HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-29Clarftwn
Electronic Council Communications Information
Package
Date: April 29, 2022
Time: 12:00 PM
Location: ECCIP is an information package and not a meeting.
Description: An ECCIP is an electronic package containing correspondence received by Staff for
Council's information. This is not a meeting of Council or Committee.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Members of Council: In accordance with the Procedural By-law, please advise the Municipal Clerk
at clerks@clarington.net, if you would like to include one of these items on the next regular agenda
of the appropriate Standing Committee, along with the proposed resolution for disposition of the
matter. Items will be added to the agenda if the Municipal Clerk is advised by Wednesday at noon
the week prior to the appropriate meeting, otherwise the item will be included on the agenda for the
next regularly scheduled meeting of the applicable Committee.
Members of the Public: can speak to an ECCIP item as a delegation. If you would like to be a
delegation at a meeting, please visit the Clarington website.
Electronic Council Communications Information Package
April 29, 2022
Pages
1. Region of Durham Correspondence
1.1. Envision Durham - Growth Management Study Land Need Assessment - 3
Staff Recommendation on a Land Need Scenario - April 16, 2022
1.2. Notice of Construction - Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plan - April 122
14, 2022
2. Durham Municipalities Correspondence
3. Other Municipalities Correspondence
3.1. Municipality of Arran-Elderslie - Setback Recommendation - April 22, 124
2022
3.2. Town of South Bruce Peninsula - New Home Tax Rebate Program - April 129
21, 2022
3.3.
Township of West Lincoln - Funeral, Burial, and Cremation Services Act,
132
2022 and Ontario Regulation 30/11 - March 1, 2022
3.4.
Municipality of Mississippi Mills - Ontario Must Build it Right the First
133
Time - April 19, 2022
3.5.
Town of Arnprior - Support for Humanitarian Efforts in Ukraine - April 29,
138
2022
4. Provincial
/ Federal Government and their Agency Correspondence
4.1.
Regulations and Policy Under the Conservation Authorities Act - Ministry
139
of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - April 22, 2022
5. Miscellaneous Correspondence
5.1.
Minutes of the Newcastle Business Improvement Area dated April 14,
141
2022
5.2.
MPAC - 2021 Annual Report - April 26, 2022
143
Page 2
Sent via email
• April 26, 2022
Maya Harris
The Regional Manager, Community Planning & Development
Municipality of Durham Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street, 13' Floor
Planning and Toronto, ON M7A 2J6
Economic
Development
Department Dear Ms. Harris:
Planning Division
605 ROSSLAND RD. E.
RE: Envision Durham — Growth Management Study Land Need
LEVEL 4
Assessment — Staff Recommendation on a Land Need
PO BOX 623
Scenario (Report #2022-P **), Our File: D12-01
WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3
CANADA
As a follow-up to our correspondence on March 11, 2022, advising
905-668-7711
you of the Region's release of the Growth Management Study (GMS)
1-800-372-1102
consultant's Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary
Report (#2022-INFO-19), please note that an early release of
Fax: 905-666-6208
Regional staff's recommendations on a Land Need Scenario (Report
Email:
#2022-P-**) was published today. This recommendation report will be
planning@durham.ca
presented to the Planning & Economic Development Committee on
durham.ca
May 3 at 9:30 am.
Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, The release of Regional staff's recommendations on a preferred land
RPP need scenario represent the completion of the first phase of the GMS
Commissioner of under Envision Durham. Upon Regional Council's endorsement of a
Planning and Economic preferred land need scenario, and the associated quantum of
Development additional urban land need, the GMS will proceed to evaluate the
most suitable location(s) for Settlement Area Boundary Expansion
(i.e. Phase 2 of the process).
A copy of this report is being forwarded to all Envision Durham
Interested Parties, Durham's area municipalities, Indigenous
communities, conservation authorities, the Building Industry and
Land Development (BILD) — Durham Chapter, Durham Region
Homebuilders Association and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing. Circulation is also being provided to agencies and service
providers that may have an interest in long-term growth planning in
the region (school boards, hospitals, utility providers, etc.), as well as
any persons that have made a submission for a Settlement Area
Boundary Expansion request.
Page 3
0
DURHAM
REGION
The Regional
Municipality of Durham
Planning and
Economic
Development
Department
Planning Division
605 ROSSLAND RD. E.
LEVEL 4
PO BOX 623
WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3
CANADA
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
Fax: 905-666-6208
Email:
planning@durham.ca
durham.ca
Brian Bridgeman, MCIP,
RPP
Commissioner of
Planning and Economic
Development
To ensure you receive the most up to date project information, please
subscribe directly through the Envision Durham project web page at
durham.ca/EnvisionDurham and click on the blue "Receive email
updates" at the bottom of the page.
Please call if you would like any additional information.
Yours truly,
(�Cwy M" "
Gary Muller, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
c: Circulation list
B. Bridgeman, Commissioner of Planning and Economic
Development, Region of Durham
J. Kelly, Region of Durham — for distribution to all other
Interested Parties
Page 4
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564
EARLY RELEASE OF REPORT
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report To: Planning and Economic Development Committee
From: Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development
Report: #2022-P-**
Date: May 3, 2022
Subject:
Envision Durham — Growth Management Study Land Need Assessment - Staff
Recommendation on Land Need Scenarios, File D 12-01
Recommendation:
That the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommends to Regional
Council:
A) That Community Area Land Need Scenario 4 be endorsed, as follows:
i) an intensification rate of 50%;
ii) an overall Designated Greenfield Area density target of 60 people and jobs per
hectare by 2051;
iii) a unit mix consisting of 28% low density units, 28% medium density units, 41 %
high density units, and 3% secondary units;
iv) an additional Community Area urban land need of 950 hectares (2,348
acres).
B) That Employment Area Land Need Scenario 2 be endorsed, as follows:
i) a vacant Employment Area density target of 27 jobs per hectare;
ii) an employment intensification rate of 20%;
iii) an additional Employment Area urban land need of 1,171 hectares (2,894
acres).
Page 5
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 2 of 41
C) That future Regional Official Plan policies for the required settlement area boundary
expansion area address sustainability practices to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, energy and water consumption, and waste generation through measures
including:
i) The phasing of new growth in any settlement area boundary expansion area
be undertaken in an orderly and sequential manner;
ii) the establishment of multi -modal transportation opportunities, and active
transportation facilities to encourage healthy and active living, and smart
transportation technologies;
iii) implementation of measures to ensure communities are resilient to our
changing climate through infrastructure, building, housing unit and community
design and construction practices;
iv) the use of low -carbon and smart energy systems and technologies at the
district scale or building -scale in these new areas;
v) protection and enhancement of the Regional Natural Heritage System; and
vi) providing strong connections between employment areas and community
areas to contribute to economic sustainability;
D) That staff be directed to proceed to Phase 2 of the Growth Management Study to
identify, assess and consult on candidate locations for settlement area boundary
expansion and report back following the completion of the consultation process;
E) That a copy of this report be forwarded to Durham's area municipalities, Indigenous
communities, conservation authorities, the Building Industry and Land Development
Association (BILD), Durham Region Homebuilders Association, agencies and
service providers that may have an interest in where and how long term growth in
the region is being planned for (school boards, hospitals, utility providers, as
specified in Appendix 2), the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Envision
Durham Interested Parties List, and any persons that have made a submission for a
settlement area boundary expansion request.
Report #2022-P -**
Report:
1. Glossary of Terms
Paae 3 of 41
1.1 A Glossary of key terms can be found in Appendix 1 which provides explanations for
terms used in this report such as "Intensification Rate", "Designated Greenfield Area
Density", "Low" "Medium" "High Density Unit", "Missing Middle", and "Market
Demand".
2. Purpose
2.1 The purpose of this report is to present Regional Planning staff's recommended land
need scenario for Community Areas and Employment Areas. Council's
endorsement of a preferred land need scenario will represent the completion of
Phase 1 of the Growth Management Study (GMS). The purpose of Phase 1 is to
establish the quantum of additional urban land needed to accommodate the
province's forecasted population and employment for the Region to the year 2051.
2.2 Through extensive analysis and a fulsome consultation process, staff recommend
that Community Area Land Need Scenario 4 and Employment Area Land Need
Scenario 2 be endorsed. Community Area Land Need Scenario 4 best balances the
objectives of providing a housing supply that will support a full range of demographic
and socio-economic needs, while also promoting more compact and higher density
communities, support downtowns and existing and planned transit, and limit
settlement area boundary expansion to only what is needed to accommodate
population related growth. Employment Area Land Need Scenario 2 will provide the
Region with a sufficient supply of new employment lands over the long term, while
also encouraging the more intensive and higher -order use of existing employment
lands, thereby reducing the need for further settlement area boundary expansion.
2.3 Upon Council's endorsement of a preferred land need scenario for Community
Areas and Employment Areas, Phase 2 of the GMS will identify candidate locations
for settlement area boundary expansion. This work will be done in consultation with
Durham's area municipalities. Regional population and employment forecasts will
then be allocated to each of Durham Region's eight area municipalities.
3. Background
3.1 As a key component of Envision Durham, a GMS is being undertaken. The first
phase focuses on the completion of a Land Needs Assessment (LNA), which is a
requirement of the Growth Plan that must be completed to demonstrate the need for
any proposed settlement area boundary expansions. The Region's LNA must
implement, at a minimum, the provincial population and employment forecasts
Page 7
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 4 of 41
assigned to Durham and also follow a series of steps and requirements that are
detailed in the Provincial Land Needs Assessment Methodology for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe. The LNA is a detailed review of the Region's land base to
determine how much of the Growth Plan population and employment forecasts (1.3
million people and 460,000 jobs to the year 2051) for Durham can be
accommodated within existing urban areas, in the built-up area, and the designated
greenfield area (DGA). Any growth that cannot be accommodated within existing
urban areas would trigger a requirement for additional urban land by means of a
Settlement Area Boundary Expansion. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe directs upper and single -tier municipalities to plan for complete, resilient
and transit -oriented communities by taking an "intensification first" approach, while
addressing housing affordability and supply through their Growth Plan conformity
exercises.
3.2 The Region's GMS was initiated in 2019, with Urban Strategies Inc. and Watson
and Associates Economists Ltd. retained in a consulting capacity to undertake the
major technical components. Prior to engaging the consultant team, regional staff
worked with area municipal staff to collect and update the necessary data and
background information to support the study. This included compiling various data
sets related to development applications (subdivisions, condominiums, site plans,
etc.), geocoded Building Permit data, updating the Regional Employment Land
Inventory, as well as assembling other relevant underlying GIS data such as the
Regional and Area Municipal Official Plan designation layers.
3.3 Certain area specific studies were also initiated as parallel work streams that
support the overall GMS. This included the evaluation of Major Transit Station
Areas, which were first delineated in consultation with area municipal staff in 2019.
More recently Regional Council adopted Amendment #186 to the Regional Official
Plan which will implement refined MTSA delineations and include implementing
policies.
3.4 Area specific evaluations of other structural elements of the Region's Official Plan
have also been conducted including Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, and
Regional Corridors. Also in consultation with area municipal staff, an evaluation of
46 site specific employment area conversion requests was undertaken. Staff's
recommendations and Council's decision on these requests were completed in
December of 2021. Employment area conversions, which reduce the amount of
existing Employment Area land, but increase the amount of Community Area land,
have been taken into account when calculating the amount of land required to
accommodate population and employment growth to the year 2051.
Report #2022-P -** Page 5 of 41
3.5 The Region's GMS is guided by the policies and requirements of the Growth Plan,
including minimum density targets and land use planning objectives. Each of the key
targets of the Growth Plan have been tested, using the latest available data and
through mapping -based evaluations. Through this work, various objectives will have
been met, including achieving a minimum intensification target of 50% for Durham
Region, while providing a "market based" housing supply.
3.6 As reported in the Annual Subdivision/Condominium Activity Report for 2020, there
were a total of 33,357 draft approved residential units and 25,714 residential units
in -process (i.e. not yet draft approved) region -wide, indicative of an active housing
supply being brought to market in the Region's existing Urban Area. Assuming a
forecasted average annual rate of 7,300 housing completions per year, there would
be an 8-year supply of residential units in draft approved plans and pending
developments.
3.7 In developing its recommended scenarios, the Region's GMS has considered
regional trends in development and construction activity. Current trends reveal that
construction of high density (apartment) units accounted for 29% of building permits
from 2015-2019, and 41 % of building permits issued in 2020.
