Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-103 .,.., DN:' A/HC6 . e ", , THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE BY-LAW NUMBER 89- 10~ being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law of the Corporation of the TOwn of Newcastle. WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the TOwn of Newcastle deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the TOwn of Newcastle. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the TOwn of Newcastle enacts as follows: 1. Schedule "3" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Agricultural (A)" to "Holding - Service Station Conunercial ((H)C6)" Zone as shown on the attached Schedule "A" hereto. 2. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 3. This By-law shall corne into effect on the date of passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act. BY-LAW read a first time this 26th day of June 1989 BY-LAW read a second time this 26th day of June 1989 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 26th day of June 1989. , -. This is Schedule' "A" passed this 26th day to of By-law 89 - 10~, ,June, 1989 A.D. REGIONAL ROAD 9 ~ ~ ~ Q:: "'-J ~ ~ ~ Q:: LOT 9 , CONC. 6 ~ ZONING CHANGE FROM'A' TO '(H) o 10 20 - 10m 5 0 Mayor LOT 10 9 A KENDAL I f f f I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I 40m I 8 ,.... . Z o U A A <D Z o - en en LIJ U Z o (,) A o 50 100 ~.. ..... .-- 50m 0 200 300m I ~ COUNCIL INFORMATION ~ 1-5 ";~' :JtoUO'~ oa'~~\)f:1\._ DAft MAR 1 7 '993 OI,w.q~-~ FOUO,[~c:" J HMi 19 Ii AN '93 R 900538 Ontario Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario IN ~ HATTER OF Section 34(18) of the Planning Act, 1983 AND IN ~ OTTER OF' an appeal by -Nicholas Boothman, Julia Rowan, Katherine Guse11 and others against Zoning By-law 89-103 of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle COUNSBLa Christopher J. Tzekas for Veltri and Sons ~ited DECISION delivered byTe YAO and ORDER OF THE BOARD Veltri and Sons Limited owns, a 1.8 hectare lot at the intersection of two regional roads in Newcastle. It is south of the "provincially defined" Oak Ridges Horaine and is bounded at the northeast by Burnham Creek, a branch of the Ganaraska River. The issue is whether this land should be rezoned to permit a gas station. Twelve kilometres north from Highway 401 (at the Newtonvi11e exit), Regional Road 18 comes to a "1'" intersection. The east-west road is called Ganaraska Road. To the north is Thompson Road, which winds its way into the Oak Ridges Horaine. To the east it leads to the Villages of Garden Hill. and Bewd1ey. To the west is Kirby, at the intersection of Ganaraska Road and Highway 35/115. Southwest of this intersection there is a very old hamlet of some 30 or so houses. It is called Kendal. To the southeast is an abandoned tobacco farm, with red and white curing sheds. In 1987 Frank and Tonnia Hanning owned this farm. They severed the corner at the "1'" intersection as a retirement lot for themselves. It"was never used for this purpose. In 1988, the Hannings conveyed both the retirement lot and the remainder of the farm to Vel tri and Sons Limited. , - 2 - R 900538 The old zoning was agricultural. Newcastle Council rezoned it to a special class of Highway Commercial (C6), which permits only a gas station. The by-law was passed on June 26, 1989. Twelve people appealed. Among them are members of-an incorporated group called SAGA (Save the Ganaraska Again). On August 19, 1991, SAGA's president brought a motion questioning the Board's jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the rezoning. The motion took two days to hear. Its basis was that the Hannings had broken a promise to retain the retirement lot in their names for 10 years, and this promise was deposited on title. The Board dismissed the motion and ordered that the hearing proceed on September 4, 1991. On September 4, 1991 the Board held a two day hearing. It rendered an oral decision immediately after the hearing. The basis of this second decision is that Section 12.3.3 of the Durham Official Plan applies. That section prohibits all uses except recreational uses until "appropriate development policies and land use designations" are adopted. These have not been developed. The Board noted other issues but expressly refused to deal with them si:nce lack of conformity with the Official Plan was a "death blow" to the application. It ordered that the rezoning be repealed. Section 12.3.3 applies to those areas "designated on Hap 'A' as Hajor Open Space and as subject to this section" (Board's italics). The Veltri lands are designated Major Open Space. However, Map 'A' shows