HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-061-06
~
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting:
Date:
Report #:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
PSD-061-06 File #: PLN 1.1.9
By-law #:
Subject:
REGIONAL SUBMISSION ON THE GREENBELT PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-061-06 be received;
2. THAT the Municipality of Clarington advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing, the Greenbelt Council and the Region of Durham that it does not support
amendments to the boundaries of the Greenbelt Plan, at this time;
3. THAT the Greenbelt Council be requested to review issues related to rural employment
uses in the Greenbelt;
4. THAT a copy of Report PSD-061-06 be forwarded to John Gerretsen, Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Municipal Affairs and Housing, Greenbelt Group; the
Greenbelt Council; the Region of Durham Planning Department and area municipalities;
and
5 THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Submitted by:
Reviewed bYV ~~
D (J J. Cmme, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu,
Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer
FUDJC/df
17 May 2006
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-061-06
PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 The Province has increasingly recognized the need to control sprawl, deal with gridlock
and protect natural features and agricultural land as the principle elements in
maintaining a strong economy: As part of the Liberal campaign platform, a Greenbelt
was proposed for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The new government introduced Bill
27, the Greenbelt Protection Act on December 16, 2003 to set the process in motion to
establish a permanent Greenbelt. The purpose of this Bill was to initiate a study to
establish a greenbelt around the GT A and place a one year moratorium on development
of urban uses outside of urban settlements.
1.2 On October 28, 2004 the Province introduced Bill 135 - The Greenbelt Act. The
Greenbelt Act became law on February 24, 2005 and the Greenbelt Plan came into
effect on February 28, 2005. The Act requires that all decisions for applications made
under the Planning Act, which were commenced on or after December 16, 2004 must
conform to the Plan.
1.3 The Plan does not allow for settlement areas outside the Greenbelt to expand into the
Greenbelt (Sec 3.4.2.3). For Clarington this means the northern and eastern boundary
of Courtice are fixed at the 1996 urban boundary as set out in the Official Plan. The
same is true of the western and northern boundary of Bowmanville. The Village of
Orono is entirely within the Greenbelt.
1.4 The Act requires municipalities to amend their official plans to conform with the
Greenbelt Plan through the 5-year review provisions of the Planning Act. The Act
provides for the review of the Greenbelt Plan every 10 years to determine if it should be
revised (Sec. 10 (1)).
1.5 The Act provides that the Minister may propose amendments to the Greenbelt Plan, in
respect of areas designated as Protected Countryside (Sec. 11 (1 )). However, the Act
does not allow for an amendment that would have the effect of reducing the total land
area within the Greenbelt Plan (Sec. 12 (2)).
2.0 REGIONAL RESOLUTION
2.1 On May 10, 2006, Regional Council directed regional staff to prepare a submission to
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Greenbelt Council on a variety of
Greenbelt implementation issues including adjustments to the boundaries of the
Greenbelt. Council's resolution is as follows:
a) THA T staff be directed to forward a submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing and the Greenbelt Council that incorporates the Region's issues with
the Greenbelt Plan, as identified in Report #2006-P-33 of the Commissioner of
Planning, and the following issues as set out in parts b) through e);
b) THA T the lands located between Audley RoadlLakeridge Road from Highway 401
to Taunton Road, in the Town of Ajax be designated future development area
~ ., .
REPORT NO.: PSD-061-06
PAGE 3
subject to the final alignment of the 401/407 Link and subject to removal from the
Greenbelt Plan;
c) THAT the lands located in the Townline Road area of the Municipality of Clarington
which are bounded by Townline Road, ,.pebbleston~ Road and the existing
Courtice Urban Area Boundary also be designated future development area
subject to removal from the Greenbelt Plan; .
d) THA T the lands located on the northeast comer of Nash Road and Hancock Road,
in the Municipality of Clarington also be designated future development area
subject to removal from the Greenbelt Plan; and
e) THA T the lands located north of Brawley Road, in the Town of Whitby, be removed
from the Greenbelt Plan to reflect the draft Greenbelt Plan area as shown in
Attachment #5 to Report #2006-P-38 of the Commissioner of Planning.
Report 2006-P-38 (an Addendum to 2006-P-33) and Report 2006-P-33 are provided in
Attachmenf 1.
2.2 It should be emphasized that Regional Council's resolution for Ajax and Clarington not
only recommends the removal from the Greenbelt, but it would designate these lands as
"future development area", thereby presumably giving instruction to regional staff to
include these lands as expansions to the urban area boundaries.
2.3 Although it was not explicit, the resolution provided for an increase in the Greenbelt in
the vicinity of the urban separator between Bowmanville and Courtice. These are the
lands south of Highway #2 (Hancock Road to Holt Road) that are currently designated
as Major Open Space. Regional staff have advised that this is set out in the Region's
Report 2006-P-33 as follows:
"In its submission to the Province on the Greenbelt Draft Plan, Regional
Council requested that Greenbelt include the Major Open Space urban
separator between Courtice and Bowmanville. However, the southerly
extent of the Greenbelt in this area is along Highway 2. It does not extend
to Highway 401 as per the ROP.
Unlike other issues discussed above, the inclusion of this recommendation
would have the effect of increasing the total land area of the Greenbelt
Plan. There does not appear to be any policies in the Plan that would
preclude increasing the size of the Greenbelt. However, an amendment to
the Greenbelt Plan would be required nonetheless.
Consideration could be given to this area providing compensation for
removal of Greenbelt lands in other locations. n (Sections 3.24 to 3.26)
Regional staff advised that the submission will include a request to extend the
Greenbelt as shown on Attachment 2. The total area to be added is approximately 1990
acres.
REPORT NO.: PSD-061-06
PAGE 4
2.4 The Region's resolution proposes that four areas totaling 2,860 acres be removed from
the Greenbelt.
1)
East Ajax
approximately 350 hectares (910 acres) between Audley
Road and Lakeridge Road south of Taunton Road.
2)
North Whitby -
approximately 560 hectares (1456 acres) north of Brawley
Road.
3) Two areas on the north-west and north-east sides of Courtice which are
described in more detail below:
a) North-west: Bounded by Pebblestone Road to the north, the urban
boundary to the east and south (from McLean Road to 70 metres north of
Lawson Road) and Townline. This area has a total of 383 acres; however;
once the existing estate residential on Timberlane, Gearings and Kresia
are removed, and the Provincially Significant Wetland area plus the
fragmented ownership along Townline, the amount of land that might be
developable is approximately 120 acres. That acreage does not include
the buffers that would be required around the wetland areas and the future
alignment of Adelaide Avenue.
b) North-east: Bounded by Hancock Road on the west and Nash Road on
the south, this is 114 acres; with 97 that might be developable; however,
this calculation does not include the buffers that would be required around
the wetland area (in the north) anq the valley on the south-east corner.