3.8 During the summer and early fall of 2021, four Technical Reports were released as
part of the draft LNA for public review and comment. The Technical Reports
included a number of key recommendations to the Region for completing the LNA,
as noted below:
• The Region Wide Growth Analysis (released on July 2, 2021) presented
region -wide population and employment forecasts, various trends in
demographics, unit mix, housing prices, and built form. The Report included a
forecast housing unit mix for new units being built during the 2021 to 2051
timeframe of 22% low density units, 31 % medium density units, and 48% high
density units.
• The Housing Intensification Study Technical Report (released on
September 3, 2021) evaluated the supply and demand for housing within the
built-up area, including a detailed assessment of likely opportunities and
supply potential for intensification and associated population and employment
accommodation. The Report revealed the region can readily accommodate a
significant level of intensification and recommended a regional intensification
target of 50%, consistent with the Growth Plan.
Page 9
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 6 of 41
• The Employment Strategy Technical Report (released on September 24,
2021) provided an assessment of trends in employment and analyzed the
current state of the region's Employment Areas, provided recommendations on
Employment Area conversions, and recommended an overall Employment
Area density target of 26 jobs per hectare. The Report concluded that an
additional 1,164 hectares (2,876 acres) of Employment Area land would need
to be added to the urban area boundary in order to accommodate future
employment growth to the year 2051.
• The Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report (released on
October 1, 2021) evaluated the existing state, current trends, and long-term
development potential of designated greenfield areas (i.e. lands within the
urban area boundary that are outside of the built-up area). The Report
provided a recommended overall designated greenfield areas density target of
64 people and jobs per hectare and an additional Community Areas land need
of 737 hectares (1,821 acres).
3.9 Just over 100 written submissions were received on the four Technical Reports. The
submissions included a mixture of detailed technical and expert commentary,
stakeholder comments on site specific requests being considered through Envision
Durham (i.e. certain employment area conversion requests and settlement area
boundary expansion requests), and more generalized statements about what the
Region's LNA / growth in Durham should achieve. A summary of the comments and
the Region / consultant team's response can be found here.
3.10 Correspondence on the four Technical Reports from BILD, other development
interests, certain area municipalities and others voiced concern that the original
proposed housing unit mix was too heavily weighted towards high density forms of
housing. These submissions were suggesting that the proposed housing unit mix
did not adequately represent the market demand for low density housing (i.e. single
detached dwellings).
3.11 Other correspondence, including individual members of the public, certain area
municipal comments and other organizations indicated that the draft LNA targets
were either appropriate, or could be further adjusted to limit settlement area
boundary expansions by maximizing higher density intensification opportunities.
These submissions include 62 individual pieces of correspondence sent to the
Regional Chair citing the desire for higher densities in the designated greenfield
areas, increased secondary units in existing dwellings, and no further urban
boundary expansion.
Page 10
Report #2022-P -** Page 7 of 41
3.12 In response to the above comments, Regional Planning staff agreed at the October
5, 2021, Planning and Economic Development Committee to run modelling and
assess a range of alternative land need scenarios.
4. Previous Reports and Decisions
4.1 A list of previous reports and decisions is provided in Appendix 1.
5. Alternative Land Need Scenario Modelling and Assessment Outcomes
5.1 Alternative scenario modelling was conducted by looking at two separate policy
areas — Community Areas and Employment Areas. Community Areas accommodate
population related growth including future housing and population related jobs (i.e.
shopping, schools, offices, etc.). Employment Areas accommodate forms of
employment growth such as manufacturing, warehousing, other similar forms of
industrial type job growth requiring separation from residential areas, as well as
offices and certain service commercial uses.
5.2 Five alternative Community Area scenarios and two Employment Area scenarios
have been modelled and assessed. The relative performance of each Community
Area Land Need Scenario was compared based on theme areas of Conformity with
the Growth Plan, Regional Priorities, Future Forward Planning, and Regional Official
Plan and Envision Durham Planning Objectives. A summary of the modelling
outcomes and assessment results is described in the "Alternative Land Need
Scenarios Assessment Summary Report" (see Attachment #1) and an updated
Technical Appendix to the Summary Report was also prepared (see Attachment
#2). Each scenario and land need outcome is summarized below.
Page 11
Report #2022-P -** Page 8 of 41
HOW DO THE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS WORK?
COMMUNITY J
AREAS Ij
Intensitication Rate
Percent of new housing units
construction through infill and
redevelopment of existing built
areas. Higherdensily housing
forms are required tc achieve a
• • • • • Additional Urban Land Need
The amount of new Urban Land through expansion into
Rural Areas to accommodate population and
employment growth.
0
Johs that locate in
designated Employment
Areas, e.g. manufacturing,
warehousing, logistics,
research, development, etc.
I........
Employment Intensification
Employment Intensification refers
to existing husinesses and
employment sites generating more
jobsthrough new buildings,
additions, enhancements, and/or
redevelopment
Figure 1: A graphic describing how the alternative scenarios modelling process works,
which was used during public consultation. A larger version of the graphic can be found
here.
Alternative Land Need Scenarios
5.3 A range of alternative Community Area scenarios has been modelled representing a
spectrum of future land need outcomes. The scenarios provide a variety of options
for accommodating population related growth and have been arranged from lowest
density housing mix (and highest land need), to highest density housing mix (and
lowest land need).
Page 12
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 9 of 41
Community Area Land Need Scenarios
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Emphasis on
Primarily
Shifting the
Balancing
Emphasis on
low -density
low -density
unit mix
the unit mix
higher
housing
housing
densities
("Hemson")1
Housing Unit
Housing Unit
Housing Unit
Housing Unit
Housing Unit
Mix of new
Mix of new
Mix of new
Mix of new
Mix of new
units:
units:
units:
units:
units:
Low:56%
Low:39%
Low:34%
Low:28%
Low:20%
Medium: 23%
Medium: 26%
Medium: 30%
Medium: 28%
Medium: 31 %
High: 19%
High: 32%
High: 33%
High: 41 %
High: 47%
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
units:2%
units:3%
units:3%
units:3%
units:3%
Intensification
Intensification
Intensification
Intensification
Intensification
Rate:35%
Rate:45%
Rate:50%
Rate:50%
Rate:55%
Designated
Designated
Designated
Designated
Designated
Greenfield
Greenfield
Greenfield
Greenfield
Greenfield
Area Density:
Area Density:
Area Density:
Area Density:
Area Density:
50 people and
55 people and
57 people and
60 people and
64 people and
jobs per
jobs per
jobs per
jobs per
jobs per
hectare
hectare
hectare
hectare
hectare
New
New
New
New
New
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Area Land
Area Land
Area Land
Area Land
Area Land
Need:5,400
Need:2,600
Need:1,500
Need:950
Need:0
hectares
hectares
hectares
hectares
(13,344 acres)
(6,425 acres)
(3,707 acres)
(2,348 acres)
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
'Refers to the Growth Plan background technical report entitled: "Greater Golden Horseshoe: Growth
Forecast to 2051", prepared by Hemson Consulting, dated August 26, 2020, which identified a unit mix for
Durham that is largely oriented towards low density housing. The background report acknowledges that the
unit mix does not replicate/predict an appropriate unit mix that would be determined through a municipal
comprehensive review. However, at the request of a number of stakeholders, planning staff agreed to
model and assess the outcome of applying the Ilpwnlyit mix
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 10 of 41
5.4 Employment Area Scenario 1 is consistent with the initial Technical Report
outcomes described in Section 2.2. b) of this report but was updated to incorporate
additional Employment Area conversions endorsed by Regional Council and other
minor refinements. Employment Area Scenario 2 has tested a higher employment
intensification rate.
Employment Area Land Need Scenarios
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Vacant Employment Area Density
Target: 27 Jobs per gross hectare
Vacant Employment Area Density
Target: 27 Jobs per gross hectare
Employment Intensification Target:
15%
Employment Intensification Target:
20%
New Employment Area Land Need:
1,351 hectares (3,338 acres)
New Employment Area Land Need:
1,171 hectares (2,894 acres)
6. Results of Public Consultation
6.1 The Alterative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Report (Attachment #1)
was posted on the Envision Durham website on March 10, 2022 for public review for
a 35 day consultation window, ending April 14, 2022. A virtual Public Information
Centre (PIC) was hosted on March 24, 2022 and a feedback survey on the alterative
scenarios was made available during the consultation window.
6.2 Public consultation was supported through a newspaper advertisement, public
service announcements, posts on social media platforms, email notifications and
report circulation. Early engagement with the Area Municipal Working Group also
took place on February 17, 2022 to provide an overview of the key scenario
parameters, assessment framework, and advise of the pending release of the
Summary Report.
Public Information Centre
6.3 The virtual Public Information Centre (PIC) was hosted on March 24, 2022 from
7:00pm to 8:45pm. The PIC included presentations from planning staff to provide
context and an overview of key scenario modelling concepts, and the GMS
consultant team to provide the scenario modelling outcomes and the assessment
results. Following the presentations, a project team panel answered questions from
PIC participants. The PIC was well attended, with over 130 attendees at its peak.
Page 14
Report #2022-P -** Page 11 of 41
6.4 Two poll questions were posed to participants. Poll question 1 asked what future
growth in Durham should be characterized as. A total of 94 participants responded,
with the results as follows:
• 39% - Balancing growth through intensification and greenfield development
in new urban expansion areas.
• 38% - Focusing on intensification and minimizing new urban expansion
areas.
• 20% - Focusing on greenfield development in new urban expansion areas,
while having a lower rate of intensification.
• 2% - Unsure.
6.5 Poll question 2 asked which Community Area Land Need Scenario best aligned with
the preferred vision for growth for Durham over the next 30 years. A total of 90
participants responded, with the results as follows:
• 29% - Scenario 4
• 28% - Scenario 5
• 19% - Scenario 2
• 19% - Scenario 3
• 6% - Scenario 1
6.6 The poll question results identified a preference for future growth to be
characterized as balanced or intensification focused, with Community Area Land
Need Scenarios 4 and 5 having scored closely as the most preferred options
(combined, Scenarios 4 and 5 accounted for 57% of poll selections).
6.7 At the conclusion of the PIC session, participants were reminded they could provide
additional input on the alternative land need scenarios by completing the feedback
survey.
Alternative Land Need Scenario Feedback Survey
6.8 A feedback survey on the alternative land need scenarios was available on the
Envision Durham website during the 35-day consultation window, from March 10 to
April 14, 2022. The survey consisted of 15 questions and typically took respondents
less than 10 minutes to complete. A total of 589 people completed the survey.
Reponses came from across the region, with representation from all of Durham's
eight area municipalities. A mix of homeowners, tenants, business owners, those
who work in Durham, and students, participated. The survey results are detailed in
Appendix 3 to this report, with some key highlights provided below.
Page 15
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 12 of 41
6.9 Similar to poll question 1 from the PIC, survey question 4 asked what future growth
in Durham should be characterized. Responses were as follows:
• 63% - Focusing on intensification and minimizing new urban expansion
areas.
• 20% - Balancing growth through intensification and greenfield development
in new urban expansion areas.
• 14% - Focusing on greenfield development in new urban expansion areas
while having a lower rate of intensification.
• 3% - Unsure.
6.10 Survey question 5 sought input on the key principles being used to assess the
alternative scenarios by asking respondents to rank the principles in order of
importance. The scoring results ranked the principles in the following order:
• Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems, Preparing for Climate Change,
and Achieving Sustainable Development (Score 4.01).
• Setting up Strategic Growth Areas for Success (Score 3.21).
• Housing Market Choice (Score 2.87)
• Achieving Targets (Score 2.6)
• Competitive Economic and Employment Conditions (Score 2.4).
6.11 Similar to poll question 2 from the PIC, survey question 12 asked respondents to
rank the five Community Area scenarios in order of preference. The scenarios were
ranked in the following order:
• Scenario 5
• Scenario 4
• Scenario 3
• Scenario 2
• Scenario 1
6.12 Survey question 13 asked respondents to identify their preferred Employment Area
scenario. Employment Land Need Scenario 2 received 78% of responses, while
Employment Land Need Scenario 1 received 22%.
6.13 Survey participants were also provided with the opportunity to submit additional
comments through the survey or by attaching a separate document to the survey.