that there are four subcategories of Open Space, one of which is "Lands affected by 12.3.3". These lands are all adjacent to Newcastle's waterfront. It is easy to see how the previous panel could have made an error interpreting Section 12.3.3. There is no title for the text that would have furnished a clue that Section 12.3.3 treats only - 3 - R 900538 waterfront lands. Anyone reading the text would have to divine this from the italicized words which by themselves are rather delphic. On November 29, 1991, Veltri and Sons Limited brought an application to have the Board set aside its decision and rehear the case. This motion was heard on June 15, 1992. There was no real dispute by the appellants. They recognized that an error had occurred and fairness would demand that the Board rehear the matter. SAGA then requested an adjournment. Some of their witnesses were unavailable. They also wished the opportunity to find a hydrogeologist who would assist them on a pro bono basis. Vel tri and Sons Limited opposed the adjournment. The Board decided that the hearing should commence that day, but addi tional time would be granted for SAGA to arrange for its absent witnesses to attend. The rehearing took five hearing days, split between June 1992 and February 1993. The issues raised by SAGA are the following: . Does the rezoning conform with the existing Official Plan? Do the policies of the adopted but unapproved new Official Plan have any bearing on the rezoning? Is the rezoning premature because there are no detailed studies for expansion of Kendal and no watershed planning study for the Ganaraska River? Does the presence of Burnham Creek call for a more ecologically sensitive assessment? Is there any need for a gas station at Ganaraska Road and Highway 28? . . . . Does the rezoning conform with the existing Official Plan? The local municipality is Newcastle. Its Official Plan has no policies dealing with non-urbanized areas. Therefore, all policies must be found in the Regional plan. . - 4 - R 900538 The Regional plan has a specific Section 8.3.3.3. d~aling with gas stations. It sets out 3 criteria for local municipalities to consider. They are: . Newcastle Council must be of the opinion that the location does not create a nuisance to the adjacent residential areas; the gas station is located on an arterial road; the location is not adjacent or opposite a school. . . Only the first criterion is subject to interpretation. There are no "adjacent" residential areas to the north or south. At present these are farms. To the south is the balance of Veltri's holding - 34.3 ha. Veltri and Sons Limited is seeking approval for a 33 lot estate residential plan of subdivision for these lands. Across Regional Road 18, to the west, are houses in Kendal. To the west, across Burnham Creek, is a non-farm residence, the van der Veens. Veltri's planning consultant, Bryce Jordan, was of the opinion that there would be no nuisance. Although the gas station would be located in a hamlet, that would not bring about "the type of conflicts that arise with neighbours immediately next door." The Highway 28 road allowance is about 100 feet and there would be another 50 feet to the fuel bars. His analysis, which was concerned solely with fumes, lighting and other site-planning considerations, was that all these effects could be properly "mitigated". Mr. Jordan and Regional staff took the position that Section 8.3.3.3 is the guiding policy. However, this section is located within the section "Major Urban Areas - Special Purpose Commercial". The plan'S table of contents is: - 5 - R 900538 Part C Strategic Policies . . . 8 Major Urban Areas Residential Central Areas Special Purpose Commercial (in which is found policy 8.3.3.3) 9 Small Urban Areas 10 Rural Settlements 11 Agricultural Areas 12 Major Open Space System SAGA argued that there were really no policies for service station rezonings in Kajor Open Space lands, since the criteria in Section 8.3.3.3 are only directed to Major Urban Areas~ Looking at paragraphing and the references to tl Special Purpose Commercial Areas", both before and after Section 8.3.3.3, the Board agrees with SAGA. If this is correct, then Mr. Jordan's conclusion that because "gas stations are not shown on any designation, they could even be on residential designations" is questionable. The context created by Special Purpose Commercial Areas may also explain why the conditions in Section 8.3.3.3 are rather minimal. These areas are to contain, in grouped fashion~ the uses that "consume larger parcels of land and require exposure to traffic such as automotive sales and services. . . . ". Durham