Both of these areas in Courtice are within the Lake Iroquois Shoreline, characterized by
sandy soils and a high water table. It is a significant hydrogeological feature.
2.5 Other issues that affect Clarington, addressed in the Region's Report # 2000-P-33 as
referenced in part (a) of the resolution, are Rural Employment Areas and the servicing
of Orono addressed in Section 5 of this report.
3.0 BASIS OF THE GREENBELT PLAN
3.1 The broad objectives of the Greenbelt Plan are to protect the environment, protect
prime agricultural lands and promote healthy, vibrant rural communities. From Niagara
to Clarington, the Greenbelt Plan encompasses approximately 1.8 million acres of land.
This includes lands currently protected by the Niagara Escarpment Plan (NEP) and the
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and approximately 1 million acres of
new lands. The lands beyond the NEP and ORMCP, but within the Greenbelt are
designated "Protected Countryside".
REPORT NO.: PSD-061-06
PAGE 5
3.2 The Protected Countryside is made up of the following areas:
· an Agricultural System that includes Specialty Crop Areas, Prime Agricultural Land,
and Rural Areas,
· a Natural System comprised of a Natural Heritage System and a Water Resource
System;
· Settlement Areas, and
· Parkland, Open Space and Trails.
3.3 The components of the Agricultural System have the following purpose:
a) Prime Agricultural Areas are those areas where Canada Land Inventory Classes
1,2, and 3 soils predominate. The Prime Agricultural Area policies support normal
farm practices and a full range of agricultural, agricultural related and secondary
uses. These areas cannot be re-designated in municipal official plans for non-
agricultural uses. Urban expansions are not permitted into Prime Agricultural Areas.
b) Rural Areas are characterized by a mixture of agricultural lands, natural features,
recreational and historic land uses. Agriculture and agriculturally related uses
continue to be recognized and are supported within the Rural Areas. Recreational,
tourism, leisure uses and resource based uses are permitted within the Rural Areas.
Countryside or estate residential developments are not permitted in the Rural Areas.
3.4 The Natural System policies protect areas of significant and/or sensitive natural
heritage, hydrologic and landform values and consists of a Natural Heritage System and
a Water Resource System. The Natural System includes areas where there is a high
concentration of natural heritage, hydrologic and landform features (Key Natural
Heritage Features). A full-range of agricultural uses can continue to occur in the Natural
System and new development and site alteration is subject to environmental studies to
determine if there will be any negative effects on a natural feature or its function.
Development or site alteration is generally prohibited within Key Natural Heritage
Features.
3.5 Settlement Areas include towns, villages and hamlets. Towns and villages are
permitted modest growth at the 10 year review if servicing capacity exists. However new
Great Lakes-based servicing is prohibited.
3.6 Parkland, Open Space and Trails recognize existing trails, conservation areas,
provincial and municipal parks within the Greenbelt and supports increasing the supply
of publicly accessible lands. Municipalities are encouraged to provide a range of
publicly accessible built and natural settings for recreation. Municipal official plans
should incorporate strategies to guide the adequate provision of recreation facilities,
parklands, open space areas and trails.
3.7 Non-Agricultural Use Policies of the Greenbelt Plan
The Greenbelt Plan contains policies dealing with mineral aggregates, infrastructure
and non-agricultural uses. Non-agricultural uses are not permitted within Prime
Agricultural Areas, but may be permitted in other areas. Non-agricultural uses include
passive and active recreational and tourism uses, including golf courses, as well as
REPORT NO.: PSD-061-06
PAGE 6
commercial, industrial and institutional uses that serve the rural and agricultural sectors.
In recognition of the future need for infrastructure and mineral aggregates, the draft
Greenbelt Plan permits these uses provided adverse effects are minimized. Aggregate
extraction is prohibited within Key Natural Heritage Features, but may be permitted in
significant woodland if the woodland is occupied by a young plantation or early
successional habitat.
3.8 Boundary of the Greenbelt
The boundary of the Greenbelt Plan is defined by the Surveyor General, and
established by Ontario Regulation. The boundary of t~e Greenbelt has been fixed with
precision.
4.0 CLARINGTON'S PREVIOUS COMMENTS ON THE GREENBELT
4.1 On December 13, 2004 Council endorsed Report PSD-160-04 (Resolution GPA-488-
04) as the Municipalities comments which is summarized in the following sections.
4.2 The Establishment of a Greenbelt is supported
Over the last 25 years, the forces of growth around Toronto have proven to be strong,
complex and creating an array of problems that are increasingly difficult for government
and business. Regional government has not been successful in providing a overall
approach to address growth issues in the GT A. The establishment of a Greenbelt is an
important new planning tool to provide a structure for growth. By first identifying the
areas where urban growth should not occur, the groundwork is laid for the development
of a growth plan. Obviously, both plans must work in tandem and it will be important to
understand how both plans will intersect. Despite the significant erosion of regional
planning function, the Greenbelt Plan will provide a comprehensive and stable planning
environment that will enable area municipalities to plan their detailed growth plans.
Clarington supports the vision of the draft Greenbelt Plan to permanently protect the
countryside to ensure that agriculture, natural systems and continued opportunities for
recreation and tourism are provided for future generations.
4.3 The Greenbelt should be tightly aligned around existing urban centres
Provincial officials have indicated that the Unprotected Countryside includes almost
double the amount of new urban lands anticipated to be required in the next 30 years.
By having such a large area for possible urban expansions, there is limited incentive to
adjust development patterns to more sustainable forms. The Province should consider
a more tightly aligned Greenbelt around existing urban centres to ensure that the status
quo development situation does not continue for years to come.
4.4 Defining the south limit of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline
Clarington has identified the limit of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline in the Official Plan
based on Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Environmental Sensitivity
Mapping Project prepared by Gartner Lee Associates Limited in 1978 and Physiography
of Canada by Chapman and Putnam, 1984. The Provinces draft Greenbelt Plan limit
REPORT NO.: PSD-061-06
PAGE 7
did not incorporate hydrogeologic features such as seepage areas and springs. The
final plan took into account the extent and limits of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline. The
Province has assured Clarington that they have a good scientific definition of the Lake
Iroquois Shoreline, the south limit of the shoreline defines the general limit of the
Greenbelt in Clarington from Courtice to Newcastle. The Greenbelt Plan includes the
Provincially Significant Wetlands such as the Harmony/Farewell Wetland Complex and
the Black/Farewell Wetland Complex and the Maple Grove Wetland Complex all of
which were being defined during the year between the draft and final plan.
