also apply in the context of identified intensification areas.

In February 2009, Regional Council endorsed draft criteria for new greenfield communities, to be subsequently incorporated into a new Official Plan. A number of these criteria will also be applicable to development via intensification. Subsequently, the new Official Plan has incorporated policies addressing matters such as sustainable communities and buildings, healthy communities, water and energy conservation and efficiency, active transportation, climate change and air quality. Markham’s new Official Plan will address and build on these policies to establish additional standards for sustainable development. The goals and themes of the Town’s Community Sustainability Plan (Green Print) will assist in preparing future Town policies and standards.

4. RELATED INITIATIVES, CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS

Town infrastructure and financial studies now underway will inform refinement and implementation of the preferred growth alternative to be endorsed by Council. These have considered the potential variations between the growth alternative recommended by Staff and the alternative involving no further extension of the current settlement area. Work on these studies is sufficiently advanced to identify that the differences in implementing the alternatives are not significant enough to warrant these being the deciding factor in selecting one alternative rather than the other. This work confirms that Council’s vision for growth should direct decisions in regard to growth management infrastructure and finance, and that once Council endorses a growth alternative, matters of implementation strategies should be addressed toward achieving the vision.

4.1 Markham Transportation Strategic Plan and Markham Master Servicing Study

Both of these initiatives have advanced to the point of being able to offer findings in regard to the “60% residential intensification” and “no settlement area expansion” growth alternatives being modeled. Presentations in this regard are scheduled to be provided to the DSC on April 20, 2010.

The current findings indicate that transportation and servicing infrastructure can be designed to support either of the growth alternatives, as modeled and evaluated. In both cases the delivery of the required infrastructure is dependent on improvements to Regional systems and funding through development charges, or other appropriate means. For modeling purposes, it has been assumed that the development required to generate the anticipated development charges will take place in accordance with approved development phasing, and that the marketplace will deliver the development and supporting infrastructure, or pay the requisite development charges for public infrastructure.

On this basis, the findings do not dictate the decision regarding which alternative is preferred. In fact, they confirm that Council’s chosen alternative should direct the delivery of infrastructure. Infrastructure should be employed as a means to support the Town’s vision for managed growth, rather than as a determinant of the vision.

4.2  Financial Analysis

At the February 9, 2010 DSC meeting, the Town’s Growth Management Fiscal Impact consultant, Watson & Associates, provided an overview of the fiscal impacts related to the growth alternatives being considered by the Town of Markham. The financial analysis considered the impact of new development on property tax rates for each growth alternative including:

· assessment, taxes and other revenues per occupant, for an average unit by type;

· incremental operating expenditures per occupant; and

· non-development charge recoverable and other capital requirements per occupant

The analysis also looked at the findings from other GTA fiscal impact studies and found that:

· some types of development (ie. apartments and industrial) tend to show more

      favourable fiscal results than others (ie. small lot ground oriented housing and retail);

· the overall tax rate difference between different growth alternatives is often not significant; and

· if transit funding and modal splits underperform, there may be an impact on road service levels.

Since the February 9^th meeting, Watson & Associates have been working with Town staff to refine assumptions related to capital and operating impacts. While the numbers have changed slightly, the overarching concepts and conclusions remain the same.

These initial findings indicate, at a high level, that there are reduced capital costs associated with the “no boundary expansion” alternative (as compared to the “60% intensification” alternative) as less infrastructure needs to be built. Infrastructure costs related to water, sanitary, stormwater, and roads are expected to be approximately one-third less under the “no boundary expansion” alternative (a difference of $185 million in 2009 dollars). These capital costs would be virtually entirely funded through development charges or be local costs paid for by developers.

The more detailed forecasts underpinning the Provincial Growth Plan called for 13,500 high density units per year between 2011 and 2031 across the GTA. Markham’s share of this figure under the “no boundary expansion” alternative would be approximately 2,600 units per year (19% of the market share). The Town has averaged 453 high density unit building permit issuances from 1998 to 2009 (4% of the market share over the past decade). Between 2004 and 2009, the Town averaged 662 high density units per year (6% of market share). As such, there is concern that since growth-related capital is largely funded by development charges, should projected development and market absorption underperform, front-end financing would be more costly. Furthermore, the Town may be responsible for paying for infrastructure through the tax rate that otherwise would be paid through development charges (i.e. if infrastructure is built for growth, and that growth does not occur, there will be no development charges to fund it). The Town would also need to address the operating and future replacement costs of the infrastructure subject to a delay in receiving the associated tax revenues.