182 persons provided additional comments, and 29 supplementary documents were
attached to the survey. Some common themes were observed in these additional
comments, as follows:
Page 16
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 13 of 41
• Provide a cost breakdown of each scenario;
• Protect the Carruthers Creek Headwaters/add it to the Greenbelt Plan;
• There should be no airport on the federal lands in Pickering/add it to the
Rouge National Urban Park;
• New growth should focus on intensification and achieve efficient built form,
higher densities and sustainable forms of development;
• Housing affordability and suitability, based on demographics and tenure, is
key (e.g. single detached dwellings should not be only in reach for the
wealthy);
• Protect agricultural and environmental lands and features;
• Decisions of where to grow should be strongly informed by the Provincial
Agricultural System;
• Stop sprawl and minimize the impacts of a changing climate; and,
• There should be a no Employment Area expansion scenario.
6.14 In summary, similar to the PIC, the feedback survey results identified a preference
for higher density land need scenarios which produce lower additional urban area
land needs. A more fulsome summary of the Survey results is found in Appendix 3.
Written Submissions on Alternative Land Needs Scenarios
6.15 In addition to input received at the virtual PIC and through the feedback survey, a
number of written submissions have also been received. At the time of writing this
report, over 230 similarly worded emails have been received which request the
Region to implement a preferred land need scenario which requires no urban
boundary expansion for either Community Area or Employment Area purposes.
This is to be achieved by implementing a modified Community Area Scenario 5 and
Employment Area Scenario which:
• Increase the minimum density target for Designated Greenfield Areas to 90
people and jobs per hectare.
• Increase the number of detached secondary units.
• Increase the number of new townhouses and semi-detached dwellings for
existing built-up areas.
• Enact strong policies which ensure high -density developments include
family friendly units.
• Redesignating excess Community Areas in the Designated Greenfield
Areas to Employment Areas.
• Significantly increasing planned Employment Area land (job) densities and
planning for more dense types of employment.
Page 17
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 14 of 41
6.16 The submission also requests a full breakdown of costs to the taxpayer for each
scenario. As further discussed in Section 7 and provided in Attachment #2, the final
assessment of the alternative scenarios was updated to consider, at a high level,
the implications of per capita servicing costs associated with the various Community
Area Scenarios.
Area Municipal Positions
6.17 Durham's area municipalities have also reviewed the alternative scenarios and
have been formalizing municipal positions through their Committee and Council
reporting structures. The area municipalities provided a variety of responses, with
no clear consensus.
Page 18
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 15 of 41
Area Municipality
Preferred Community
Preferred Employment
Area Land Need
Area Scenario
Scenario
Ajax (April 4 Community affairs
Scenario 5
Scenario 2
and Planning Committee
Recommendation to Council)
Brock (April 19 staff
Scenario 4
No preference identified
recommendation to Council)
Clarington (April 25 staff
Request that the Region
Request that the Region
recommendation to Planning
release Clarington
release Clarington specific
and Development Committee)
specific allocations
allocations before making a
before making a decision
decision
or Modified Scenario 2*
Oshawa (April 11 Development
Modified Scenario 2**
No preference identified
Services Committee
Recommendation to Council)
Pickering (April 4 Planning and
Modified Scenario 2***
Scenario 1
Development Committee
Recommendation to Council)
Scugog (April 11 Planning and
Scenario 4
Scenario 1
Community Affairs Committee)
Uxbridge
Uxbridge representatives advised they will not be
reporting on a preferred alternative scenario, given the
unique growth and servicing challenges within the
Township
Whitby (April 4 Committee of
Recommend a scenario
No clear preference
the Whole)
similar to Scenario 3,
identified
that meets Growth Plan
requirements, and
provides flexibility for
local circumstances and
development trends
*Clarington staff request that the Region release the population and employment forecast, unit mix, and
intensification and DGA density targets for Clarington (and other area municipalities) prior to selecting a land
need scenario for the Region. If this is not provided before selecting a scenario, staff supports Community Area
Land Need Scenario #2 for Clarington, and a modified Community Area Land Need Scenario #2 for the Region
as a whole which establishes a Regional intensification rate of 50% but provides flexibility for Clarington to have
a lower intensification rate (35%-40%).
** Oshawa Development Services Committee recommended a modified Scenario 2 that includes a 50%
intensification rate, a unit mix of 34% low, 41 % medium, and 25% high density units, and a DGA density of 57
people and jobs per hectare (referred to as the initial BILD Scenario later in this report).
***Pickering Planning and Development Committee endorsed a modified Scenario 2 that includes a 50%
intensification rate, a unit mix of 35-40% low, 40-45% medium, and 20-25% high density units, with 3%
secondary units, and a DGA density of 57 peo le and jobs per hectare.
Page 19
Report #2022-P -** Page 16 of 41
6.18 Area municipal submissions also included several comments and recommendations
that have been reviewed by staff. Several municipalities commented that the
consultation timeframe of 35 days was too short. Others asked that the Region
include additional assessment principles, such as the servicing/infrastructure cost
associated with each scenario, the concept of balancing intensification with
greenfield growth, consideration of local circumstances, the importance of low and
medium density housing for families, and that certain principles should be weighted
higher and more important than others.
6.19 Area municipal submissions also sought clarification on how the alternative
scenarios would affect their area municipality specifically, how overall Regional
density targets and unit mixes would be applied locally, and the degree of flexibility
in establishing local targets. Clarington staff have asked that the Region not make
any decision on Community Area or Employment Area land need scenarios until
area municipal population and employment allocations, unit mixes, and density
targets are provided and not consider any settlement area boundary expansions
until local allocations are agreed upon. Clarington's requested approach cannot be
undertaken at this time as it would represent a substantial deviation from the
Growth Management Study approach for the LNA. Local allocations are determined
coincident with settlement area boundary expansions, as the geographic locations
for growth contribute directly to area municipal population and employment
allocations.
6.20 Comments were also received stating that recent secondary plan approvals reflect
a DGA density target of 50 people and jobs per hectare. The Region was also
asked to consider the implications of greenfield development in
proximity/encompassing existing rural settlements and that lower minimum targets
may be appropriate in such locations.
Consultation with BILD and input from Development Proponents
6.21 Planning staff have continued to meet with BILD representatives on a regular basis
to discuss key project milestones, including multiple meetings held in late 2021 to
discuss the release of the four LNA Technical Reports. Most recently, planning staff
met with BILD representatives on April 6th as well as the broader BILD-Durham
Chapter representative on April 8th. At these meetings, planning staff and the GMS
consultant team provided information/presentations and answered questions related
to the alternative scenarios modelling outcomes, assessment results, and
underlying technical analysis.
Page 20
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 17 of 41
6.22 BILD and several of its members provided input through a series of meetings and
emails which recommend that the Region implement a modified version of Scenario
2. BILD has provided the Region with two different iterations of their proposed
scenario, described below:
Initial BILD Modified Scenario 2
Refined BILD Modified Scenario 2
"Much Needed Affordable Middle"
"Much Needed Affordable Middle"
Housing Unit Mix of new units:
Housing Unit Mix of new units:
Low: 34%
Low: 33%
Medium: 41 %
Medium: 38%
High: 25%
High: 29%
Secondary units: In Low and Medium
Secondary units: In Low and Medium
Intensification Rate: 50%
Intensification Rate: 50%
Designated Greenfield Area Density:
Designated Greenfield Area Density:
57 people and jobs per hectare
57 people and jobs per hectare
New Community Area Land Need:
New Community Area Land Need:
2,600 hectares (6,425 acres)
—2,500 hectares (-6,178 acres)
6.23 It is understood that certain area municipal standing committees of Council may
have received delegations from BILD and endorsed a scenario similar to BILD's
initial Scenario described above. The difference between the two BILD scenarios is
a modest increase in the supply of high -density units, arriving at a similar future
urban land need outcome.
6.24 Letter submissions were also received from several consultant firms representing
development interests. Input in these submissions varied, with support being
expressed for a full spectrum of different scenarios. A number of technical
comments were also received which have been reviewed by staff and the GMS
consultant team.
6.25 Section 9 of this report provides an analysis of BILD's suggested scenario. In brief,
it is staff's view that the BILD's should not be the recommended approach. BILD's
scenario provides a Designated Greenfield Area (DGA) unit mix which is heavily
oriented towards low and medium -density housing forms, which does not provide
for a range of housing options in the DGA to support complete communities.
Additional information is provided in Section 9.
Page 21
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 18 of 41
Comments from Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change, Durham
Agricultural Advisory Committee, and Durham Environmental Advisory Committee
6.26 Through the Region's Sustainability Office, Sustainability Solutions Group (SSG)
was retained to assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with each
of the Community Area land need scenarios. The analysis did not assess the
impact of non-residential buildings (i.e. the Employment Area scenarios).
6.27 SSG's analysis demonstrated a reduction in GHG emissions as the scenario
densities increase. Accordingly, Scenario 1 was found to have the highest predicted
GHG emissions, and Scenario 5 to have the lowest (40% less than Scenario 1).
Additional commentary was also provided on the financial benefits of achieving a
more efficient (i.e. higher density) built form which reduces energy consumption and
auto -dependent modes of travel. The SSG report can be found here.
6.28 Planning staff presented an overview of the alternative land need scenarios to the
Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change (DRRCC) on March 18, 2022. An
overview of SSG's draft analysis was also presented. DRRCC formed a
subcommittee to come forward with recommendations on the alternative land need
scenarios work to the DRRCC at its April 22, 2022 meeting.
6.29 At its April 22, 2022 meeting, the DRRCC passed a motion recommending
Community Area Land Need Scenario 5, and that the advice and recommendations
from the DRRCC Land Needs Assessment Subcommittee with respect to the
Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Report be forwarded to the
Planning Division for consideration. The advice includes a series of principles and
recommendations intended to reduce the climate change footprint of new
development.
6.30 The Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC) considered the alternative
land need scenarios at its April 12t", 2022 meeting, and passed a motion identifying
Scenario 5 as its recommended Community Area Land Need Scenario, for
Committee's consideration.
6.31 The Durham Environmental Advisory Committee (DEAC) considered the alternative
land need scenarios at its April 21t", 2022 meeting, and passed a motion
recommending Community Area Land Need Scenario 5 and Employment Area
Land Need Scenario 2, for Committee's consideration.
Page 22
Report #2022-P -** Page 19 of 41
7. Assessment Refinements and Recommendations
7.1 In response to comments received during the public engagement process, the GMS
consultant team revisited the scenario assessment framework. Two key changes
were made to refine the assessment framework: i) to "un-pack" Principle 4 into three
separate components to be assessed independently of each other (impact on
agricultural and rural land, climate change, and sustainable/transit-oriented
development); and ii) to introduce a new principle that assesses the efficient use of
land and infrastructure/municipal servicing costs. The updated assessment
framework consists of the following principles and key questions:
Principle 1: Achieving Targets
• Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the Growth Plan, before
advancing additional settlement area boundary expansion?
Principle 2: Housing Market Choice
• Does the scenario provide for the development of a fulsome range of
housing types?
• Does the scenario respond to market demand?
Principle 3: Setting up Strategic Growth Areas for Success
• Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including Urban Growth
Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, Regional Centres, and Regional
Corridors, to achieve their planned function as higher density, mixed -use,
and transit supportive urban communities?
Principle 4: Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems, preparing for Climate
Change and Achieving Sustainable Development
• *New — assessed independently - To what extent would the scenario
negatively impact existing agricultural and rural areas?
• *New — assessed independently - Does the scenario provide efficient and
sustainable development patterns, including transit -oriented development?
• *New — assessed independently - Does the scenario respond to the
Region's Climate Change Emergency declaration?
Page 23
Report #2022-P -** Page 20 of 41
Principle 5: Competitive Economic and Employment Conditions
• To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region's economic and
sector strengths, including providing for appropriate Employment Area land
to ensure Durham remains economically attractive and competitive over the
long term?
*New - Principle 6: The Efficient used of land and infrastructure
• To what degree does the scenario provide for the efficient use of land and
infrastructure?
7.2 The revised assessment framework, along with updated assessment results and
consultant recommendations, are contained in the Alternative Growth Scenarios
Recommendations Memo (Attachment #3). The principles were applied to each of
the scenarios and compared to each other and assigned a relative "score". Green
was assigned if the principle was achieved, yellow if the principle was partially
supported/achieved, and red if the principle was not achieved/supported. Principle 1
was scored on a quantitative basis by measuring the scenario modelling outcome
against the targets of the Growth Plan, while principles 2-6 were compared on a
qualitative and relative basis. The assessment results are summarized below.