4.5 As a minimum, the future extension of Adelaide Avenue should be used as the
southerly limit of the Greenbelt between Townline and the Farewell Creek in
Courtice
During the review of the draft Greenbelt Plan, Clarington Council requested that the
Province consider the preferred alignment of Adelaide Avenue be determined by the
Class Environmental Assessment' from Townline Road to Trulls Road. The future
extension of Adelaide Avenue had been generally interpreted to represent the northern
urban limit of Courtice. However, when the final Greenbelt boundary was issued the
Province did not consider this request, r~ther they maintained the firm edge of the urban
boundary as 75 to 140 metres north of Lawson Road.
5.0 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICY REVISIONS TO GREENBELT PLAN
Desionation of Rural Emolovment Lands
5.1 The Region is requesting that the Greenbelt Plan be amended to provide opportunities
for the designation of employment lands in rural communities. The Greenbelt Plan
currently does not allow for the designation of new or expansions to existing rural
employment areas. The Greenbelt Plan only permits resource-based commercial and
industrial, recreational, tourism and leisure based uses in rural areas. This pre-empts
the Region's Official Plan (ROP) which permits the same uses in Rural Employment
lands as in urban, provided they are dry in nature.
5.2 Much of Clarington is in the Greenbelt and is rural, as such this policy would benefit
Clarington in being able to designate additional rural employment lands; it could be
especially beneficial for the landscape industry, construction industry or other industrial
uses that do not require servicing. However care would be required in crafting a policy
that would limit the geographic extent, location and types of industrial uses that may be
appropriate.
Servicino of Orono
5.3 The Region has raised a concern with the policy prohibiting the extension or expansion
of Great Lakes based water and sewer systems to settlement areas within the Protected
Countryside, particularly Orono. The Region is requesting that the Greenbelt Plan allow
the opportunity to provide lake-based services to Orono, consistent with the policies of
REPORT NO.: PSD-061-06
PAGE 8
the ROP that indicate long-term intent to investigate the provision of municipal services
to that community.
5.4 The approved Greenbelt Plan surrounds the Village of Orono which restricts the
expansion of Orono regardless of its servicing constraints.
5.5 Lake-based services would only be expanded to Orono if there were either a health risk,
which both the ROP and Greenbelt Plan have exception policies for, or an economic
argument could be made for the expenditure of funds to service the area. The
economic argument would include both the proximity to the existing sewers and
significant new growth.
5.6 The build out of north Newcastle anticipated in 10-20 years, would bring the services
about within striking distance of Orono. As such, municipal services for Orono are not
in the 10 year forecast of the Region's Development Charges Study. Thus, currently, to
provide a lake-based sewage system to Orono is well beyond the planning horizon.
The 10 year review of the Greenbelt Plan would provide a forum for discussion of lake-
based servicing and urban boundary expansion for Orono.
6.0 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED BOUNDARY AJUSTMENTS
6.1 The Greenbelt Plan supports many of the goals and objectives of the Clarington Official
Plan and provides further support for the protection of agricultural lands and the natural
system helping to maintain the rural atmosphere of Clarington and preserve agriculture
as a key economic force within this Municipality.
6.2 The Greenbelt Plan has identified areas for permanent protection and focused the
potential for growth to very specific areas. For instance, the Plan has curtailed northern
expansion of the urban areas of Bowmanville and Courtice. However the possibility for
future urban expansion to the east and west of Bowmanville and east of Courtice, south
of Highway 2 may exist depending on release of the Province's Growth Plan and if the
Region and Clarington can justify such an expansion.
6.3 While there are arguments that can be put forward for the exclusion of the north-east
and north-west lands in Courtice from the Greenbelt, that occurred during the review
process between the introduction of the draft and the final Greenbelt Plan. The two
areas in Clarington that the Region is recommending for exclusion from the Greenbelt
were reviewed in detail by the Province, since they were the subject of submissions by
the land owners and Municipality. The Province chose to include these lands within the
Greenbelt boundary; as such, it is highly unlikely that a year later they will reconsider
these boundaries, given the scrutiny and study devoted to establishing a scientific and
defensible boundary.
6.4 When the final Greenbelt boundary was issued an error was made regarding the limit of
the Greenbelt boundary on the north-west side of Bowmanville (it dips inside the current
urban boundary). Although Clarington has requested the Province to correct the error
and the Province has acknowledged that this boundary should follow the existing urban
REPORT NO.: PSD-061-06
PAGE 9
boundary, they have indicated that planning should proceed under other policies of the
Greenbelt Plan rather than amending the boundary. We believe this is an indication of
how reluctant the Province is to amend the boundary especially at this early stage.
6.5 Clarington has not carried out the necessary background studies to provide any new
arguments for the removal of the Courtice lands from the Greenbelt. The sub-
watershed plans and environmental studies necessary to determine the development
potential of the lands have not been undertaken. There is good evidence that the areas
partially act as shallow aquifers within the Lake Iroquois Shoreline and as such
development would be questionable. We support the recommendations of the
Greenbelt study that the adjustments of boundaries be part of a comprehensive review
at a future date.
6.6 The Durham Region Official Plan is a comprehensive review; however, the urban
boundary expansions as set out in the Region's Report 2006-P-39 on the Official Plan
Review (Map A5 - Attachment 3) do not have a connection with the request for
Greenbelt boundary adjustments. To our knowledge, they are not part of the land
needs analysis put forward by Regional Planning.
6.7 The staff recommendation of the Durham Region Official Plan Review is to provide
sufficient land without encroaching on the Greenbelt to the year 2031 and beyond.
6.8 It is pre-mature to request an adjustment to the Greenbelt Boundary in Courtice given
where the Province is in the EA study for the 407; the recommendations are being
made based on what is anticipated to be the alignment, which may not come to fruition.
6.9 The Regional position does not seek to address the provisions of the Greenbelt Plan
that allows for amendments provided that it does not have the effect of reducing the
total land area. While the acreage does not add up it can be assumed that
"compensation" for the removal of lands from the Greenbelt in Whitby and Ajax is being
partially addressed by the addition of lands in Clarington.
6.10 It is pre-mature to request the inclusion of additional lands in the "urban separator"
within the Greenbelt Area, at this time. The area recommended may have the future
Highway 407 corridor within it. This would potentially be an area for future employment
lands in subsequent planning periods. Given this and the issues of farming in close
proximity to urban areas it maybe prudent to maintain these lands as open space so
that other uses not allowed within the Greenbelt could be considered. Moreover, the
permanent protection of the agricultural lands between Newcastle and Bowmanvi/le
would have greater merit to be added to the Greenbelt from an agricultural perspective.
6.11 The Town of Ajax passed a resolution on May 8, 2006 in opposition to the Regional
Council's position to delete lands in Ajax from the Greenbelt.
REPORT NO.: PSD-061-06
PAGE 10
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Given the response by the Province to arguments put forward previously on these lands
and other issues, we anticipate that the Province will not consider any changes and that
the Region's submission will be futile.