On the operating side, the high level analysis indicates that the Town’s operating impact under the “no boundary expansion” alternative is expected to be approximately $6.2 million more favourable by 2031 (in current dollars) than with the “60% intensification” alternative. This is the result of:

· Operating Costs: mainly attributable to reduced road and stormwater management requirements (i.e. maintenance and lifecycle funding) under the “no boundary expansion” alternative – approximately $3.9 million/year

· Operating Revenues: higher levels of tax revenues collected under the “no boundary expansion” alternative – approximately $2.3 million/year

Since the tax base will be approximately 40% higher than current levels (because of population growth), this $6.2 million would equate to an approximate 4% difference on the tax rate between the “no boundary expansion” alternative and the “60% intensification” alternative. It is important to note that this impact is calculated at full build out and that the incremental increase to the operating budget under the “60% intensification” alternative would be manageable (i.e. increasing the operating budget by $300,000 per year cumulatively, would result in a $6 million increase to the base budget after 20 years).

Financial Summary

The “no boundary expansion” alternative is anticipated to result in lower capital costs of approximately $185 million (largely funded by developers) and a $6.2 million/year more favourable result with respect to operating costs. However, the “no boundary expansion” alternative requires an increase in high density market share that has not historically been met in Markham. Not achieving the 2031 population and employment allocation targets may require the Town to be responsible for funding the required infrastructure through the tax rate that otherwise would be paid through development charges, as well as funding the associated operating and future replacement costs without the corresponding tax revenues. These financial risks related to market absorption should be taken into account when assessing the financial benefit of the “no boundary expansion” alternative.

Potential Financial Risk Should to be Addressed Through Monitoring

There can be risk associated with assumptions regarding the future flow of development charges, based on the forecast growth, market response, the “take-up” of land for development, and the delivery of infrastructure, inherent in any growth alternative. As reliance on more extreme shifts in the market to achieve an alternative increases, so may the risk that revenues may not be sufficient, or timely, to implement the alternative. If for example, the housing market fails to deliver a unit mix on which an alternative relies to generate development charges, the anticipated revenues could be less than anticipated, or ill-timed to fund infrastructure improvements.

Possible consequences could include delays in the recovery of capital investments, increased debt funding costs, delays in capital works programs and the need to support capital works through property taxes. For this reason ongoing monitoring of market and financial performance will be essential, to signal the possible need for corrective measures to avoid an unsustainable financial future.

4.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis

The Town has engaged H.B. Lanarc Consultants Ltd. (the Town’s consultant on the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan,) to compare the “60% intensification” and “no boundary expansion” alternatives in terms of forecast greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, based on buildings and transportation modeling assumptions to 2031.

The preliminary findings of this work indicate that:

· there is projected to be an overall decline in total GHG emissions of about 14% between 2007 and 2031 in both alternatives; the decline reflects assumptions used in the consultants’ model relating to improved energy efficiency through updated building code regulations and improved fuel efficiency through new vehicle performance regulations;

· at 2021, the “no boundary expansion” alternative results in about 2.5% less total GHG emissions, and at 2031 only about 0.4% less than the “60% intensification” alternative; and,

· the “no boundary expansion” alternative results in a small reduction in transportation sector GHG emissions, compared to the “60% intensification” alternative.

Overall, the results indicate that the land use and transportation characteristics of the alternatives do not demonstrate significant variation in the modeled future GHG emissions. A report on the overall study will be brought forward when the analysis is completed, including strategies to mitigate greenhouse gases based on the growth alternative to be endorsed by Council.

4.4 Markham’s Integrated Community Sustainability Plan

The preparation of an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) or “Green Print” is one of many initiatives arising from the strategic priorities identified by Council for “Building Markham’s Future Together”. The Plan is intended to outline a strategy to protect Markham’s environment, economic prosperity and social well-being. The Markham Sustainability Office was established in July, 2008. A Steering Committee first met in October, 2008 and a consultant (H.B. Lanarc) was selected to prepare an ICSP in May 2009. Work has proceeded on consultation, and the preparation of a draft Green Print Plan is scheduled for completion by June, 2010, and will be the subject of further public consultation.