Page 24
Report #2022-P -**
e 21 of 41
Principle
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Emphasis on
Primarily
Shifting the
Balancing
Emphasis on
low -density
low -density
unit mix
the unit mix
higher
housing
housing
densities
("Hemson")
Principle 1:
Achieving
Growth Plan
Targets
Principle 2:
Housing
Market
Choice
Principle 3:
Setting Up
Strategic
Growth Areas
for Success
Principle 4a:
Protecting
Agricultural
and Rural
Systems
Principle 4b:
Responding
to Climate
Change
Page 25
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 22 of 41
Principle Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Emphasis on Primarily
Shifting the
Balancing
Emphasis on
low -density low -density
unit mix
the unit mix
higher
housing housing
densities
("Hemson")
Principle 4c:
Achieving
Sustainable
Development
including TOD
Principle 5:
Competitive
Economic and
Employment
Conditions
Principle 6:
The efficient
use of land
and
infrastructure
7.3 The consultant's updated assessment re -confirms the initial results. Scenario 1
remains the lowest performing option, primarily as it fails to achieve Growth Plan
targets, poses a challenge to Strategic Growth Areas achieving their planned
densities/function, has difficulty achieving transit oriented built form and instead
increases auto dependency and resultant increases in greenhouse gas and CO2
emissions, and requires the largest quantum of additional urban land.
7.4 Scenario 2 is also a low -density focused option but has an increase share of
medium and high -density units. Scenario 2 fails to achieve the intensification target
and was also found to pose a challenge to achieving transit supportive densities
outside of Urban Growth Centres and Major Transit Station Areas. While an
improvement over Scenario 1, Scenario 2 requires the second highest additional
urban land need and associated impacts on agricultural and rural lands, greenhouse
gas and CO2, and auto -dependant built form were noted.
7.5 Scenario 3 achieves the intensification target and also provides a high share of low -
density housing, however, was noted as posing a challenge to the Region's urban
Page 26
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 23 of 41
structure and planned function of Strategic Growth Areas. Accordingly, the scoring
results for Scenario 3 reflect the issue of achieving the intensification target
including through the provision of low -density units in locations that would otherwise
be better suited for higher density and transit supportive development. Scenario 3
also requires a relatively high amount of additional urban area land and comes with
the associated increased greenhouse gas emissions and lower servicing per capita
efficiencies.
7.6 Scenario 4 was assessed as the highest performing outcome, a result of meeting
the Growth Plan targets, creating land use patterns that make efficient use of land
and infrastructure, providing for a range of housing options, enabling transit
supportive development in Strategic Growth Areas, and requiring the second lowest
additional urban land need.
7.7 Scenario 5 was also assessed as a high performing option, but was noted as likely
to result in more high -density housing being supplied than can be absorbed by
market demand.
7.8 In their memo, the GMS consultant team has recommended the Region proceed
with Community Area Land Need Scenario 4. For Employment Areas, the consultant
team recommends that achieving a 20% intensification rate as proposed in
Employment Area Scenario 2 is achievable and can be monitored over the long
term and revisited if necessary, during the next Municipal Comprehensive Review.
Accordingly, the GMS consultant team has recommended the Region proceed with
Employment Area Scenario 2.
7.9 Although the public consultation did not produce a unified consensus, the majority of
public submissions and survey responses prefer an option which minimizes urban
area boundary expansion. The development community, represented by BILD and
others, prefers a modified Scenario 2 which would be largely oriented towards low
and medium density units and a relatively high urban expansion outcome.
7.10 Having weighed all the technical analysis, and the public and stakeholder input
received, staff are in agreement with the GMS consultant's assessment and
recommendation that Community Area Land Need Scenario 4 is appropriate for a
number of reasons including the following:
• This scenario demonstrates that the targets of the Growth Plan can be met,
including an intensification target of 50% while promoting higher densities,
intensification, and enabling the creation of transit supportive and complete
communities.
Page 27
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 24 of 41
• This scenario provides settlement area boundary expansion to accommodate
only the amount of land needed to accommodate the Region's 2051 population
forecast.
• This scenario balances growth within both existing and future Designated
Greenfield Areas and through intensification.
• This scenario reflects a trend towards higher density units in Durham, as
represented in recent building permit data, diversifies supply and continues to
supply new low and medium density housing units (56% combined) which
together are attractive to a broad market, including families.
• This scenario supports the delivery of "missing middle" forms of housing,
including a wide variety of multiple attached and townhouse dwellings as well
as low-rise apartments, allowing for detailed planning and implementation by
the area municipalities.
• This scenario provides densities in Designated Greenfield Areas on the
principle of ensuring future neighbourhoods are more compact, walkable, and
transit supportive.
• This scenario provides for appropriate unit types and densities in key locations
to support walkability, placemaking, vibrant and animated downtowns and
streetscapes, and existing and planned transit upgrades, specifically within
Strategic Growth Areas such as Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres,
Major Transit Station Areas, and key Regional Corridors.
• This scenario provides for a total housing unit mix that is well balanced, offers
a fulsome range of opportunities and choice for the full range of demographic
groups with 50% low density, 21 % medium density, and 28% high density
(existing housing stock plus new housing stock) by 2051.
• This scenario balances the competing principles by providing a range of new
housing unit choice (including low density units), helps protects agricultural
and rural land by reducing urban area expansion, responds to the realities of
climate change, and helps achieving sustainable and transit -oriented
development patterns.
7.11 In summary, planning staff believe that Scenario 4 offers an appropriate balance to
future population related growth, while also setting a progressive and forward -
looking vision for future development in Durham. It should be noted that the
examination of urban area land need will continue to be the subject of successive
MCRs, where the responsiveness of the market to various unit types and densities
will again be tested and evaluated.
7.12 With respect to Employment Area Land Need, public consultation identified a strong
preference for Scenario 2. Area municipal positions were mixed, and in some cases
did not provide a clear preference between the two Employment Area Scenarios. As
Page 28
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 25 of 41
noted earlier in the report, a number of submissions have asked that a no expansion
Employment Area scenario also be considered.
7.13 Regional planning staff agree with the consultant's recommendation to advance
Employment Area Land Need Scenario 2. While there is some inherent risk involved
with over -estimating the amount of employment intensification that may occur,
building trends over recent years and a review of existing underutilized employment
parcels suggest that achieving 20% of Employment Area job growth through
intensification is feasible. Achieving employment intensification can be supported
through Regional Official Policies and monitored and revisited through the next
Municipal Comprehensive Review.
7.14 Planning staff recommend that Community Area Land Need Scenario 4 and
Employment Area Land Need Scenario 2 be endorsed as the preferred land need
scenario. Once Regional Council has endorsed a preferred land need scenario,
Phase 2 of the Growth Management Study will be initiated. In Phase 2, candidate
areas for settlement area boundary expansion will be assessed, and regional growth
will be further distributed to Durham's eight area municipalities.
8. Response and commentary on Durham Environmental Advisory Committee
Motion to include the Carruthers Creek Headwaters in the Greenbelt Plan
Boundary
8.1 In early 2022 a motion was passed by the Durham Environmental Advisory
Committee requesting that "Regional Council support the inclusion of the Carruthers
Creek Headwaters (also known as northeast Pickering) in the Greenbelt Plan and
that the Ministers of Environment, Conversation, and Parks, and Municipal Affairs
and Housing be notified". At the February 1, 2022 Planning and Economic
Development Committee the resolution was referred to staff for a report.
8.2 In June of 2021, Regional Council endorsed the updated Carruthers Creek
Watershed Plan (CCWP). Throughout the course of that project there has been
vocal opposition to any consideration of the urbanization of the Carruthers Creek
headwaters area.
8.3 The CCWP study identifies issues associated with potential urbanization in the
headwaters, and actions needed to achieve watershed health more broadly.
Challenges with future urbanization include stormwater management, downstream
water quality, flooding and erosion impacts, increased impervious surface and the
impact on Redside Dace, broad protection of the Water Resource System, and the
importance of securing a sufficiently sized and distributed Natural Heritage System
to ensure long-term ecosystem resilience. The CCWP provides a series of
management recommendations aimed at addressing such issues should settlement
Page 29
Report #2022-P -** Page 26 of 41
area boundary expansion be advanced in the headwaters area.
8.4 Within the context of the alternative land need scenarios, planning staff estimate the
Region's supply of whitebelt lands to be approximately 6,300 hectares (15,567
acres)2. Only Community Area Land Need Scenario 1, combined with either of the
two Employment Area Scenarios, would produce the additional urban land need that
would exhaust all of the whitebelt lands in the Region, including northeast
Pickering/the Carruthers Creek headwaters area. For the remaining scenarios, there
are sufficient land in alternative whitebelt locations to allow consideration of a range
of options for urban boundary expansion, which may or may not include northeast
Pickering, to be considered.
8.5 As discussed earlier in this report, the evaluation of candidate areas for settlement
area boundary expansion will occur in Phase 2 of the Growth Management Study.
As part of the evaluation, various candidate locations for settlement area boundary
expansion including the agricultural capacity of the land, servicing feasibility,
transportation connectivity, environmental and other considerations will be
addressed. In addition, it has been recommended that future land use planning
policies and development practices within areas planned for settlement area
boundary expansion incorporate sustainability measures to reduce/offset
greenhouse gas emissions.
8.6 Planning staff are of the opinion it would be premature to present a recommendation
that the Carruthers Creek headwaters area, also known as northeast Pickering, to
be included within the Greenbelt Plan boundary at this time, prior to making
decisions on land need and locations for settlement area boundary expansion. This
recommendation will be addressed as part of Phase 2 of the GMS. However, there
is an opportunity as part of any settlement area boundary expansion to identify
additional areas for designation as future Urban River Valleys under the Greenbelt
Plan. Inclusion of additional Urban River Valleys could form a recommendation to
the province through the review and approval of the new ROP.
9. Implications of BILD's Modified Scenario
9.1 As previously noted, BILD has advanced a modified Community Area Land Need
Scenario 2. The second iteration of "BILD" Scenario 2 represents a mix between the
key drivers of Scenario 3 (an intensification rate of 50%, designated greenfield area
density target of 57 people and jobs per hectare, but a shifted unit mix of 33% low
density units, 38% medium density units, and 29% high density units) and the land
2 This figure excludes the following non -developable areas: highways, rail lines, pipelines, hydro corridors,
cemeteries, and Natural Heritage Features (basp6gp. bRegion's draft Natural Heritage System).
Report #2022-P -** Page 27 of 41
need outcome from Scenario 2 (-2,500 hectares/6,177 acres).
9.2 Planning staff and the GMS consultant team have conducted a review of the BILD
Modified Scenario 2, with the following key considerations having been identified:
• There are areas of commonality between recommended Community Area
Land Need Scenario 4 and the BILD Scenario, including the intensification rate
(50%), and the Designated Greenfield Area density target (60 people and jobs
per hectare in Scenario 4 vs. 57 people and jobs in the BILD Scenario).
• The areas of major difference are the housing unit mix (Scenario 4: low 28%,
medium 28% and high 41% and 3% secondary units vs. BILD Scenario: 33%
low, 38% medium, and 29% high) and the total additional urban area land
requirement (Scenario 4: 950 hectares/2,348 acres vs. BILD Scenario: 2,500
hectares/6,178 acres).
• It is noted that a unit mix heavily focused on low (33%) and medium density
(38%) housing units is highly unlikely to achieve a 50% intensification rate
given the supply opportunities that were identified in the Housing
Intensification Study Technical Report.
• There are also methodological differences in how the BILD Scenario has been
developed, and how the Region's Alternative Scenarios have been developed.
The Region's Scenarios are all derived from a population age structure
forecast in Durham Region, which dictates the total number of housing units
required to accommodate the Regional population by 2051. The population
age structure informs the total housing unit outlook by considering varying
demographic and family structures (families, aging populations, young
singles). Similar analysis has not been provided in support of the BILD
scenario.
• The key concerns identified with Scenario 3 — primarily the impacts to the
Regional Structure and Strategic Growth Areas - would also be prevalent in
the BILD scenario.
• The BILD scenario provides a Designated Greenfield Area (DGA) unit mix
which is heavily oriented towards low- and medium -density housing forms,
which does not provide for a range of housing options in the DGA to support
complete communities. Further, this unit mix would complicate achieving the
Central Pickering Development Plan population targets in Seaton by 2051 and
potentially delay high -density housing forms in the Courtice Major Transit
Station Area the majority of which is located in the DGA.