Council recognized that local decisions would be made in the context of these areas which it (or local Council by way of Section 8.3.3.2) already recognized were highway commercial in nature. One cannot disregard statements about the function of Major Open Space lands. The text says: "The Kajor Open Space System . . . consists of Major Open Space, Oak Ridges Moraine, and Waterfront Open Space." - 6 - R 900538 The legend shows these as three distinct categories. The Veltri lands are in the general category Major Open Space System and subcategory "Oak Ridges Moraine". For Oak Ridges Moraine there are specific policies: "12.2.2 The predominant use of lands designated as Major Open Space and Oak Ridges Moraine shall be for agriculture . . ., conservation, etc, . . . ." and ,"12.2.9 Council shall endeavour to preserve the. . . natural resources and environmental features of the Oak Ridges Moraine as defined on Map 'A'within the Major Open Space System." The clearest policy with respect to the Oak Ridges Moraine itself is in Section 12.3.7: "Council shall prepare and adopt by amendment to this plan comprehensive guidelines for the Oak Ridges Moraine that shall take the following into account: a) Its special natural and scenic features. b) Its role -as a predominant landscape element ill'" the Region. ... " These guidelines have never been prepared. Bearing ,in mind the history of this application, the Board would , like to be cautious in reaching conclusions on Official Plan conformity. Despite Durham's letter advising that Section 8.3.3.3 is the applicable section, the Board is of the opinion that this conclusion is dubious. Reliance solely on Section 8.3.3.3 ignores conflicting statements on the intent of preserving environmental features of the Oak Ridges Moraine designation. Since there are no comprehensive guidelines for development, any rezoning should be approached cautiously or deferred until these guidelines are in place. - 7 - R 900538 Do ~he policie$ ,of the adopteg but unapproved new Official Plan have any bearing on the rezoning? The new Official Plan was adopted by Durham on June 5, 1991 and has yet to receive Hinisterial approval., The circulation process was to have been completed by the end of 1992. If municipalities are to do appropriate planning, this drawn-out approval period creates a difficulty. If the extensive process of public consultation is to mean anything, the new Official Plan should certainly be considered'. Obviously, it may not be used to impose new obstacles where the old plan is silent2. In the Puslinch case, the Board was "loath to force the Township to accept a development against its will" even though the development seemed to meet all the criteria of the new plan. In this case, the new plan provides an indication of Council policy and agency concerns with the present Official Plan. It has a similar section to Section 8.3.3.3 - Section 16.3.32. It is located under "Section 16 Transportation System", which is not tied to one particular land use designation. Indeed, gas stations are now to be considered for locations in "agricultural areas and the Major Open Space system.. Clearly, the wording of Section 16.3.32 reinforces the conclusion on page 3, that Section 8.3.3.3 is inapplicable to Major Open Space lands. 1 The Board accepts Hr. Tzekas' comment that Section 16.3.32 had no public discussion. Also, Veltri has not requested it be referred to the Board for a hearing. In Credit Mountain Land Co. v. Town of Puslinch, 21 O.M.B.R. 64 (Baines and Campbell), the Board said, 2 " . . it is trite to say the new official plan is not before us and hence it is not proper for us to suggest what is properly to be included in it. Similarly, it is trite to say that, until finally approved, the relevant official plan is the old one. . . ." By the fact that Credit Mountain based its case largely on policies in the new plan, it is obvious that another panel of the Board has taken the same approach I am taking; namely to find evidence of the new plan admissible, relevant but not determinative. - 8 - R 900538 The new plan no longer leaves it to the opinion of local Councils but requires an Official Plan amendment. This indicates the Region now considers the location of gas stations has regional ramifications. The new plan maintains the general boundaries of the Oak Ridges Moraine designation. It repeats the requirement for an environmental study of the Moraine and in Section 14.3.5, it strengthens the importance of this study by precluding consideration of O.P.A.'s within the Oak Ridges Moraine until the study is completed. These policies also appear in the old plan but