The wealth of work completed to date in support of developing a preferred growth alternative and the resulting public comment, contributed to development of the ICSP goals. This includes work in the areas of the natural environment, agriculture, municipal servicing, transportation and transit, cycling and pedestrian networks, distribution and forms of growth, housing and employment and economic development. There were comments provided at the recent public meetings that relate to most of the ICSP goals (identified in the November 17 2009 report, Appendix A), although not expressed in this context.

The staff report of November 17, 2009, outlined the ICSP goals and noted that the programs to be developed for implementing the goals will assist in refining, enhancing and strengthening policies to implement the preferred growth alternative. Comments from the recent meetings can be expected to assist in refining these programs as they enjoy further public discussion in the months ahead. The resulting ICSP will guide Town and community efforts around implementing specific Action Plans for each strategic priority in order to meet the demands of a growing community in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable way.

5. COMPARING ALTERNATIVES FOR GROWTH

In the report of November 17, 2009, Staff outlined the growth alternatives that had been considered to that date and discussed with the public. More recent discussions at the DSC and Council have resulted in some five alternatives being specifically noted, or alluded to, in the submissions to the recent public information meetings. The alternatives have in common that the majority of growth to 2031 (80% to 100%) will be accommodated within the current settlement area, but vary in relation to whether any outward expansion of the settlement area should be employed to accommodate a portion of the forecast growth.

The public comments were polarized relative to two base alternatives:

· one involving an extension to the current settlement area to accommodate some (approximately 20%) of the additional population and employment growth forecast to occur by 2031, or,

· one not involving any extension to the current settlement area, with the intention to accommodate forecast growth only within the current settlement area.

Public comments then may also have addressed variations on each of the two base alternatives. In the case of the first base alternative the amount of residential intensification within the current settlement area is varied. These variations in the alternatives are represented by:

1. the “52% intensification” alternative, generally understood to be the alternative proposed by the Region of York; and,

2. the “60% intensification” alternative, the alternative identified as preferred and recommended by Staff in the November 17 2009 report.

The essential difference between these two alternatives relates to the number and mix of dwelling units, assumed to comprise the Town’s housing stock.

In the case of the second base alternative, the three variations appear to include:

3. the “no urban boundary expansion” alternative, accommodating all forecast growth within the current settlement area. The DSC directed staff to consider this alternative in some of the growth related studies;

4. the “60% intensification alternative” plus no urban boundary expansion, accommodating less than the full forecast population, and presumably employment, growth ( ie. the proposal by Regional Councillors Heath and Virgillio). Council deferred a notice of motion relating to this matter on February 3 2010 “until such time as the "Markham's Growth Alternatives to 2031" is [sic] considered by Council”; and,

5. “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”, accommodating all forecast growth within the current settlement area, plus incorporating the lands outside the current settlement area into the Provincial Greenbelt. This proposal was introduced by Councillors Burke and Shapero in December 2009, and authorized by Council for consideration during public consultation.

Alternatives 4 and 5 do not have a formal status and have not yet been addressed by Council.

Alternative 3 was requested by Council to be modeled, for comparison to Alternative 2, above. In the November 17, 2009 report, Staff outlined concerns with Alternative 3 (Appendix A, page 22) and advised that in the opinion of Staff and Town Consultants, that although this alternative can be modeled, it cannot be supported as viable within the planning timeframe because it is so significantly at variance with expected market preferences for housing and business accommodation, and relative to the provisions of senior government growth policy.

Alternatives 4 and 5 were introduced by Members of Council for consideration following the completion of most of the technical work in support of developing a preferred growth management strategy for the Town. Both represent modified versions of other alternatives, specifically Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. Staff believes that Alternative 4 would fail to meet the requirements of senior government growth policy. Alternative 5 shares the shortcomings of Alternative 3, noted above, to which it most closely relates.