Page 31
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 28 of 41
• Due to the methodological differences referenced above, and others, using the
unit mix and DGA density target recommended by BILD as an input in the
Region's LNA would not produce the same DGA Community Area land need
that BILD has recommended (2,500 hectares/6,178 acres).
9.3 Regional Planning staff and the consultant team are of the view that the BILD
scenario does not represent an appropriate vision for growth for Durham to the year
2051.
10. Relationship to Strategic Plan
10.1 By planning for growth in a sustainable, progressive, and responsible manner, the
Land Needs Assessment and supporting technical reports address the following
strategic goals and priorities in the Durham Region Strategic Plan:
a) Under Goal Area 2, Community Vitality:
• 2.1 Revitalize existing neighbourhoods and build complete
communities that are walkable, well connected, and have a mix of
attainable housing
• 2.5 Build a healthy, inclusive, age -friendly community where everyone
feels a sense of belonging
b) Under Goal Area 3, Economic Prosperity:
• 3.1 Position Durham Region as the location of choice for business
• 3.2 Leverage Durham's prime geography, social infrastructure, and
strong partnerships to foster economic growth
• 3.4 Capitalize on Durham's strengths in key economic sectors to
attract high -quality jobs
c) Under Goal Area 4, Social Investment:
• 4.1 Revitalize community housing and improve housing choice,
affordability and sustainability
11. Conclusion
11.1 A Regional Council decision on a preferred land need scenario is required to allow
planning staff and the GMS consultant team to complete the LNA. Regional
Planning staff recommend that Regional Council endorse Community Area Land
Need Scenario 4 and Employment Area Land Need Scenario 2, resulting in a total
additional urban area land need of 950 hectares (2,348 acres) for Community Area
purposes and 1,171 hectares (2,894 acres) for Employment Area purposes.
11.2 Upon Region Council's endorsement of a preferred land need scenario, Phase 2 of
the Growth Management Study will commence. The final Land Need Assessment
technical document will be drafted, submitted to the Province of Ontario, and also
Page 32
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 29 of 41
released for information concurrent with the completion of Phase 2 of the Growth
Management Study. In Phase 2, Regional growth will be allocated to each of
Durham's eight area municipalities, and geographic locations for settlement area
boundary expansions will be evaluated and recommended.
12. Appendices and Attachments
Appendix #1: Glossary of Terms used in this Report, and the Growth
Management Study
Appendix #2: Previous Reports and Decisions
Appendix #3: Circulated Agencies and Service Providers
Appendix #4: Alternative Land Need Scenarios — Feedback Survey Results
Attachment #1: Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Report,
prepared by Urban Strategies and Watson and Associates dated
March 2022.
Attachment #2: Updated Technical Appendix to the Alternative Land Need
Scenarios Assessment Summary Report
Attachment #3: Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations by Urban
Strategies and Watson and Associates dated April 2022
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner of Planning and
Economic Development
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Original signed by
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 33
Report #2022-P -**
Appendix 1 — to Report #2022-P-**
Paae 30 of 41
Glossary of Terms used in this Report and the Growth Management Study
• Delineated Built-up Area: refers to lands within the delineated built boundary which
was identified by the Province of Ontario in 2006 as the limit of existing developed
areas at that time.
• Intensification Rate: the percent of total housing units constructed on annual basis
that are within the delineated built-up area.
• Designated Greenfield Area: lands within settlement areas (not including rural
settlements) but outside of the delineated built-up area.
• Designated Greenfield Area Density: the density, measured in people and jobs
per hectare, across the entire designated greenfield area. When calculating the
density, certain non -developable features may be excluded such as natural heritage
features and floodplains, electricity transmission lines and gas pipelines, highways
and railways, employment areas, and cemeteries.
• Low -Density Unit: a single detached dwelling, or semi-detached dwelling.
• Medium -Density Unit: a townhouse form of multiple attached dwellings (including
conventional street townhouses, condominium townhouses of various forms as well
as back-to-back, and stacked forms) and duplexes.
• High -Density Unit: apartment unit and stacked back-to-back townhouse unit.
• Secondary Unit: a self-contained residential unit with a private kitchen, bathroom
facilities, and sleeping areas that are within dwellings (i.e. basement apartments) or
within structures ancillary to a dwelling (i.e. above a detached garage accessed by a
rear lane).
• Community Area: in the context of a Land Needs Assessment, an area where most
of the housing required to accommodate the forecasted population will be located,
as well as most population -related jobs, most office jobs, and some employment
land employment jobs. Community Areas include delineated built-up areas and
Designated Greenfield Areas.
Page 34
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 31 of 41
• Employment Areas: in the context of a Land Needs Assessment, an area where
most of the employment land employment jobs are located (i.e. employment in
industrial type buildings), as well as some office jobs and some population -related
jobs, particularly those providing services to employment areas. Employment areas
may be located in both the delineated built-up area and Designated Greenfield
Areas.
• Strategic Growth Areas: Within settlement areas, nodes, corridors and other areas
that have been identified to be the focus for accommodating intensification and
higher -density mixed uses in a more compact built form. Urban Growth Centres and
Major Transit Station Areas are defined in the Growth Plan as Strategic Growth
Areas. The Growth Plan enables municipalities to designate other areas that
represent major opportunities for redevelopment and intensification as Strategic
Growth Areas, particularly those along major roads, arterials, or other areas with
existing or planned frequent transit service or higher order transit. Staff believe
Regional Centres in south Durham and certain Regional Corridors (i.e. Highway 2
and Simcoe) meet these criteria and should also be considered Strategic Growth
Areas.
• Missing Middle: a relatively new term that has developed as cities try to address
the complex issues of intensification and growth, stable neighbourhoods, complete
communities, housing choice and affordability. Missing middle can be context
dependent, but generally involves forms at higher densities than single or semi-
detached dwellings, but at lower densities than and mid- or high-rise apartment
buildings. Forms of dwelling units within the Missing Middle includes triplexes,
fourplexes, various forms of townhouses, or low rise courtyard apartments. Missing
middle units may also include live/work forms of accommodation, (see illustration
below).
PETAGF4EO 5 NGLE-FAMILY
NDMES
\ DUPLEX ` APARTMENT
FouR�LEX
— M{551�Cs
Source: Opticos Design, Inc. via Missing Middle Housing I CNU
Page 35
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 32 of 41
Market Demand / Market Based: a term that is referenced, but not defined by
provincial policy or guidance documents. Planning authorities are required to plan
for growth in a manner that satisfies market demand by planning for a market -based
housing supply. In other words, the number of units and mix of housing unit types
should align with the full range of projected demographic and social economic
needs, such as families, aging populations, low and moderate income households,
etc.
Page 36
Report #2022-P -**
Appendix 2 — to Report #2022-P-**
Previous Reports and Decisions
Paae 33 of 41
12.1 Several Reports have been prepared related to Envision Durham and Growth
Management related topics:
• On May 2, 2018 Commissioner's Report #2018-COW-93 requested
authorization to proceed with the municipal comprehensive review of the
Durham Regional Official Plan;
• Over the course of 2019, six theme -based Discussion Papers were released
seeking public input on a range of topics. The Discussion Papers can be found
on the project webpage at durham.ca/Envision Durham
• On June 2, 2020 Commissioner's Report #2020-P-11 recommended
evaluation criteria and a submission review process for the consideration of
Employment Area conversion requests.
• On July 29, 2020 Commissioner's Report #2020-P-14 outlined Amendment #1
to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including
recommended comments to the Province on the updated 2051 growth
forecasts for the Region of Durham and the updated Land Needs Assessment
Methodology.
• On December 1, 2020 Commissioner's Report #2020-P-27 provided proposed
policy directions and boundary delineations for existing and future Major
Transit Station Areas.
• On March 2, 2021 Commissioner's Report #2021-P-7 provided proposed
policy directions related to all key components of Envision Durham, including
initial directions for the Urban System and growth related topics. Also included
was a Growth Opportunities and Challenges Report prepared by the Region's
consultants, which serves as a starting point for the LNA and related technical
studies.
• On July 2, 2021 Commissioner's Report #2021-INFO-71 reviewed the Region -
Wide Growth Analysis. The purpose of the report is to analyze the region's
long-term population, housing, and employment growth forecast within the
context of provincial and regional policy, historical trends, and predicted future
influences.
Page 37
Report #2022-P -** Page 34 of 41
• On September 3, 2021 Commissioner's Report #2021-INFO-94 presented the
Housing Intensification Study. The purpose of the report is to document the
capacity for accommodating residential and mixed -use growth within the
region's built-up area (BUA), and determine the intensification potential of
strategic growth areas (SGAs).
• On September 24, 2021 Commissioner's Report #2021-INFO-97 summarized
the Employment Strategy. The purpose of the Employment Strategy is to
provide a comprehensive assessment of current industrial and office market
conditions and trends, anticipated growth patterns, market opportunities and
disrupters that are anticipated to influence employment growth across Durham
Region through 2051. This report include a recommended Employment Areas
density target and future land need to accommodate Employment Area growth
to 2051.
• On October 1, 2021 Commissioner's Report #2021-IN FO-100 presented the
Community Area Urban Land Needs Assessment which provided an
assessment of the Region's current and future Designated Greenfield Areas,
including development trends and amount of developed, non -developable, and
vacant areas. The Report recommended an overall Designated Greenfield
Areas density target and future land need to accommodate greenfield growth
to 2051.
• On December 7, 2021 Commissioner's Report #2021-P-25 provided staff
recommendations on Employment Area conversion requests received through
Envision Durham and additional areas identified by staff and the GMS
consultant team as appropriate for conversion.
• On December 22, 2021, Regional Council received a memorandum from
Commissioner Brian Bridgeman that responded to the request for additional
information related to Commissioner's Report #2021-P-25 and the
Employment Area conversion requests.
• On February 11, 2020, Commissioner's Report #2022-INFO-9 provided an
update on the alternative scenario modelling, the assessment framework that
will be applied, and planned consultation activities.
• On March 11, 2020, Commissioner's Report #2022-INFO-19 advised of the
release of the scenario modelling and assessment results for public review and
comment.
Page 38
Report #2022-P -** Page 35 of 41
Appendix 3 — to Report #2022-P-**
Circulated Agencies and Service Providers
• Canada Post
• Bell Canada
• Rogers Communications
• Shaw Cable TV
• Compton Communications
• Persona Communications
• Canadian Pacific Railway
• Canadian National Railway
• Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. and Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
• Trans -Northern Pipelines Inc.
• TransCanada Pipelines Inc.
• Hydro One Networks Inc.
• Ontario Power Generation Inc.
• Durham District School Board
• Durham Catholic District School Board
• Conseil Scolaire Viamonde
• MonAvenir Conseil Scolaire Catholique
• Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
• Ministry of Transportation
• Greater Toronto Airports Authority
• Transport Canada
Page 39
Report #2022-P -** Page 36 of 41
• Metrolinx
• Trent -Severn Waterway
• Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board
• Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School
Board
• Durham Region Police Department
• Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
• Elexicon
• Hydro One Networks Inc. (Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge)
• Independent Electricity System Operator
• Ontario Tech University
• Trent University Durham
• Durham College
• Durham Workforce Authority
• General Motors of Canada
• Lakeridge Health
• Ajax -Pickering Board of Trade
• Brock Board of Trade
• Clarington Board of Trade
• Newcastle & District Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce
• Scugog Chamber of Commerce
• Uxbridge Chamber of Commerce
Page 40
Report #2022-P -**
• Whitby Chamber of Commerce
• Downtown Ajax BIA
• Bowmanville BIA
• Brooklin BIA
• Pickering Village BIA
• Port Perry BIA
• Uxbridge BIA
• Downtown Whitby BIA
• Business Advisory Centre Durham
• Spark Centre
Paae 37 of 41
Page 41
Report #2022-P -** Page 38 of 41
Appendix 4 — to Report #2022-P-**
Alternative Land Need Scenarios - Feedback Survey Results
If you are a resident of Durham, where do you live? (Question #2)
Survey responses came from across the region, with all eight Durham area municipalities
represented. Among the almost 93% of survey participants (547 persons) who shared
where they live, the geographic breakdown was:
• 30% - Ajax
• 0.4% - Brock (Beaverton, Cannington, Sunderland, etc.)
• 7.1 % - Clarington (Bowmanville, Courtice, Newcastle, Orono, etc.)