in a much less crisp fashion. Section 1.3.1 of the old plan permits the local Council in an unrestricted fashion to require an "environmental analysis." Section 1.2.1 describes, without reference to Map 'A', environmentally sensitive areas and hazard lands. The former includes "aquifer recharges, headwaters, . . ." and the latter is to be defined by floodline mapping. There is no doubt that the land encompassed below the top of bank of Burnham Creek is both environmentally sensitive and hazard. The Veltri site immediately abuts the top of bank. Section 1.2.2 of the old plan states that Map , A ' depicts E.S.A.'s "which have been identified within the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Area. It leaves open the possibility that additional E.S.A.'s could be located outside CLOCA's area (which include Bowmanville and Soper Creek, but not the Ganaraska watershed). This area falls under the jurisdiction of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. , Section 1.3.3 states that the Region will "further identify environmentally sensitive areas for those other conservation authority areas." The Region has no E.S.A. 's west of Regional Road 42. The Board uses the new plan only as a means of comparison to interpret the old plan. Even under the old plan, Newcastle could - 9 - R 900538 .' have asked Veltri and Sons Limited to provide an environmental analysis because of the proximity to the Burnham Creek. The analysis could have addressed: "a) . . .the impact of the proposed development on environmentally sensitive areas; . . . . . . urban design alternatives depicting height, architectural treatment and landscaping; d) an indication of the manner in which such a development shall be integrated into the fabric of adjacent land uses; . . . " c) bulk, It is difficult to understand why local Council did not avail itself of this modest requirement and why none of the commenting agencies, particularly the Conservation Authority, did not propose it. The reason appears to be a reluctance on the part of all officials to extend their mandate into Ganaraska watershed issues until there is an adequate data base from which to draw planning conclusions. Of particular concern is the issue of storm water management. Newcastle engineering staff require the applicant to perform a site grading plan as a eondition of approval with 'site drainage to be self-contained. Storm water is to ~e held in a container with provision for it to be skimmed of oil and grease. The remaining water is then to be released off-site. Given the Ministry of Natural Resource' s comment that the Burnham Creek "provides a significant and sensitive cold water spawning area" and given the fact that flooding in Port Hope formed the impetus for the creation of the Ganaraska River Conservation Authority, the Board is not certain that this is an adequate procedure. Is the rezoning premature in that it is proceeding in advance of detailed studies for e~ansion of Kendal? Kendal has about 160 people. It is a hamlet which once performed the role of providing services to a local agricultural community. It has ceased to perform that role. Once it had a - 10 - R 900538 general store owned by the MacDonalds and is now the Childs' residence. That store still has its old-fashioned cast iron pillars holding small display windows. It once had a gas pump. That has now been removed. Kendal has a variety store, a church, and an Orange Lodge. Its only school ,has been closed. Sections 10.4.2.1 and 10.4.2.6 require Newcastle to prepare secondary plans for hamlets in advance of growth. Newcastle planner Cynthia Strike stated that her department has begun the studies but they now require hydrogeological assessments, costing about $10,000 per hamlet. Lacking in-house expertise, the planners had to suspend their work. From Veltri's point of view, the site's location is extremely advantageous. Its planner stated that it is located at the edge of, but not in, the hamlet. There were thus no direct negative impacts and yet the station could still service local 'inhabitants. But the decision should be made from a larger perspective than simply what is advantageous for Veltri and Sons Limited. If Newcastle has decided to plan in advance and has insufficient funds to obtain the appropriate information, it seems to me that growth should not take place until tha~ information is available. This brings up the question of the need for a gas station, a topic we now shall examine in greater detail. , ~ Is this gas station needed? A considerable amount of evidence was introduced from both sides. On the "yes" side were a number of residents of Kendal