7.2 If the Region's position was accepted, it would have a significant impact on Clarington.
It is recommended that Council advise the Minister of the Municipality's position on the
Greenbelt Boundaries. It is further recommended that the Greenbelt Council further
review the issue of rural employment uses and make recommendations to the Minister.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Report 2006-P-33 and Region Report 2006-P-38 (an Addendum to Report
2006-P-33 )
Attachment 2 - Map of boundary adjustments recommended in the Region's Report for
Clarington
Attachment 3 - Map A5, Recommended Urban Area Expansions for Courtice and
Bowmanville, Durham Region Official Plan Review
Interested parties to be notified of Council's decision:
John Gerretson, Minister of Municipal Affairs
Greenbelt Council
Victor Doyle, Ministry of Municipal Affairs
Nash Road Developments Inc.
Dunbury Homes
Linda Gasser
Libby Racansky
Joanne Bruno
Victor Humphreys
Regional Planning Department
Kevin Tunney
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-061-06
The Regional Municipality of Durham
To: The Planning Committee
From: Commissioner of Planning
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Date: April 4, 2006
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Issues Related to the Implementation of the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and
the Greenbelt Plan, File: L 14-03-06
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT, should Committee wish to proceed with requests to the Province to amend the
Greenbelt Plan outside the 10-year review, staff be directed to prepare a submission to
the Greenbelt Council on the Region's issues, for Planning Committee consideration
and recommendation to Council.
REPORT:
1. PURPOSE
1.1 On March 14, 2006, Planning Committee directed staff to review various
issues related to the implementation of the Greenbelt Plan and to report on
April 4, 2006.
1.2 The purpose of this report is to:
. provide an overview of the relevant provisions of the Greenbelt Act (the
Act) and/or policies of the Greenbelt Plan (the Plan);
. present a brief overview of various issues identified by the Region; and
. recommend possible approaches to addressing the issues.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The following provides a summary of key elements of the Greenbelt Act and
the Greenbelt Plan:
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page NO.2
· The Greenbelt Act became law on February 24, 2005 and the Greenbelt
Plan came into effect on February 28,2005;
· The Act requires that all decisions for applications made under the
Planning Act, which were commenced on or after December 16, 2004,
must conform to the Plan (Sec. 7. (1) and 24. (1 ));
· Applications, matters or proceedings that commenced prior to December
16,2004, are not required to conform to the Plan (Sec. 24. (2)). In the
case of a new official plan or an amendment thereto, such as the Regional
Official Plan (ROP) Review, the Act deems that the matter would have
commenced on the day the by-law adopting the amendment is passed
(Sec. 24. (2)). Since Regional Council has yet to adopt a by-law for an
amendment to implement the ROP Review, the forthcoming amendment
must conform to the Greenbelt Plan;
· The Plan allows settlement areas within the Protected Countryside (Le.
Uxbridge, Port Perry, Beaverton, Cannington and Sunderland) to consider
boundary expansions where a municipality had initiated the consideration
of a settlement expansion prior to the date the Greenbelt Plan came into
effect (Sec. 3.4.4.1). This opportunity is only available through the
municipal conformity exercise to incorporate the Greenbelt Plan into
municipal official plans (Le. one time only);
· The Plan does not allow for settlement areas outside the Greenbelt (i.e.
all of the Lake Ontario Shoreline Urban Areas) to expand into the
Greenbelt (Sec. 3.4.2.3);
· The Act requires municipalities to amend their official plans to conform
with the Greenbelt Plan through the 5-year review provisions of the
Planning Act. This is consistent with the approach to bring the ROP into
conformity with the Greenbelt Plan through the ROP Review process and
is consistent with previous directions given by Planning Committee in this
regard, as follows:
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page No. 3
- February 15, 2005, authorized proceeding with the preparation of draft
amendments to implement the commercial and rural components of
the Recommended Directions Report, including considerations for
Greenbelt Plan conformity (Commissioner's Report 2005-P-13);
- March 8, 2005, directed that the Greenbelt Plan approach to
agricultural designations be implemented through the ROP Review
(Commissioner's Report 2005-P-24);
- May 10, 2005, authorized proceeding with the preparation of draft
amendments to implement the environmental component of the
Recommended Directions Report, including considerations for
Greenbelt Plan conformity (Commissioner's Report 2005-P-40); and
- November 15, 2005, authorized the release of the proposed
amendment for the ROP Review, including amendments to address
Greenbelt Plan conformity (Commissioner's Report 2005-P-92);
. The Act provides for the review of the Greenbelt Plan every 10 years to
determine if it should be revised (Sec. 10. (1)); and
. The Act provides that the Minister may propose amendments to the
Greenbelt Plan, in respect of areas designated as Protected Countryside
(Sec. 11. (1)). However, the Act does not allow for an amendment that
would have the effect of reducing the total land area within the Greenbelt
Plan (Sec. 12. (2)).
3. ISSUES
3.1 The following provides an overview of various issues regarding the Greenbelt
Plan that have been identified in various submissions by the Region to the
Province and/or brought before Planning Committee.
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page NO.4
Desionation of Emplovment Lands
3.2 In its submission to the Province on the Greenbelt Draft Plan, the Region
requested that the Plan provide opportunities for the designation of
employment lands through expansions to urban areas and be sensitive to the
need for employment lands in rural communities. It also requested that the
Plan permit new or expansions to existing rural employment areas in
accordance with the policies of the ROP.
3.3 The approved Greenbelt Plan implemented the Region's request in part.
Section 3.4.4.1 allows boundary expansions for settlement areas within the
Protected Countryside (i.e. Uxbridge, Port Perry, Beaverton, Cannington and
Sunderland), where a municipality had initiated the consideration of a
settlement expansion prior to the date the Greenbelt Plan came into effect.
Since the ROP Review process was initiated prior to the Plan coming into
effect, consideration can be given to the expansion of these urban areas
where needed. This is a one time opportunity, only available when a
municipality is undertaking the Greenbelt Plan conformity exercise. Otherwise
expansions can only be considered at the 10-year Greenbelt plan review
period (2015).
3.4 Unfortunately, this approach is restrictive in that it would not allow immediate
consideration of expansions to urban areas (eg. Uxbridge where a need for
more employment land is recognized) that currently have infrastructure
capacity limitations. To deal with these circumstances, the Greenbelt
Plan should be modified to allow consideration of needed expansions
when constraints are overcome.
3.5 In terms of Rural Employment Areas, the Greenbelt Plan does not allow for
the designation of new or expansions to existing rural employment areas.
(The Plan only permits resource-based commercial and industrial,
recreational, tourism and leisure based uses in the rural areas.) This pre-
empts the Rural Employment Areas currently designated in the ROP. The
uses permitted by the current ROP in the Rural Employment Areas are the
same as those permitted in urban areas, provided they are dry in nature. As
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page NO.5
such, the ROP Review is recommending the deletion of policies permitting the
designation of new or expansion of existing Rural Employment Areas.