• 13.2% - Oshawa
• 15.2%
- Pickering
• 5.5% -
Scugog (Port Perry, etc.)
• 6.6% -
Uxbridge
• 18.3%
- Whitby (Brooklin, etc.)
• 3.8% -
Other
Of the 3.8% of respondents that identified their location as "Other", this generally
represented communities outside of Durham, such as Toronto, North York, Oakville and
Peterborough. However, it should be noted that several responses under "Other" were
from communities within Durham, such as Seagrave (Scugog), Claremont (Pickering),
Sandford and Coppins Corners (Uxbridge).
Why are you interested in completing this survey? (Question #3)
This question asked survey participants to "select all that apply" when identifying their
interest in completing this survey. Among the almost 97% of survey participants (569
persons) who responded to this question, reasons included:
• 78.6% - Homeowner
• 8.6% - Tenant
• 7.4% - Business owner
• 4.4% - Student
• 21.1 % - Work in Durham
• 5.8% - Work in Real Estate or Development industry
• 10.2% - Other
Page 42
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 39 of 41
Because participants could self -identify among multiple reasons for completing the
survey, there were a high number of combinations wherein participants identified more
than one response. There were 58 survey respondents who identified as "Other", either
as a single response or in combination with other options. "Other" responses varied
considerably, and included persons such as farmers, Councillors, non -governmental
organization (NGO) representatives, environmental advocates, consultants, frequent
visitors to the region and prospective homeowners.
What should future growth in Durham be characterized as? (Question #4)
Survey participants were asked to select one option that best describes "what should
future growth in Durham be characterized as?" Among the almost 96% of survey
participants (563 persons) who responded to this question, future growth should be
characterized as:
• 63.2% - Focusing on intensification and minimizing new urban expansion areas.
• 19.7% - Balancing growth through intensification and greenfield development in new
urban expansion areas.
• 14% - Focusing on greenfield development in new urban expansion areas while
having a lower rate of intensification.
• 3% - Unsure.
Rank the following principles guiding future growth in Durham in order of
importance to you (Question #5)
Using a ranking question, with 1 being "most important" and 5 being "least important",
survey participants were asked to order principles guiding future growth in Durham by
way of importance to the respondent. The survey platform (SurveyMonkey) ranking
questions automatically calculate the average ranking for each answer choice to clearly
illustrate which responses were most preferred overall; this average ranking is referred to
as a "Score" below.
Among the almost 98% of survey participants (575 persons) who responded to this
question, the guiding principles ranked as:
1. Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems, Preparing for Climate Change and
Achieving Sustainable Development (Score 4.01)
2. Setting up Strategic Growth Areas for Success (Score 3.21)
3. Housing Market Choice (Score 2.87)
4. Achieving Targets (Score 2.6)
5. Competitive Economic and Employment Conditions (Score 2.4)
Page 43
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 40 of 41
In addition, survey participants were asked to specify any other principles of importance
(Question #6). Among the over 40% of survey participants (237 persons) who identified
other principles, the following themes were noted most often: housing affordability and
suitability, based on household formation and tenure; connected transportation/transit;
maximizing existing infrastructure and minimized impact on property taxes; as well as
sub -sets of the principal associated with "Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems,
Preparing for Climate Change and Achieving Sustainable Development", such as food
security and protecting the natural environment.
How does each Community Area Land Need Scenario align with your vision for
growth in Durham over the next 30 years? (Questions #7 to #11)
Using a slider scale, Questions #7 to #11 asked survey participants to evaluate each of
the five Community Area Land Need Scenarios, individually, by way of alignment with the
respondent's vision for growth in Durham over the next 30 years.
Not all survey participants responded to all five questions; however, the respondent
sentiment at the aggregate level illustrated an average ranking, from 1 being "poorly
aligned" to 5 being "completely aligned", for the five Community Area Land Need
Scenarios as:
• Scenario 5 (Average 3.72)
• Scenario 4 (Average 2.46)
• Scenario 3 (Average 2.09)
• Scenario 2 (Average 1.96)
• Scenario 1 (Average 1.8)
Rank the five Community Area Land Need Scenarios in order of preference
(Question #12)
Using a ranking question, with 1 being their "preferred scenario" and 5 being their "least
preferred scenario", survey participants were asked to order the five Community Area
Land Need Scenarios by way of preference to the respondent.
This question differs from Questions #7 to #11, as it asks survey participants to rank all
five scenarios relative to each other, to help determine which option was most preferred
overall by respondents. As noted in Question #5 above, SurveyMonkey automatically
calculates the average ranking for each answer choice to clearly illustrate which
responses were most preferred overall; this average ranking is referred to as a "Score"
below.
Page 44
Report #2022-P -**
Paae 41 of 41
Among the over 76% of survey participants (448 persons) who responded to this
question, the Community Area Land Need Scenarios ranked as:
1. Scenario 5 - Emphasis on higher densities and intensification beyond minimum
Growth Plan targets (Score 3.59)
2. Scenario 4 - Balancing the unit mix - with an emphasis on high and medium -density
housing, while achieving the minimum 50% intensification target (Score 3.53)
3. Scenario 3 - Shifting the unit mix and adding low density intensification to Built -Up
Areas (BUA) and Strategic Growth Areas (SGA) to achieve the minimum Growth
Plan intensification target (Score 3.2)
4. Scenario 2 - Primarily low -density housing, with increased share of medium and
high -density housing (Score 2.67)
5. Scenario 1 - Emphasis on low -density housing, not meeting the minimum Growth
Plan intensification target (Score 2.05)
Which Employment Land Need Scenario aligns with your vision for Durham's
Employment Areas over the next 30 years? (Question #13)
Survey participants were asked to select which of two Employment Land Need Scenarios
aligned with their vision for Durham's Employment Areas over the next 30 years. Among
the 64% of survey participants (377 persons) who responded to this question,
Employment Land Need Scenario preferences were:
• 22% - Employment Land Need Scenario 1
• 78% - Employment Land Need Scenario 2
The final component of the survey asked participants to share any other thoughts or
comments on the proposed land need scenarios (Question #14), and/or to attach any
additional comments, images or files for consideration (Question #15). Approximately
31 % of survey participants (182 persons) provided additional comments, and 29
documents were attached to the survey for consideration.
Page 45
r
ALTERNATIVE LAND NEED SCENARIOS
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT
Part of the Region of Durham Growth Management Study:
Land Needs Assessment
March 2022
OWatson
&Associates
FCONOMISTS LTD.
URBAN
STRATEGIES
INC .
Page 46
Page 47
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 4
2. EMPLOYMENT AREA LAND NEED SCENARIOS 6
2.1 Description 6
2.2 Methodology/Analysis 6
2.3 Key Considerations 7
3. COMMUNITY AREA LAND NEED SCENARIOS 8
3.1 A Spectrum of Community Area Land Need Scenarios 9
3.2 Community Area Alternative Land Need Scenario Methodology 10
3.3 Community Area Land Need Scenario Assessment Framework 12
3.4 Community Area Land Need Scenario Outcomes 14
4. RANGE OF LAND NEED 24
S. NEXT STEPS 25
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 26
1. Introduction and Context
Durham Region is undertaking a Growth
Management Study (GMS) as part of Envision
Durham, the Municipal Comprehensive Review
(MCR) of the Regional Official Plan (ROP).
This is a two-phase study to assess how to
accommodate the Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe forecast growth to 2051
of 1,300,000 people and 460,000 jobs in the
Region of Durham. The first phase of the GMS
is the preparation of a Land Needs Assessment
(LNA) to quantify the amount of Settlement
Area Boundary Expansion that will be required
to accommodate future population and
employment growth to the year 2051.
During the summer and early fall 2021, the GMS
Project Team released four Technical Reports
(the "Technical Reports") providing an analysis
of the form of growth and resulting land needs
in Durham. These four reports were presented
for public comment and Planning and Economic
Development Committee consideration:
The Region -Wide Growth Analysis (released
on July 2, 2021) presented region -wide
population and employment forecasts,
various trends in demographics, unit mix,
housing prices, and built form. The Report
included a forecast housing unit mix for
new units to be built during 2021 to 2051
timeframe of 22% low density units, 31%
medium density units, and 47% high density
units.
2. The Housing Intensification Study Technical
Report (released on September 3, 2021)
evaluated the supply and demand for
housing within the built-up area, including a
detailed assessment of likely opportunities
and supply potential for intensification' and
associated population and employment
accommodation. The Report recommended a
regional intensification target of 50%.
3. The Employment Strategy Technical Report
(released on September 24, 2021) provided
an assessment of trends in employment
and analyzed the current state of the
region's Employment Areas, provided
recommendations on Employment Area
conversions, recommended an overall
Employment Area density target of 26 jobs
per hectare by 2051, and identified an
additional Employment Area land need of
1,164 hectares.
4. The Community Area Land Needs Technical
Report (released on October 1, 2021)
evaluated the existing state, current trends,
and long-term development potential of
designated greenfield areas (i.e. lands within
the urban area boundary that are outside
of the built-up area). The Report provided a
recommended overall designated greenfield
areas density target of 64 people and jobs
per hectare and an additional Community
Area land need of 737 hectares.
1 Intensification is defined as the development of a
property, site or area within the Built Up Area at a
higher density than currently exists.
4 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?NPhC4(
Through the fall 2021, the Envision Durham
process sought input and comments on the
Technical Reports from stakeholders and
the public. Correspondence from BILD,
other development interests, certain area
municipalities, and others, questioned whether
the proposed housing mix contained in the
draft Region Wide Growth Analysis was too
heavily weighted towards high density forms
of development, and did not adequately
represent the market demand for low density
housing (i.e. single detached dwellings). Other
correspondence, including from individual
members of the public, certain area municipal
comments, and other organizations indicated
that the draft LNA targets were either
appropriate, or could be more aggressive to
limit settlement area expansions by more heavily
prioritizing the protection of farmland, mitigating
climate change, and maximizing higher density
intensification opportunities.
In response to comments received, Regional
Planning staff agreed at the October 5, 2021
Planning and Economic Development Committee
meeting to run modelling and assess a range
of alternative land need scenarios. This report
provides a summary of the land need scenarios,
including 2 Employment Land need scenarios
and 5 Community Area land need scenarios,
and the resultant analysis and assessment of the
scenario modelling outcomes.
Before the Scenario modelling and analysis
was undertaken, adjustments were made to
reflect the current context across the Region to
create a refined baseline of existing settlement
patterns and supply of urban land available
for development (greenfield). Input from
stakeholders and consultation has also informed
the adjustments. These adjustments are as
follows:
a. Decisions made by Regional Council on
December 22, 2021 regarding Employment
Area conversion requests, including some
additional sites that were endorsed for
conversion, which resulted in increased
Community Area Land supply;
b. Revised base mapping to reflect updated
natural heritage takeout layer in the DGA
Community Area land need analysis, and
a reclassification of select sites based on
comments received which reduced the
remaining developable vacant land supply;
and
c. Reassessment of the current active
development applications and developable
land area within Seaton.
The information contained in this report and
the technical appendix are provided in order
to allow for meaningful and informed feedback
through the ongoing consultation process
and engagement survey available at durham.
ca/envisiondurham. Once input from this
consultation is received, a Recommended
Land Needs Scenario will be provided to the
Region's Planning and Economic Development
Committee in May 2022.
Page 50 March 2022
2. Employment Area Land Need Scenarios
2.1 Description 2.2 Methodology/Analysis
The Employment Strategy Technical Report
identified an Employment Area forecast of
99,500 jobs, where 15% of employment growth
is expected to be accommodated through the
intensification of existing businesses and sites,
with the remaining growth anticipated to occur
on vacant employment lands at a density of 27
jobs per gross hectare.
In response to feedback on the Durham Region
Employment Strategy Technical Report, an
alternative Employment Area scenario has
been defined and assessed. The alternative
employment scenario examines an alternative
Employment Area intensification target of 20%,
compared to 15% reported in the Durham
Region Employment Strategy Technical Report.
Employment Area intensification represents
opportunities to accommodate job growth on
employment lands which are currently developed
or underutilized through the expansion of
existing businesses, severance of existing parcels
with adequate frontage, or the redevelopment
of existing uses to more employment -intensive
operations.