and environs: Norleen Frank, Steve and Jennifer Childs, wayne Harret, Bruce Cathcart, Sam Cureatz3, and Bill Hale. 3 Although none of the SAGA representatives were lawyers, they were nonetheless skilled advocates. Few lawyers could match this cross-examination by Elva Reid. (Hr. Cureatz had concluded his evidence-in-chief, in which he said that a gas station would serve as a - 11 - R 900538 They all gave evidence that people would use a local gas station and that it would be a convenience. On the "no" side were Patti Lucas, Nick Boothman, George and Enid Brewer, Will Verbrugge, and the SAGA representatives, Elva Reid, Niva and Julian Rowan. They said the Town had progressively lost services, including gas stations, and local residents and travellers could just as easily be served by a number of stations within a ten to twelve mile drive of the Veltri site. The "need" for a gas station is hard to prove or'disprove. It is obvious that the local population, perhaps some 250 persons, is inadequate to sustain a modern retail gasoline outlet. In addition, all the residents have a commuter lifestyle, travelling daily to Bowmanville, Oshawa or even Toronto for work, shopping, day-care, school, etc. If there is a "need", it would be to serve passing traffic. It might even be "needed It by one major gasoline company to ensure that it does not fall into the hands of a competitor. In June 19, 1989, Newcastle planning staff commented that: "The site is located on the corner of two major arterial roads. These Regional roads carry t~e majority of traffic across the northerly portion of the Region, particularly during the summer months and therefore (this) appears to be a reasonable location for a gas bar and service station". On the other hand, George Brewer testified that he had been an operator for four years of a station on "Gasoline Alley". This is the Highway 115/35 corridor on which there are a concentration of gas "homing beacon" for his family in inclement weather driving conditions.) Ms Reid: Mr. Cureatz: Hs Reid: What is your profession, Hr. Cureatz? Lawyer. Isn't it true that you acted for Mr. Veltri on the purchase of the subject lands? Yes. No further questions. Hr. Cureat2: Hs Reid: - 12 - R 900538 stations on each side. Brewer's station had much greater traffic volume than the Veltri site. Mr. Brewer stated: itA lot (i.e. sales volume) is decided by the location. A corner is not necessarily better. There's very little traffic except on weekends. There's three hours on Friday p.m. and Sunday p.m., Seven a.m. for the G.H. people. The traffic coming home from G.H. at 3:30 p.m. and more going back at 6:00 p.m. and 2:30 in the morning. There'S no volume of traffic that would produce any kind of business." It should be noted that Veltri and Sons Limited produced no empirical evidence of demand. It would have been easy to furnish the average daily traffic volumes for the two Regional roads. It might also have been possible to show that there was some interest in this site by a gasoline retailer. The only evidence as to need is the sentence of the planning report quoted above and the statements by some of the residents that they would find a local gas station a convenience. The evidence of Julian Rowan4 is that: . the retail gasoline industry is undergoing a major downsizing ," in which thousands of stations are being eliminated and others rationalized; . that unused sites are extremely expensive to decommission; that environmental standards are becoming increasingly strict. . The Board's inference from all of this evidence is that if the rezoning is granted, no gas station will actually be built on the 4 His evidence created some problems. It consisted in part of newspaper and magazine clippings and summaries of conversations wi th the authors of the articles. The Board ruled that the evidence was admissible and invited submissions as to weight. Mr. Rowan said "citizens like ourselves, often penalized by the rigidity of rules more logically directed to duelling experts - nonetheless insist on pressing at the outer edges, with the understanding.t..ha tribunal has some discretion for flexibility and more importantly that it is the on~y forum open to us." The Board isolated three parts of his testimony and observed that they were largely corroborated by Hr. HcIelwaine. Hr. Tzekas also conceded that they were general statements could be judicially noticed. - 13 - R 900538 site in the near or medium term future. It simply does not make economic sense. This finding has several important consequences. The first is that of hardship. ) If Veltri and Sons Limited were denied the rezoning on the