3.6 To permit the designation of new Rural Employment Areas or the
expansion of existing Rural Employment Areas the Greenbelt Plan
should be amended.
Servicina of Orono
3.7 In its submission to the Province on the Greenbelt Draft Plan, the Region
raised a concern with the policy prohibiting the extension or expansion of
Great Lakes based water and sewer systems to settlement areas within the
Protected Countryside, particularly Orono. The Region requested that the
Plan allow the opportunity to provide lake-based services to Orono, consistent
with the policies of the ROP that indicate a long-term intent to investigate the
provision of municipal services to that community.
3.8 The approved Greenbelt Plan does not include an exception that would allow
the extension lake based services to Orono, which severely restricts the
servicing options for that designated Urban Area.
3.9 To permit the further consideration of extending full municipal services
to Orono, an exception should be added to the infrastructure policies of
the Greenbelt Plan.
Desianation of Blackstock
3.10 In its submission to the Province on the Greenbelt Draft Plan, the Township of
Scugog requested that the community of Blackstock be recognized as an
Urban Area rather than a Hamlet. The submission recognized that, "The
community was a distinct incorporated municipality prior [to] restructuring, has
a municipal water service system and a full range of community facilities and
services1".
1 Township of Scugog, Report No. PLAN-2004-31, Title: Greenbelt Protection Act, December 6,2004.
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page No.6
3.11 On Schedule 1 of the approved Greenbelt Plan, Blackstock is recognized as a
"TownNillage", in accordance with the request of the Township,
notwithstanding that it is designated as a Hamlet in the Rap. As such, the
Greenbelt Plan would only permit its expansion to a larger settlement if it is
provided with full municipal services. As noted above, Blackstock is
currently serviced with a well based municipal water system. Sewage is
accommodated by individual systems. No study has been conducted no the
feasibility of providing a municipal sewage system to this settlement or the
potential for expansion of the community.
3.12 Discussions with Provincial staff revealed that it was not their intent to
designate Blackstock as a TownNillage. They indicated that the policies of
the Greenbelt Plan which refer to "Hamlets, as identified in municipal official
plans", reflect the intent of the Greenbelt Plan. As such the Greenbelt Plan
permits infill, intensification and minor rounding out of Hamlets. Accordingly,
Blackstock continues to be recognized as a Hamlet in the Rap Review,
therefore development may take place, in accordance with the relevant
policies of the ROP and the Greenbelt Plan.
Submission of the Audlev - Lakeridae Landowners Group
3.13 At the January 31,2006 statutory public meeting for Part 1 of the Rap
Review, Planning Committee received a deputation from Tunney Planning
Inc. on behalf of certain landowners in the Audley - Lakeridge area. Mr.
Tunney expressed concern with the Province having amended the Greenbelt
Draft Plan to include these lands within the Greenbelt without consultation
with the affected land owners. Mr. Tunney indicated that his clients wished
that the lands be removed from the Greenbelt, and remain in a Major Open
Space or agricultural designation and be governed by the Regional Official
Plan.
3.14 It is our understanding that the Province amended the extent of the Greenbelt
in the area of Audley and Lakeridge Roads in response to a request from the
Town of Ajax, "to include all the lands located north of Taunton Road and east
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page No. 7
of Audley Road in Ajax, that are designated Rural Area in the Ajax Official
Plan, as part of the Greenbelt Plan2".
3.15 The February 22, 2006 submission of Tunney Planning Inc. distributed at the
March 14, 2006 meeting of Planning Committee, confirms the submission he
made on January 31,2006. The submission, however, does not provide a
clear indication of what, if any, action his clients may wish the Region to take
on the Greenbelt Plan.
3.16 The original request of Mr. Tunney (January 31, 2006) is being given due
consideration through the ROP Review process. Given the requirement of
the Greenbelt Plan that the ROP be brought into conformity, and the direction
given by Planning Committee to implement the Greenbelt Plan, the
forthcoming recommendation to Planning Committee will be to include the
Greenbelt boundary in accordance with the approved Greenbelt Plan and to
retain the "Major Open Space" designation on these and other lands, which is
also in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan.
Pickerinq - Cherrvwood Communitv
3.17 In its submission to the Province on the Draft Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe (April 13, 2005), Regional Council requested:
· an amendment to the boundary of the 'Protected Countryside' under the
Greenbelt Plan to remove the lands in the Cherrywood Community in the
City of Pickering, and an amendment to the Greenbelt Plan to delete
Section 3.4.4.2 a); and
· that the Cherrywood Community be identified as a 'Designated Growth
Area'.
3.18 The above recommendation was consistent with the submission of the City of
Pickering on the Greenbelt Draft Plan, which requested that, "the southern
2 Town of Ajax Report to Community Affairs and Planning Committee, Subject: Greenbelt Protection
Legislation (Bill 135), Draft Greenbelt Plan, December 6. 2004.
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page No.8
boundary of the Agricultural Assembly (the Cherrywood community) be
excluded from the Greenbelt Plan3".
3.19 Implementation of this position is prevented by the Greenbelt Plan, as follows:
. the approved Greenbelt Plan recognizes all of the Lake Ontario shoreline
Urban Areas as "settlement areas outside the Greenbelt" (Schedule 1).
Settlement areas outside the Greenbelt are not permitted to expand into
the Greenbelt (Section 3.4.2.3).
. the policies of Section 3.4.4.1 (Le. permitting the consideration of
boundary expansions to settlement areas within the Greenbelt), do not
apply to settlement areas outside the Greenbelt; and
. Section 3.4.4.2 a) of the Plan specifically references the Cherrywood
community as being excluded from the provisions of Section 3.4.4.1.
Further, while the Act does provide powers for the Minister to amend the
Plan, it does not allow for an amendment to have the effect of reducing the
total land area within the Greenbelt Plan.
3.20 In order for the Cherrywood community to be considered as a candidate area
for urban boundary expansion, in addition to other considerations (Le. the
Central Pickering Development Plan, Minister's Zoning Order and the Duffins
Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act), the following would be required:
. the area would have to be removed from the Greenbelt and as a result, an
equivalent area of land would have to be added to maintain the total land
area of the Greenbelt; and
. Section 3.4.4.2 a) would have to be removed from the Plan.
Similar considerations would be required for any other changes in the
established Greenbelt boundary.
3 City of Pickering, Report to Council No. PD 47-04, Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan October 2004,
December 2,2004.
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page NO.9
Clarinoton - Townline Road Area
3.21 At the March 14,2006 Planning Committee meeting, the inclusion of the area
bounded by Townline Road, Pebblestone Road and the existing Courtice
Urban Area boundary in the Greenbelt, was questioned. It was suggested
that since full municipal services are available on Townline Road serving
lands to the west in the City of Oshawa, this area would be suited for urban
development.