The Durham Region Employment Strategy
density target of 27 jobs per gross hectare
for the region's vacant employment lands has
been maintained in the alternative employment
scenario. This is because recent trends in
employment development show a strong
market for more land extensive logistics and
warehousing uses in Durham, which result in
moderate employment densities. The Region
has minimal ability to effectively influence
higher densities on vacant lands and assuming
a higher density beyond what has already been
identified in the Employment Strategy is not
recommended.
Based on an updated natural heritage system as
well as Employment Area conversions endorsed
by Durham Regional Council, the land needs
calculation has been revised since the release
of the Durham Region Employment Strategy
Technical Report. Further to these changes,
a potential higher number of forecast jobs
occurring through intensification results in a
greater utilization of Durham Region's existing
Employment Area land base and infrastructure.
Increasing employment densities on existing
vacant and underutilized sites within Durham
Region encourages the concentration of
economic activity and reduces the amount of
new land and infrastructure needed to promote
job growth. As shown in the graphic on page
7, an increased intensification target of 20% in
the alternative Employment scenario results in
an overall reduction in vacant Employment Area
land needed to accommodate forecast growth
to 2051. With a 20% intensification target, the
overall land need by 2051 would be reduced to
1,170 gross hectares compared to 1,350 hectares
required with a 15% intensification target.
Historical building permit activity over the
past decade indicates that approximately 20%
of gross floor area (G.F.A.) development in
Employment Areas has been achieved through
expansions. This figure does not account for
new building permits on lands which have
been severed or redeveloped. Furthermore,
there are ample opportunities across
Durham Region's underutilized employment
lands to accommodate job growth through
intensification. For example, through a review
of larger sized underutilized sites with high
potential to accommodate intensification, it
is estimated that approximately 10,000 jobs
could be accommodated on just 25 of the
larger underutilized parcels within Employment
Areas. These parcels represent approximately
one third of the total underutilized land area in
Employment Areas across the Region.
6 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?N1?ha5J
2.3 Key Considerations
Achieving a higher Employment Area
intensification target of 20% results in a
more efficient use of land and reduced
Employment Area land need in Durham
Region by 2051. A reduction in new land
required to accommodate job growth has
a lesser impact on the Region's agricultural
lands and rural systems.
Intensification of existing Employment
Lands in proximity to major transit station
areas (MTSAs) and other locations served
by Regional Transit would complement
the Region's priorities related to transit -
oriented development (TOD) and economic
competitiveness.
Urban Employment
Area Land Demand
Urban Emplyment Areas
Employment Growth
r
• The level of intensification achieved
in Durham Region is largely left to the
discretion of business owner choice and it is
therefore difficult to predict future levels of
intensification.
If a higher intensification target of 20% does
not materialize, it could potentially result in
an insufficient amount of vacant Employment
Area land available for development over
the horizon of the Official Plan. It is noted,
however, that there would be an opportunity
to reassess intensification patterns during the
next Municipal Comprehensive Review and
re-evaluate whether additional employment
land will be required through expansion.
Employment Strategy Revised Empiyment
Technical Report Area Intensification
Target
99,500
Share of Employment Growth
15%
Accomodated by Intensification
V
Total Employment Growth
84 600
Adjusted for Intensification
■
V
Urban Employment Area
Land Density (Jobs/gross Hay
V
Urban Employment
3,130
Area Land Demand, Gross Ha
■
Designated Vacant Employment Area Land Supply
Adjusted for Recommended Conversions, Gross Ha
V
Employment Area
1,351
Deficit, Gross Ha
27
1,779
20%
79,600
2,950
1,171
Figure 2-3-1: Employment Area Land Need Methodology Flow Chart
Page 52
March 2022
3. Community Area Land Need Scenarios
Five Community Area Land Need Scenarios have
been framed to test a broader range of options
for accommodating the 2051 forecast growth
across the Region. The five Community Area
Land Need Scenarios create a spectrum ranging
from lowest density housing mix and highest land
need to highest density housing mix and lowest
land need. All scenarios accommodate the
Growth Plan forecast for Durham Region to 2051.
The key variables that have been adjusted across
the scenarios include housing mix (regionally and
by policy area), designated greenfield area (DGA)
density targets, intensification targets, and future
land need.
The five Community Area Land Need Scenarios
are described on page 9 followed by a summary
of the analysis and resultant growth patterns
and an assessment of each Scenario. Each
SCENARIO 1:
Emphasis on
low -density housing a
Scenario has been defined by prioritizing one
or more of the key variables noted above as the
primary driver, with the other variables being
resultant outcomes. For example, prioritizing
a unit mix with a high share of low -density
housing will result in a lower intensification and
DGA density target, while producing a higher
DGA Community Area land need. Conversely,
prioritizing sustainability objectives including
TOD and less need for settlement area boundary
expansions will drive a unit mix with a higher
share of medium and high -density units and
result in a higher intensification target and DGA
density target and a lower DGA Community Area
land need. The following describes each of the
scenarios and key drivers and their position on
the Scenario spectrum.
SCENARIO 3:
Shi(l rg the Umr rnix
SCENARIO 2: SCENARIO 4:
Primarily low -density Balancing the unit mix
housing 1
SCENARIO 5:
Einpnasis on higher
densities
■
■
■
Ground
Overall
Related
Intensification
Land
Housing
Rate
Need
Decreases
Increases
Decreases
1-5
1-5
1-5
Figure 3-1: Trends along the spectrum of scenarios
8 Alternative Land Need Scenarios AssessmentI?Ml?h§�
3.1 A Spectrum of Community Area Land Need Scenarios
1. Scenario 1: Emphasis on low -density
housing, not meeting the minimum Growth
Plan intensification target
This scenario implements the housing unit
mix from the Growth Plan background
technical report entitled: "Greater Golden
Horseshoe: Growth Forecasts to 2051 ",
prepared by Hemson Consulting, dated
August 26, 2020. This scenario incorporates
the highest proportion of low -density housing
forms, which will result in the highest amount
of additional Community Area land and the
lowest intensification rate at 35%, well below
the Growth Plan minimum.
2. Scenario 2: Primarily low -density housing,
with increased share of medium and high -
density housing
Scenario 2 targets a higher intensification rate
than Scenario 1, while maintaining a housing
unit mix that is still predominantly oriented
towards low- and medium -density housing.
The resultant intensification rate is 45%,
lower than the Growth Plan minimum. The
unit mix paired with the lower intensification
rate results in the second highest amount of
additional Community Area land.
3. Scenario 3: Shifting the unit mix and
adding low density intensification to BUA
and SGAs to achieve the minimum Growth
Plan intensification target
Scenario 3 aims to meet the Growth Plan
minimum intensification target of 50%,
while maintaining a high share of low -
and medium -density housing forms. To
accommodate increased levels of low- and
medium -density housing forms in the BUA (to
achieve the 50%), intensification within urban
structure will limit higher density growth
with Regional Centres and along Regional
Corridors. Achieving this scenario would
prove challenging, because a high number
of low -density units would be required
within the BUA on sites that may otherwise
be appropriate and desirable for more
intensive forms of development, and through
the redevelopment of larger lots in stable
neighbourhoods. Furthermore, this Scenario
will still result in a considerable amount of
additional Community Area land need.
4. Scenario 4: Balancing the unit mix - with
an emphasis on high and medium -density
housing, while achieving the minimum 50%
intensification target
Scenario 4 reflects the current pipeline
development trend toward high -
density housing forms in the BUA, while
accommodating a sufficient proportion of
low- and medium -density forms in response
to public and stakeholder comments.
The result is a Scenario that achieves the
minimum 50% intensification target, supports
the growth of SGAs, and offers a market -
based choice of housing options that is
adjusted to a more balanced mix of built
form in the region over the 30-year horizon.
A moderate amount of new Community Area
land is anticipated.
5. Scenario 5: Emphasis on higher densities
and intensification beyond minimum Growth
Plan targets
Scenario 5 seeks to achieve an intensification
rate of 55%, primarily though medium- and
high -density housing forms. The forecast unit
mix in the DGA is expected to accommodate
the greatest share of high -density housing
compared to the previous four scenarios.
Based on less overall housing growth forecast
in the DGA and a dense housing mix, no
additional Community Area Land is required.
This represents a "no -urban -expansion"
scenario.
Page 54 March 2022
3.2 Community Area Alternative Land Need Scenario Methodology
The Community Area Alternative Land
Need Scenarios test a range of inputs and
outcomes/implications for how growth can be
accommodated across Durham Region. The
draft LNA outcome from the Technical Reports
represents a reference point, but each of the
Five Scenarios has been defined and analysed
distinct from this departure point. The following
three key steps were undertaken in preparing the
Scenario Analysis:
4
The key drivers from each Scenario were
used to frame the analysis. An initial analysis
of the Scenario was run against the forecast
model and reviewed against the outcomes
(housing mix, intensification rate, greenfield
density, impact on planned regional structure,
and additional land need). If needed,
adjustments were made to the Scenario to
ensure each was coming as close as possible
to conforming with Growth Plan policies
and targets while complementing Regional
priorities (i.e. MTSAs).
In order to achieve the Scenario drivers,
in particular an increased proportion of
low- and medium -density housing mix,
some additional assumptions were made.
More specifically, in order to accommodate
complete communities in both the BUA and
Greenfield areas, an increased amount of
low- (single -detached, semi-detached, and
duplexes) and medium -density (townhouse)
housing units need to be accommodated
in both the DGA and BUA policy areas. To
achieve this in the BUA, some underutilized
lands or soft sites were assumed to be
developed as low and medium density rather
than high density units, and intensification
through lot splitting (larger sized single lots
severed into two lots) also was assumed.
Secondary units, also referred to as Gentle
Intensification in the Housing Intensification
Technical Report, have been separated into
their own density category for the assessment
of the Five Scenarios. This reflects the
unique form of intensification, where they
are typically located in low -density unit types
but are assigned a high -density people per
unit assumption. Their low -density context
yet high -density residency makes them
sufficiently different for the purpose of the
analysis. The assumption for the absolute
number of secondary units in the region does
not vary by scenario, though the proportion
of these units does fluctuate due to the
varying rates of other unit types.
Final outputs for each scenario varies in terms
of housing mix by type (region wide and within
the BUA and DGA), achievement of the Growth
Plan intensification target, assumed DGA density,
and the resulting land need to accommodate
forecast growth to 2051. Once these outputs
were obtained, an assessment was undertaken of
each scenario.
Growth Plan Forecasts
Intensification 5GA/MTSAdensity
Rate targets
Housing DGA Employmcnt
Unit Mix Density Density
BUA DGA
Unit Mix Unit
Mix
Future Land Needs Assessment
Figure 3-2-1: Key Variables in the Land Needs
Assessment are interrelated
10 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment afy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
Housing Unit Mix Designated Greenfield 1
21 % Low Density Density
Five Technical Reports
31%Medium Density 64 PJH I
48% High Density 1
+ Land Needs Assessment (Fall 20 21) Intensification Rate New Community Area Land I
50% 737 Hectares J
41, —
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
Adjust for refined and new inputs to
• Reflect Council adopted Conversion requests I
• Update Natural Heritage System layers
create new baseline • Reassessed development condition in Seaton
1. Emphasis on 2. Primarily low -density
low -density housing housing
t Housing Unit Mix
1
56% Low Density
I 23% Medium Density
14% High Density
i 2% Secondary Units
I Intensification Rate
35%
Designated GreenfiePd
Density
50 PJH
I
New Community Area Land
1 5,400 Hectares
'We are here) Oo,
t �
Housing Unit Mix
I
I 39% Low Density
I 26% Medium Density 1
32% High Density
1 3% Secondary Units
I Intensification Rate
1 45%
Designated Greenfield
Density
55 PJH
I
INew Community Area Land
2,600 Hectares 1
3. Shifting the unit mix 4. Balancing the unit mix
' Housing Unit Mix
1
1 34°%Low Density
1 30% Medium Density {
33% High Density I
1 3% Secondary Units
I Intensification Rate
1 50%
Designated Greenfield
De nsity
57 PJH
I
New Community Area Land
` 1,500 Hectares
Assessment Framework
t Housing Unit Mix
1
1 2846 Low Density
1 28% Medium Density
41% High Density
{ 3% Secondary Units
I Intensification Rate
€ 50%
j Designated Greenfield
I Density
60 PJH
INew Community Area Land
' 450 Hectares
Five Principles
1. Achieving Targets
i 2. Housing Market Choice
I 3. Setting -up SGAs for success
4. Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems, preparing for
Cimate Change and achieving Sustainable Development
1 5. Competitive Economic and Employment Conditions
7
5. Emphasis on higher
densities
t Housing Unit Mix 1
20% Low Density
1 31 % Medium Density
47% High Density I
1 2% Secondary Units
I Intensification Rate
I 55%
1 Designated Greenfield
I Density
64 PJH
I
New Community Area Land
0 Hectares !
Achieves targets/
supports principle
Partially supports
principle
Does not support
principle
— — — — — — — — — —
I
Recommended Scenario
I
Figure 3-2-2: Alternative Scenarios development and assessment flow chart
Page 56 March 2022 11
3.3 Community Area Land Need Scenario Assessment Framework
To provide Regional Council, stakeholders
and members of the public with additional
information and context, each scenario was
measured against an assessment framework.