grounds that the application is premature, there would be no loss of the business opportunity to sell gasoline. The loss would be to sell the land at a higher premium reflecting the enriched land use permission. Both losses represent valid economic objectives. But this case is less a land use planning exercise than a dispute about the sale price of the land. The second concern is timing. If the proposed gas station is built today, zoning approval can be given with a reasonable idea of the Official Plan and other regulatory context. If the station is to be built in the future, approval should be consistent with that future context. As stated, the new Official Plan, if it'survives in the form adopted by Durham Council, would require an Official Plan amendment for new gas stations or gas bars. The existing plan appears to require a rezoning specifically without Official Plan amendment. Although veltri and Sons Limited has to the right to have its application considered under the existing plan, a decision making agency such as the Board is entitled to consider how a decision forecloses options in the long term view. Piecemeal planning is bad enough ~hen it occurs in a compressed time frame. Whenpermission is for a use to come into existence far in the future, the decision maker must be sensitive to the fact that proper planning is virtually impossible. This application is a textbook Case of piecemeal planning. In 1987, a retirement lot, complying with the Official Plan, was created. The Minister of Agriculture and Food did not object because retirement lots are consistent wi th the Food Land Guidelines. - 14 - R 900538 However, that retirement lot was never used as such. In 1989, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food was faced with a separate 1.8 ha. parcel of Class 4 land, which is unlikely to ever be used for agricultural purposes. It did not object to the rezoning to Highway Commercial. If the Mannings had themselves applied for this gas station, at the same time requesting a severance, can anyone doubt that the Minister would have objected? Now Veltri uses O.M.A.F.'s -no objection" letter to support the rezoning. This application is for a gas station, premised on the fact that there are no nearby residents to be affected by the noise, fumes etc. .- However, Veltri and Sons Limited owns the adjoining lands and its long range intention is to develop them for residential uses. In such circumstances, both parcels should be considered together, particularly from the servicing and storm water handling point of view. If the abutting lands are to be residential, the Board must discard Mr. Jordan's thesis that this gas station is ideally located; -near but not within" the hamlet. In addition, the Board has to ask whether this application contains sufficient detail to ensure that if and when adjoining lands are developed, the station will be adequately bufferect. Since there is no site plan, the Board is unable to do so. Indeed, the applicant takes the position that the rezoning should be considered on the basis that the surrounding lands are vacant, i.e. ignoring the very development pressures it itself is creating. Technical suitability The third aspect of this long range rezoning has to do with the danger that the tanks may pose to the environment. After reviewing the evidence, there is no real dispute. This is a sensitive site, adjacent to Burnham Creek, a tributary of the Ganaraska River. However, with appropriate monitoring and other procedures, any gasoline leak can be quickly detected. These are: - 15 - R 900538 . a network of soil vapour and ground water monitoring devices installed prior to commencement of operations~ secondary containment capability designed and built into the underground storage tank installation a~ the site~ automatic volume gauging to replace use of dip tanks~ double walling of all new underground storage tanks; and, site remediation in event of leak or spill must meet stated clean-up criteria, rather than the current requirement to simply "clean Up". ) . . . . , The Board is satisfied that if all of this is done and there are appropriately trained personnel to deal with future leaks and spills, and if people do what Mr. Mclelwaine says they should do, that the risk of contamination is small enough to be acceptable. The problem is that all the monitoring steps in the previous paragraph are beyond the requirements of the current Gasoline Handling Code. The only way to "secure" these matters is by way of site plan agreement and by collateral agreement. While the site plan agreement may ensure monitoring devices are correctly installea in the