Based on the public submissions and comments regarding alternatives, Staff observes that:

· the most numerous expressions of support and opposition reflected in the submissions related to “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal”;

· the commentary on “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal” focused almost exclusively on matters pertaining to agriculture and the natural environment, rather than the implications of the proposal for managing growth;

· in the absence of specific statements regarding growth, it can only be assumed that expressions of support for “Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal” reflect support for the “no urban boundary expansion alternative”;

· in regard to alternatives incorporating an extension of the current settlement area, the expressed support for the “60% intensification alternative” modestly exceeded that expressed for the “52% intensification alternative”;

· the support expressed for the “52% and 60% intensification alternatives” sometimes elaborated on how these alternatives reflect the current success and attractions of Markham as a family community in which to live and work;

· there was limited comment regarding transferring forecast growth from Markham,

· concern was expressed regarding increased residential intensification, notably the significant intensification under the “no urban boundary expansion alternative”; and,

· regardless of the alternative preferred, there were expressions of support for protecting Markham’s natural environment and agricultural activity in Markham.

The public submissions received, represent the opinions of those who provided them, and clearly point to a wide diversity of opinion. The submissions can inform, but should not by themselves form the basis for, a Town decision regarding the preferred growth alternative for Markham to 2031.

6. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING RECENT SUBMISSIONS

The February public information meetings provided an opportunity for the community to again express opinions on growth management in Markham. Staff regards the wide range of comment recently received as indicative of the differing interests underlying the opinions expressed. The divergent opinions expressed echo the range of opinion heard during the community consultations in 2009. The issues and priorities generally expressed by the public include potential impacts of continued growth on the character of existing neighbourhoods, traffic movements and transit service, the pace of growth, municipal service levels and access to community facilities, delivery of infrastructure, costs for services, achieving balance in the delivery of housing and employment opportunities, and environmental protection. In the recent consultation however, these matters were often elaborated on less, compared with the debate around growing the Greenbelt to support agriculture.

Staff has considered the information in the recent submissions within the continuum of comment throughout the consultation process extending back to 2007, both general comment around the themes of growth and comments specific to the various focused initiatives supporting the overall growth management priority.

In instances where growth was commented on in a manner specific enough to ascertain an opinion on an alternative, a range of opinion was apparent. Based on a review of the submissions, and taking into account:

· the strategic priorities of “Building Markham’s Future Together”,

· the body of work completed by the Town and the professional advice provided in support of growth management,

· the planning context established in senior government Plans and legislation, and,

· the recommendations provided to date, to Council, and the recommendations endorsed by Council.

Staff concludes, that the growth alternative identified in the report of November 17, 2009 remains our best advice and recommendation to Markham Council, as the preferred Town growth alternative to 2031.

7.0 RECOMMENDED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE

The Recommended Growth Alternative presented in the November 17, 2009 report:

· accommodates the forecast growth for Markham to 2031, while conforming to the growth policy framework established in the Provincial Growth Plan and new York Region Official Plan,

· in keeping with Council’s preference, emphasizes intensification within the current settlement area and limits additional outward growth,

· provides for a mix of additional housing to 2031, including intensification at appropriate locations (Figure 2), consistent with Council’s expressed objective to exceed minimum intensification requirements, while further diversifying the Town housing stock to serve the growing and changing population,

· provides for employment intensification at appropriate locations (Figure 2) and supporting transit, as well as increasing the supply of land for employment to competitively accommodate employment growth,

· integrates with the markets for housing and employment development in Markham based on reasonable assumptions of future shifts in the markets,

· provides for a housing mix and a range of jobs supportive of improved live-work opportunities within the Town,

· provides a Town Greenway System (Figure 1), of more than 7,400 ha integrated with lands for growth and agriculture,

· provides an enhanced operating context for agriculture in Markham, supporting farming, on lands within the 8,700 ha located outside the recommended settlement area and not devoted to environmental protection,

· as provided for in senior government policy, incorporates an extension to the current settlement area (Figure No. 3) of approximately 900 ha in area to be phased over the forecast period to 2031; the extension has been kept to a minimum by accommodating about 80% of the forecast residential and employment growth within the current settlement area,

· provides the opportunity to accommodate more than 600,000 residents and jobs, over 90% of the 2031 combined total, within the current settlement area,

· offers support and opportunity for the further application of sustainable community design, transit investment, infrastructure improvement, a diversity of housing and

employment opportunities, and continued investment in Markham, contributing to a vibrant and resilient economy,

· aligns with the transportation/ transit initiatives proposed by Metrolinx and the Region,

· will include new, sustainable communities, leading the GTA in water and energy management, wellness, accessibility, biodiversity, equity, and choice,

· provides the essential information regarding growth to complete implementing initiatives related to transportation, community and serving infrastructure, finance and the goals established for the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan,

· provides the basis for infrastructure and financial analysis to refine and address matters such as infrastructure improvements, costs, financing demands and abilities and to relate these to development phasing, and,

· provides the basis to proceed with preparation of a new Town Official Plan.