3.22 This position is consistent with submissions made by the Municipality of
Clarington to the Province on the Greenbelt Draft Plan.
3.23 In order for the Townline/Pebblestone Road area to be considered as a
candidate area for urban boundary expansion, the area would have to be
removed from the Greenbelt and as a result, an equivalent area of land would
have to be added to maintain the total land area of the Greenbelt.
Urban Separator
3.24 In its submission to the Province on the Greenbelt Draft Plan, Regional
Council requested that Greenbelt include the Major Open Space urban
separator between Courtice and Bowmanville. However, the southerly extent
of the Greenbelt in this area is along Highway 2. It does not extend to
Highway 401 as per the ROP.
3.25 Unlike other issues discussed above, the inclusion of this recommendation
would have the effect of increasing the total land area of the Greenbelt Plan.
There does not appear to be any policies in the Plan that would preclude
increasing the size of the Greenbelt. However, an amendment to the
Greenbelt Plan would be required nonetheless.
3.26 Consideration could be given to this area providing compensation for removal
of Greenbelt lands in other locations.
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page No. 10
4. OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS ISSUES
4.1 Opportunities to affect changes to the Greenbelt Plan are restricted to the
following:
. The Greenbelt Act provides for the review of the Greenbelt Plan every 10
years, to determine if it should be revised. The 10-year review will take
place in 2015. There will be an opportunity for the Region and the area
municipalities to participate in the review process at that time;
. The Act provides that the Minister may propose amendments to the
Greenbelt Plan. Although, the Act does not specify a process, the Plan
provides that such amendments may be considered outside the 10-year
review where:
- there are major unforeseen circumstances, or major new Provincial
policy, legislation or regulation that create the need for an amendment;
- the overall effectiveness and integrity of the Plan would be threatened
if the amendment were deferred to the next 1 O-year review; or
- the effectiveness and/or relevance of the Plan's policies would be
improved through an amendment; and
. As provided in the Act, the Minister has appointed a Greenbelt Council,
whose mandate is, in part, to provide advice to the Minister on:
- municipal official plan conformity;
- possible regulations to the Act; and
- proposed amendments to the Plan.
It is noted that we are in receipt of correspondence from the Chair of the
Greenbelt Council in response to Regional Council's resolution in support
of a Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee resolution requesting
information from the Greenbelt Council (refer to Attachment 1). In that
correspondence the Greenbelt Council Chair states that,
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page No. 11
"The Council appreciates being made aware of concerns among
Greenbelt farmers, organizations and municipalities, as the
implementation of the Greenbelt unfolds over time, and as we gain
perspective on its impact. This could include the boundaries of the
Greenbelt area. In the future, if the Council identifies trends
with respect to Greenbelt delineation issues, or if the Minister
requests our advice, it would be within the Council's mandate
to offer our advice on criteria for refinement of Greenbelt
boundaries." [emphasis added]
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Since there is no clear process for applying to the Minister, and given the
Greenbelt Council's disposition to explore resolving delineation (boundary)
issues, the Greenbelt Council would appear to provide the best approach to
have the Region's issues considered.
5.2 Accordingly, should Planning Committee wish to make a submission to the
Greenbelt Council, direction is required on the specific issues to be
addressed.
5.3 The Planning Department's interpretation of Provincial Legislation in this
Report has been reviewed by the Legal Department.
A.L. Georgieff, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner of Planning
Report No.: 2006-P-33
Page No. 12
RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE
Garry H. Cubitt, M.S.W.
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment:
1.
Correspondence from Dr. Robert Elgie, Chair, Greenbelt
Council, February 20,2006
H:\ 1-2\agendas\2006\04-04-06\Greenbelt Plan.doc
The Regional Municipality of Durham
To: The Planning Committee
From: Commissioner of Planning
Report No.: 2006-P-38
Date: April 25, 2006
(This is an addendum Report to Commissioner's Report No. 2006-P-33)
SUBJECT:
Consideration of Issues Related to the Implementation of the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and
the Greenbelt Plan, File: L 14-03-06
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT, should Planning Committee wish to proceed with requests to the Province to
amend the Greenbelt Plan outside the 10-year review, staff be directed to prepare a
submission to the Greenbelt Council on the Region's issues, for Planning Committee
consideration and recommendation to Council.
REPORT:
1. PURPOSE
1.1 On April 4, 2006, Planning Committee considered a report presenting
information on various issues raised by Committee on the Greenbelt Plan (CR
2006-P-33 - Attachment 1), including an overview of the relevant provisions
of the Greenbelt Act (the Act) and the Greenbelt Plan (the Plan) and possible
approaches to addressing the issues.
1.2 Planning Committee subsequently referred a series of motions (refer to
Attachment 2) on the matter to its April 25, 2006 meeting and directed staff to
provide:
· further information on the Region's position on the Draft Greenbelt Plan
and illustration of the differences between the Draft and Approved Plan
boundary;
Report No.: 2006-P-38
Page NO.2
· clarification of the legal interpretation, particularly as they relate to
exemptions from the Greenbelt Plan; and
· recommendations for an appropriate process for proceeding in the midst
of the Regional Official Plan Review.
2. DRAFT AND APPROVED GREENBELT PLANS
Draft Greenbelt Plan
2.1 The Draft Greenbelt Plan was released by the Province for public
consultation on October 28, 2004. On December 7, 2004 Planning Committee
considered Report No. 2004-P-89 (Attachment 3) reviewing the Draft Plan
and recommending a Regional response.
2.2 Regional Council's resolution is Attachment 4. It is noted that Council
modified part xiv) of the Planning Department recommendation, requesting
that the Greenbelt Boundary be modified to conform to the easterly boundary
of the Hamlet of Greenwood, and part xvii), removing the reference to
maintaining the width of the open space between Ajax and Whitby.
2.3 Key issues identified in the Region's submission to the Province on the Draft
Greenbelt Plan include:
· withholding approval of the Greenbelt Plan until such time as the Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is finalized;
· providing municipalities with the flexibility to deal with expansions to urban
areas within the Greenbelt as part of a 5-year review of an official plan
rather than the proposed 10 year review;
· providing adequate opportunity for the designation of employment lands
through expansions to urban areas located within the Greenbelt and
recognition of the need for employment lands in rural communities; and
· allowing the extension or expansion of Great Lakes based water and
sewer systems to Orono.
Report No.: 2006-P-38
Page NO.3
2.4 The boundary of the Greenbelt as presented in the Draft Plan is illustrated in
Attachment 5 (Schedule 1: Greenbelt Plan Area DRAFT).