first instance, there is no way to periodically test and maintain the monitoring devices as time goes by, to ensure they are working properly. A collateral agreement, having no Planning Act status, may not be enforceable against a third party. We would thus be left with a situation where proper operations procedures would be left to the sanction of civil liability in a nuisance action, and prosecution under the Environmental Protection Act. Even this may be sufficiently effective when we are dealing with a major petroleum retailer, but we do not know who will be operating the Veltri site. Nor do we have any wells between the gas tanks and the tributaries which could act as a warning device. - 16 - R 900538 SAGA's hydrogeology witness, Ms Crandall, quotes Peter Gorrie5 as saying: "No one knows how much of Canada's groundwater is polluted; the problem usually remains hidden until it affects a drinking water supply." Thus, if the monitoring device were to fail, no one would be there to blow the whistle until contamination had occurred. Taken in all, the technical evidence leads to the finding that the site can be made safe, i:f .Mr. McIelwaine is given a free hand and i:f his recommendations are followed. However, the absence of ongoing regulatory requirements leads the Board to doubt that this will occur. It may be that these two trends will cancel each other out, i.e. the regulations will catch up with Mr. McIelwaine's standards. However, there is no certainty that this will happen. Veltri and the Board are stuck with imperfect instruments, such as the site plan process. It would not be responsible to allow approval without any means of assuring continuing maintenance of the monitoring devices. Should there be a new ecosystem approach? One of the interesting aspects of this case is that both sides stated there was not a "shred" of evidence to support the other side. It was as if they ~re speaking different languages. Indeed they were. The Crombie Report states: "One of the key differences between ecosystem and traditional land-use planning is that the former emphasizes the need to balance ecosystem health, quality of life, and economic vitality; Traditional planning, on the other hand, is . more inclined to focus' on distributing land uses in accordance with social and economic imperatives."6 From Veltri's point of view, it had complied with the requirements of local Council. Its advisors and the Region concluded the application complied with the Official Plan. There was no 5 "Water from the ground", Canadian Geographic, Vol. 112, No.5, Sept/Oct 1992. 6 Oavid Crombie, Regeneration: Toronto's Water:front and the Sustainable City: Final Report, Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, Secretary of State, Canada, 1992. , ' - 17 - R 900538 . adverse comment by commenting agencies. What more is any landowner supposed to do? Notwithstanding their disagreement, the Board thinks that there is substantial commonality between Veltri and SAGA. Both recognized that the site had important environmental restraints. Both recognized the probable efficacy of the best technical detection measures, i.f adequately supervised. Both recognized the importance of the consultative process of land use planning in Ontario. This Board has always recognized that good land use planning is good environmental planning and vice versa. In coming to ,the conclusion that this rezoning is premature and unwise, the Board has tried to explain that the limitations of Veltri's case arise as much out of "traditional" planning as "ecosystem" planning. The present Official Plan has environmental and conservation policies that do not encourage development on Major Open Space. Agencies express no objection, but it is clear that their comments must be read in the light of each agency's particular administrative context. GRCA has restricted its commenting mandate to below the top of bank lands and thus it does not maKe any comment on water shed 'issues ari&ing from lands outside the floodlines. The framework of regulating gas handling is inadequate to ensure the higher standards of monitoring this site requires. The Board, as an impartial tribunal at the end of the process, is in a unique position of being able to assess these traditional planning considerations - cumulative impact and piecemeal decision making as well as the ecosystem effects. " The appeals are allowed and By-law 89-103 is repeal "T. Y t' '/ T. YA MEMBE DISTRIBUTION 'CLERK. +............................... ...... ACK, BY....m_.... ORIGJ ~l,l\l T COPIES TO: , :1 , i'" -< " so orders. DATED at TORONTO this 17th day ,of ,March, 1993. ,:..,.....'...