8.0 OFFICIAL PLAN CONFORMITY

The requirements of Provincial legislation obligate the Town to bring its Official Plan into conformity with Provincial Acts and Plans, and the Region of York Official Plan. Policy revision and the introduction of new policies to ensure conformity with senior government policy will be needed to bring Markham’s Official Plan into conformity.

The Town is required by legislation to bring its Official Plan into conformity with the Provincial Growth Plan by June 2009. Although an extension of up to one year to meet this requirement was requested by Council in February, 2009, no response from the Province has been received. As a practical matter, the Town must concurrently bring its Official Plan into conformity with the new Regional Official Plan, adopted in December 2009, and scheduled for Provincial approval in 2010. A preferred growth alternative must be endorsed by Council as the basis for preparing a new Town Official Plan, and as input to completing other Town initiatives identified in “Building Markham’s Future Together”. The process for addressing the requirements of the Planning Act and other Provincial Plans for review/revision of the Official Plan and ultimately Town zoning, will be the subject of a future reports.

The ongoing monitoring of growth and preparation of a new Town Official Plan will require continuing consideration of intensification policies and the land needed to accommodate future Town growth. There will continue to be public input and meetings through the Official Plan process.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND TEMPLATE: (external link)

There are no direct financial implications as a result of this report. Finance Department Staff and the Town’s consultant, Watson & Associates, are undertaking a Financial Analysis to examine financial implications and to develop a financial strategy to implement the growth alternative to be endorsed by Council.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:

The preferred growth alternative for Markham to 2031, outlined in this report, delivers the basis for completion of a growth management strategy in accordance with the first strategic area of focus, Growth Management, identified in BMFT. It also contributes to the completion of other initiatives identified in BMFT that are dependent on Council confirming a Town growth alternative.

BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:

Business Units across the Town have been consulted on the preparation of the various growth alternatives. Planning and Urban Design Department Staff have been asked to participate in several BMFT initiatives to ensure consistency with growth planning. The Directors Forum has regularly received status updates and provided input on the work toward a Growth Management Strategy.

RECOMMENDED BY:

________________________ ________________________

Jim Baird, M.C.I.P, R.P.P. Valerie Shuttleworth, M.C.I.P, R.P.P.

Commissioner, Development Services Director of Planning & Urban Design

ATTACHMENTS:

Figure No. 1 Proposed Town Greenway System

Figure No. 2 Potential Intensification Areas and Rapid Transit Improvements

Figure No. 3 Preferred Growth Alternative to 2031

Appendix ‘A’ Staff Report dated November 17 2009, entitled Preferred Markham Growth Alternative to 2031

Appendix ‘B’ Resolution of Development Services Committee, November 17, 2009, on Preferred Markham Growth Alternative to 2031

Appendix ‘C’ Resolution of Council, December 1, 2009, on Agricultural Assessment Study

Appendix ‘D’ Resolution of Development Services Committee, February 2, 2010, on Markham’s Permanent Foodbelt Proposal

Appendix ‘E’ Minutes and Resolution of Development Services Committee, March 2, 2010, on Growing the Greenbelt

Appendix ‘F’ Minutes of Public Information Meeting, January 12, 2010, on Agricultural Strategy and Rouge Park Draft Agricultural Policy and Guidelines

Appendix ‘G’ Minutes of Public Information Meeting , Markham’s Growth Alternatives to 2031, February 16 and 17, 2010

Appendix ‘H’ Resolution of Council, March 24, 2010, on establishing a Markham Agricultural Advisory Committee

Appendix ‘I’ Growth Management Strategy Handout, February 16 and 17, 2009 Public Information Meeting

Appendix ‘J’ Clarification of Matters Raised through the Public Consultation

Appendix ‘K’ Resolution of Development Services Committee, February 9, 2010, on Financial Evaluation to the Growth Management Strategy

Appendix 'L' Resolution of Council February 9, 2010 on Notice of Motion Relating to Reduction of Markham Population Forecast and No Change to Boundary of the Current Settlement Area

Q:\Development\Planning\MISC\MI 510 Growth Management 05-06\Reports\April 2010\DSC April 20 2010 Final3.doc