Approved Greenbelt Plan
2.5 The Approved Greenbelt Plan came into effect on February 28,2005. A
report, providing an overview of the Greenbelt Act and Approved Greenbelt
Plan and an assessment of how the Region's December 15, 2004 comments
were addressed, was considered by Planning Committee on March 8, 2005
(Commissioner's Report No. 2005-P-24, Attachment 6). It is noted that the
key issues identified in 2.3, above were not incorporated into the Approved
Greenbelt Plan. The report also noted that the Approved Plan incorporated
the following additional areas:
· lands south of the Oak Ridges Moraine: in Pickering, to just north of the
Eighth Concession; in Whitby, to Brawley Road; and in Oshawa, to
Howden Road;
· lands in north Ajax, east Pickering (south of Highway 7), and north-west
Whitby;
· lands north-east and north-west of Newcastle Village; and
· lands between Audley and Lakeridge Roads in Ajax.
2.6 The boundary and the lands included in the Approved Greenbelt Plan are
illustrated in Attachment 7 (Schedule 1: Greenbelt Plan Area). The difference
between the Draft Greenbelt Plan Area and the Approved Greenbelt Plan
Area is illustrated on Attachment 8.
2.7 In discussions during the April 4, 2006 Planning Committee, it was suggested
that a resolution had been passed by Planning Committee, as part of the
deliberations on the Regional Official Plan Review, essentially advising the
Province that should the Region's comments on the Greenbelt not be
supported by the Province then the Region would not implement the
Greenbelt Plan through the ROP Review.
Report No.: 2006-P-38
Page NO.4
2.8 A search by the Clerk's Department of all relevant meeting minutes and
resolutions, has confirmed that no such resolution was passed by Planning
Committee or Council, during discussions related to the ROP Review. As
noted in the 6th bullet of 2.1 of Commissioner's Report No. 2006-P-33,
considered at the last Committee meeting, direction given throughout the
ROP Review process has been to ensure that the proposed amendments
bring the ROP into conformity with the Greenbelt Plan.
3. LEGAL INTERPRETATION
3.1 The Greenbelt Act and Plan include the following noteworthy provisions:
· all decisions or applications "commenced" on or after December 16, 2004
must conform to the Greenbelt Plan (Sec. 24(2));
· the commencement date for an official plan or its amendment or repeal is
deemed to have been commenced on the day the by-law adopting the
plan, amendment or repeal pursuant to the Planning Act, is passed
(Section 24(4));
· the Greenbelt Plan does not allow for settlement areas outside the
Greenbelt to expand into the Greenbelt (3.4.2(3)). All of the Lake Ontario
shoreline urban areas are outside the Greenbelt; and
· the Greenbelt Act requires municipalities to amend their official plans to
conform to the Greenbelt Plan through the 5-year review provisions of the
Planning Act.
3.2 In the context of Planning Committee discussions, questions were raised with
regard to the applicability of the Greenbelt Plan to the ROP Review process,
since it was initiated prior to December 16, 2004 (the effective date of the
Greenbelt Plan). A review of the relevant provisions of the Greenbelt Act
makes it clear that it is only where a by-law has been passed, under the
Planning Act adopting any changes to the official plan, prior to December 16,
2004, that such changes become exempt from the requirement to conform
with the Greenbelt Act. Indeed, section 24 (4) (a) of the Greenbelt Act deems
Report No.: 2006-P-38
Page NO.5
that an official plan or an official plan amendment is commenced on the day
the by-law adopting the official plan or official plan amendment is passed.
Further, any by-law adopting the plan and any amendments to the official plan
must comply with the provisions applicable to the adoption of official plans
found at section 17(22) of the Planning Act. Since Regional Council has
not yet passed a by-law adopting the proposed amendments to the
Region's official plan pursuant to section 17(22) of the Planning Act,
section 24 (2) of the Greenbelt Act does not apply to exempt the ROP
Review and its proposed amendments from the requirement that these
conform with the Greenbelt Act and Plan.
4. RECOMMENDED PROCESS FOR PROCEEDING
4.1 The issues raised by the Region and area municipalities in relation to the
Greenbelt Plan are identified in Commissioner's Report No. 2006-P-33. The
Report considered by Committee at its most recent meeting gave rise to a
motion seeking to:
· remove lands located between Audley and Lakeridge Roads from
Highway 401 to Taunton Road from the Greenbelt Plan;
· remove lands bounded by Townline Road, Pebblestone Road and the
existing Courtice Urban Area Boundary and designate as furure urban
area;
· remove lands located on the north-east corner of Nash Road and Hancock
Road and designate as future urban area; and
· remove lands located on the east side of Courtice Road north of Bloor
Street and designate as future urban area. [It is noted that these lands
are not included in the Greenbelt Plan Area.]
4.2 Amendments to the ROP to effect the above changes, the other changes
mentioned in Commissioner's Report No. 2006-P-33 and other similar
changes would be contrary to the Greenbelt Act and Plan and would
have no effect (Greenbelt Act, Section 8 (1)).
Report No.: 2006-P-38
Page No.6
4.3 As indicated in Commissioner's Report No. 2006-P-33 (Attachment 1 item
4.1) there are limited opportunities to initiate changes to the Greenbelt Plan.
In assessing the options, reference was made to correspondence received
from the Greenbelt Council indicating that it is within the Council's mandate to
offer advice to the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing on refinements to
the Plan.
4.4 As such, the Greenbelt Council would appear to provide the best approach of
having the Region's issues considered in the near term (ie. before the
Minister's 10 year review). However there is no guarantee that the Greenbelt
Council will act on Durham's requests and advise the Minister to make
adjustments to the Plan.
4.5 Accordingly, should Planning Committee wish to make a submission to the
Greenbelt Council, direction is required on specific issues to be addressed.
4.6 The Planning Department's interpretation of Provincial legislation in this
Report has been reviewed by the Legal Department.
A.L. Georgieff, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner of Planning
RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE
Garry H. Cubitt, M.S.W.
Chief Administrative Officer
Report No.: 2006-P-38
Page No. 7
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Commissioner's Report No. 2006-P-33
April 4, 2006 Planning Committee Resolution
Commissioner's Report No. 2004-P-89
Region's Comments on Draft Greenbelt Plan (Council
Approved)
Schedule 1: Greenbelt Plan Area DRAFT
Commissioner's Report No. 2005-P-24
Schedule 1: Greenbelt Plan Area
Composite of the Draft and Approved Greenbelt Plan Areas
5.
6.
7.
8.
H:\ 1-2\agendas\2006\04-25-06\Greenbelt Addendu m.doc
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-061-06
Pebblestone Road
.
I
.
I
.
I
\-.
"C
ftS
o
~
ftS
.5
'0
tn
----.
Nash Road
"C
ftS
o
~
CI)
c
c
~
o
....
"C
ftS
o
~
.ll:
C,)
o
C,)
C
ftS
::J:
"C
ftS
o
~
CI)
C,)
:e
::s
o
(.)
Bloor Street
"C
ftS
o
~
-
'0
::J:
-----
Highway 401
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
~ Areas recommended by Regional Council to be removed
~ from Greenbelt and to be considered as Future Urban Area.
~ Area recommended by Regional Council to be added to Greenbelt.
-ITIf-'4 - ,rIUtv, ...,,.. "'/J
Iv! '1e,P '7/:
1i.8CIt~ ~l.l.,.y
~GIO~l.JI..~ '
~l.. 8 ~ ' .. ~
't~uc~,() 'A
'tu -. $'
~~
~f.(~~
, ~N
.,
.,
. 1J..sy, ,
~lJ"lAt~~~. ~~Q
I? '''lli'~~ ~~
:-- 'E:Glo lJOIJ. ~
! ~ ~/l1AtG ~"l( cE:At ~D"lli'y
~ ~E:"lS "l1i'E:"Is 7'1i'E: '.'.
. . / _///<~:Z~~~~,o ~.'
~'//// .o1i'1v."lSD 8.<>0 ~V"l~ ~
I 6'Ii'IV"l"lrE: ~VE:~a8",,- S~
I. ~:.oo~~ W"l~~S ="llJ~E: ~~"-'S 8 E:,,-,.o~o
I Pu~ "ls D SYs,.,E: ~ ~ Y"-'t:;
I' ~ SE:Ii'f:::~/::/o.o"l:"-'S ~ "l "-'UAtICI.o"l Atr "l1i'E:"ls
"-'Utv. ~E: 0 ~~ 0 1i'E:"l,s ~ St:,
/ li'u~ ~~rE: ~CI.o"l(~ ' s~U~;IV~~VE:~o:l1CE:
/ SE:rlf.t:;~~~~ sr~"l~%E:~E:~~~lJ~E:
;' "-'E:Ath "lli't:, ~ I. .sy, 'E:1i' <<
/ s. "ls jS'~~4f
/ : "" '""" 4Iii ""'~.
~ @ (SE:'j!-o.~ " ..."..
" ~ POIi"~"-'.o
G::\ Co DE:: ~Of:t"
~ Ii'E:G/O (SE:IAtrli'~CIi'/.o1; ~Atr "l
~ ~~ ~GGIi't:, ~"l~ AtOD Sltol? ~E:S/~~At] "llJ(E::~
~ Po 'E:"ls G"l,., 'E: 'E:~/At" -~ Atrl"l
I. &, ~ DE:lSE:E: E: li'E:s (SE:E: 'E: li'E:s r"llJ/ SUlJ
o 't(~/?t;::.orIOAt OUIi'CE: 12 SE:C?'tOAt IDE:At?'t"l~ E: E:< P~~S/O,y
"llrl? ...' ~ 1;~~ "s.9c DE:s
IDGE:s "llJ(E: ;?'to,y POii' D C/Y/.or~
,y"",., "-'o~ I 'E:Sc OAt]
~UIi'"" 1,yE: li'/.o,.,
~ It. 10,y
~ %1; ~
"lcr.C/Y<;; "lGE: ~ ~ .s
~ 0.0 IV/~?'tO",- ""Ii't:," y, '):
s ~.... 'E:,y S~ ,yOD "l~ /f; "" 0"".... ~4f
12E: '''.s',A ~"lCE: 'E: OUI? 80;; /YID
rlt, ~ o~~ ~/,y.... ISr ~ ~ ~D"" GE:s
oPgPo~ SCItt:;t5I~ ....,GE: "l,l?,"lrt:; /Yy "-'OJ:>.
~.tlt, ~O,.. DiJ 'A. ~ 'E:"l~/YP,l?,o' ""/,y"
---<:IS'E:/y r"ltv. ~E: 'V.s._ ~ ...., ~ ~r "
?'ttv.DE:s GiS C I:; r.s'~ ~
G IGA,. Sit, Oli' D l!:..~ '" W"",.,
~" . "i?'to OWAt 'E:S/G<''T$ '" E:1i'1':
" ~S 0 SE:~t:; Iv"l ~ W"" 1; /YO,yr
"l ~(y Crl O,ys E:Ii'I':.o~
~~ . I': /YrE:Ii'I.' vE:~ y /YO,yr CE:
l........ ~l Goli'E:E:~ "l( /YO . "'O/Y t:, ~/,yIrS
~c.......< ......, &~~ GOS~/~ "ly "lD. . Pu.:~I2...0P./,y
......l ?'to ~'" ~E: rE:,l?,
/)< S,ot:; IV' "', "',l?,
~ Ctq, ..... . " 'E:r"l
DE:", < SrUD ..... ....... ?'to,y
~~~,l?, ~ . .....
(j,yt. 'E:D 8 /YE:"l ..
~~~~,f:"'" ....
)~ / S,oE:c
"'\< ~ "'"
UI?
lJOIJ.'lJ.tJ.,y A^
~D"lI?""'~
YDt:,
"'E:,l?,
~E:D
.......
..
V6
i~~
>>~Im
m~
~m
>>Q.
a~!l
lu
~~
~~I
~ilc
~2
~
ffir;lr:ll. I ~i~ ;
~LJ[_ ~ !c~ ~
'II n ~ 8 8 ~ ~ Ii ~
~~ 2 !: ~ Ai ;;t 11~ \l
U!l ~ "~ ~ '<In ~
:;:~! ~ ;:g ~ Q
~~ ~ ~ ~
:W-f;ir, II' g ~
;~i'::'I~1 .: 'H
::".::. - I I~ ~
III . I I
I ~ ~ DII == ~ II ~lIr1m1Izom
~~ 0t:> ~ I .1 ~: - ~P:B~
~ = ~ I I (HD
~~~J~I ~ ~~p ~ IU ~~~un~~u~ mli . ~ ~~S ~~
~ ~~ f ~ ~ h~! 1 @e.~ ~~I ~U ~;~n~~u ~ ~ S ~ (I) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c ~~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~1" ~16 ~;;t~16 ~h16 ~ g ~ m (") % ~ ~ ~ -4
~ 8 ~ ~ ~ g ! ilR 'il~ I U ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ r- 9 ffi ~ r- ~ Z 0
~ ~ ~ ~ \l m~ ~m~ 1 ~11 11;;t 11 ~ l!l ~ c ~ ~ !; >- ~
. > ~E ~ I~ ~I~ ~ ~ !11 >- c: i z i: (i)
.,11 ~~ ~ U~!~ I I,IIIII-I-l. i!i r-/;; ~~ ~6
11 ~ d~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ I ~p~ ~ ~~ B~ 'II iU~ ~ I ~I ~ i: ~ m ~ r- at
~ ~ Jl ~~m ~~o .~.~~ ~ h ~ !: -4 ~
,,~ ~~" ~z m~ ~ ~~ c: ': "8
~ ~ ~ ~ i~~ ~ ~ ~ >- ~
~ ~ ~ ~ -In ~ ~ m u:! ~
- 0
~
52