The Assessment Framework was developed by
considering the key theme areas of Conformity
with the Growth Plan, Regional Priorities, Future
Forward Planning, and Regional Official Plan
and Envision Durham Planning Objectives, all
of which inform how growth in Durham should
occur over the next 30 years. A review of existing
policies and strategies under each theme was
conducted, which resulted in the following
principles and questions that were uses to
measure and compare the scenarios:
Principle 1:
Achieving Targets
1. Does the scenario achieve the minimum
targets of the Growth Plan, before advancing
additional settlement area boundary
expansion?
Principle 2:
Housing Market Choice
1. Does the scenario provide for the
development of a fulsome range of housing
types?
2. How does the scenario respond to market
demand?
Principle 3:
Setting up Strategic Growth Areas for Success
Does the scenario support the ability of
SGAs, including Urban Growth Centres,
MTSAs, Regional Centres, and Regional
Corridors, to achieve their planned function
as higher density, mixed -use, and transit
supportive urban communities?
Principle 4:
Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems,
preparing for Climate Change and Achieving
Sustainable Development
1. To what extent would the scenario negatively
impact existing agricultural and rural areas?
2. Does the scenario provide efficient and
sustainable development patterns, including
transit -oriented development?
Does the scenario respond to the Region's
Climate Change Emergency declaration?
12 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?Nll?ha5�
Principle 5:
Competitive Economic and Employment
Conditions
To what extent does the scenario capitalize
on the Region's economic and sector
strengths, including providing for appropriate
Employment Area land to ensure Durham
remains economically attractive and
competitive over the long term?
The outcomes/implications from each
scenario were then compared and ranked.
The rankings, with the exception of Principle
1, were predominantly based on a qualitative
assessment, recognizing the overlapping and
subjective nature of the principles. Principle 1
is a quantitative assessment based on the 50%
Intensification Rate, and minimum MTSA and
UGC people and jobs per hectare densities
required by the Growth Plan. The Scenario
outcomes and assessment summaries are
contained in the following section.
Page 58 March 2022 13
3.4 Community Area Land Need Scenario Outcomes
Emphasis on low -density housing,
• not meeting the minimum Growth Plan intensification target
Scenario 1 implements the housing mix established in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: Growth
Forecasts to 2051 Technical Report, August 26, 2020 (Growth Plan Technical Report). The housing mix
is based on a continuation of historical propensity trends for Durham Region to 2051. This Scenario
explores the implications of a low -density focused growth scenario on the regional urban structure.
The high proportion (56%) of low density units has implications on all metrics, resulting in an
intensification rate of 35%, which is lower than the Growth Plan minimum requirement of 50%. Given
the low percentage of high -density units, this Scenario locates virtually all of the forecast high -density
housing mix within the Built-up Area to best support the Strategic Growth Areas. The DGA Density
meets the Growth Plan target but is lowest of all scenarios. The resultant land need is the greatest of
all of the five scenarios.
Intensification Rate
Durham Total New Unit Mix
Durham Total Units 2051
(Existing + New)
0 10 20 30
Outcomes
BUA New Unit Mix
6% 7%
48% 40%
DGA New Unit Mix
4%1%
4%
82%
Durham Total Unit Mix
2051 (Existing + New)
297,600 18%
78,600
85,200 19% 63%
'0,000 units
BUA New Units
4,800
29,400
35,500
4,100
0 1 2 3 4 '0,000 units
DGA New Units
110,700
18,220
5,480
460
0 4 8 12
'0,000 units
DGA Density so
(PJH)
New Community Area
Land Need (Hectares)
5A00
❑ Low Density ❑ Medium Density ■ High Density ■ Secondary Units
The intensification rate is 35%. The BUA unit mix is 7% low -density, 40% medium -density, 48% high -
density, and 6% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 4,800 low -density, 29,400 medium -density,
35,500 high -density, and 4,100 secondary units. The DGA density is 50 people and jobs per hectare.
The DGA unit mix is 82% low -density, 14% medium -density, 4% high -density, and 1% secondary units.
The DGA unit amounts are 110,700 low -density, 18,220 medium -density, 5,480 high density, and 460
secondary units. The total new unit mix is 56% low -density, 23% medium -density, 19% high -density,
and 2% secondary units. The total new community area land need is 5,400 hectares.
14 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?N1?ha59
Scenario 1 Assessment
Achieving Targets I
50% intensification target not met.
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/
Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the ha met but is below the Category 1
Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area density (currently approved).
boundary expansion? MTSA and UGC minimum densities
difficult to meet
Housing Market Choice
Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful-
some range of housing types?
How does the scenario respond to market demand?
Setting -up SGAs for success
3 Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including
Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and
Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as
higher density, mixed -use, and transit supportive urban
communities?
Protecting Agricultural and Rural
4
Systems, preparing for Climate Change and
Achieving Sustainable Development
To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist-
ing agricultural and rural areas?
Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel-
opment patterns, including transit -oriented development?
Does the scenario respond to the Region's Climate
Change Emergency declaration?
Competitive Economic and
Employment Conditions
To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region's
economic and sector strengths, including providing for
appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham
remains economically attractive and competitive over the
long term?
Key Considerations
• Implementing the Growth Plan Technical
Report forecasts results in an increased
share of low -density housing types than are
reported in the active development pipeline
• Assumes future housing unit mix would be a
flat line projection of historical patterns (based
on 2016).
• Limited high -density options in DGA.
® 9 Housing forms are generally
ground -oriented, leading to lowest
intensification densities within the BUA.
• Lowest level density development
potential within the SGAs, challenging
their potential as mixed -use, transit
supportive urban communities.
O • Requires the most new land, consuming
existing rural and agricultural land.
• Predominance of low -density form
makes transit oriented redevelopment
difficult and increases car -dependency
• Supply of low -density units encourages
J new families to move to Durham.
• Low -density form leads to increasing
traffic congestion long-term.
• Car -dependent urban form is less
physically and economically accessible.
• Low -density form, spread over a larger
settlement area and related infrastructure
is more costly to maintain in the long-
term.
• Highest proportion of low -density housing forms across all policy areas.
• Strategic Growth Areas planned to achieve lowest level of density
• Development of urban structure as a compact, transit oriented places least supported.
• Highest relative land need of the Five Scenarios.
Page 60 March 2022 15
Primarily low -density housing,
with increased share of medium and high -density housing
Scenario 2 represents a Region -wide housing mix forecast that continues to prioritize low- and medium -
density housing, while achieving a higher intensification rate and providing a wider range of market options
in the DGA than Scenario 1.
Based on supply opportunities within the BUA, as well as the housing demand by type, Scenario 2 can
reasonably achieve an intensification target of 45% between 2022 and 2051.
Overall, there are fewer units being allocated into the DGA in Scenario 2, since an increased intensification
target results in more units being provided in the BUA than in Scenario 1. These additional units are
directed towards the Strategic Growth Areas (SGAs). The DGA is higher (55PJH) given the shift in the unit
mix. In total, 2600 ha of new Community Area Land is needed to accommodate the forecast to 2051.
Intensification Rate BUA New Unit Mix BUA New Units
6% 5%
4,900
45% 31 % 30,200
57% 55,000
5,870
0 2 4 6 '0,000 units
Durham Total New Unit Mix DGA New Unit Mix DGA Units
3% 11% 1%
76,600
32% 39% 22% 25,300
66% 13,200
26% 660
0 2 4 6 8 0,000 units
Durham Total Units 2051 Durham Total Unit Mix DGA Density 5 5
(Existing + New) 2051 (Existing + New) (PJH)
259,000 24% New Community Area
96,100 Land Need (Hectares)
113,000 21% 55%
0 10 20 30 2,6000,000 units
Outcomes Low Density ❑ Medium Density ❑ High Density ■ Secondary Units
The intensification rate is 45%. The BUA unit mix is 5% low -density, 31 % medium -density, 57% high -
density, and 6% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 4,900 low -density, 30,200 medium -density,
55,000 high -density, and 5,870 secondary units. The DGA density is 55 people and jobs per hectare.
The DGA unit mix is 66% low -density, 22% medium -density, 11 % high -density, and 1 % secondary
units. The DGA unit amounts are 76,600 low -density, 25,300 medium -density, 13,200 high density,
and 660 secondary units. The total new unit mix is 39% low -density, 26% medium -density, 32% high -
density, and 3% secondary units. The total new community area land need is 2,600 hectares.
16 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?Nl?h§J
Scenario 2 Assessment
1 Achieving Targets O 50% intensification target not met.
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/
Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the ha met
Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area MTSA and UGC minimum densities can
boundary expansion? be met.
Housing Market Choice
Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful-
some range of housing types?
How does the scenario respond to market demand?
Setting -up SGAs for success
30 Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including
Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and
Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as
higher density, mixed -use, and transit supportive urban
communities?
Protecting Agricultural and Rural
4
Systems, preparing for Climate Change and
Achieving Sustainable Development
To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist-
ing agricultural and rural areas?
Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel-
opment patterns, including transit -oriented development?
Does the scenario respond to the Region's Climate
Change Emergency declaration?
Competitive Economic and
Employment Conditions
To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region's
economic and sector strengths, including providing for
appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham
remains economically attractive and competitive over the
long term?
Key Considerations
• The scenario provides a range of
• housing types and options in the BUA
and a range of low- and medium -
density housing options in the DGA,
though likely provides less density in
the DGA than there is demand, based
on active development applications.
• Densities within Regional Centres are
elevated to transit -supportive levels,
but densities along Regional Corridors
generally do not meet the same
threshold.
O • Requires the second highest amount of
new land, consuming existing rural and
agricultural land.
• Lower density form unlikely to support
viable transit options outside of MTSAs
and UGCs
• Shift to medium density undermines
transit supportive densities along Re-
gional Corridors.
• • Supply of low -density units encourages
new families to move to Durham.
• Shift to higher -density forms in BUA
enables Regional Centres to emerge as
economic centres.
• MTSAs are supported as growth centres,
offering mobility choice and competitive
advantage to new employment and
residential uses
Shift towards market -based supply and higher density in DGA
Regional Centres supported for growth although Regional Corridors growth potential is not
optimized
High relative new land need compared to Scenarios 3, 4 and 5
Page 62 March 2022 17
3 Shifting the unit mix
and adding low density intensification to BUA and SGAs to
achieve the minimum Growth Plan intensification target
This scenario meets the Growth Plan minimum intensification rate of 50%, but uses a high proportion of
low -and medium -density housing forms in the unit mix. Low- and medium -density housing forms require
large amounts of land compared to apartments and condominiums.
Meeting the 50% intensification figure with low- and medium -density housing forms required large
areas within SGAs, including Regional Centres and Corridors, be planned for ground related housing. In
addition, significant amounts of low density intensification within community areas is required, including
within existing stable neighbourhoods. A higher DGA density is achieved, resulting in a lower Community
Land Area need than the previous scenarios.
Intensification Rate BUA New Unit Mix
6% 9%
q0%
52% 34%
Durham Total New Unit Mix DGA New Unit Mix
3% 1%
15%
33% 34%
26% 58%
30%
V
BUA New Units
9,300
36,500
55,100
5,870
0 2 4 6 '0,000 units
DGA Units
60,800
27,500
16,300
660
0 2 4 6 8 0,000 units
Durham Total Units 2051 Durham Total Unit Mix DGA Density
(Existing + New) 2051 (Existing + New) (PJH) 57
1 247,000 New Community Area
104,900 25%
53% Land
116,500
Need (Hectares)
22% 1 S 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
'0,000 units
❑ Low Density ❑ Medium Density ❑ High Density ❑ Secondary Units
Outcomes
The intensification rate is 50%. The BUA unit mix is 6% low -density, 34% medium -density, 52% high -
density, and 6% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 9,300 low -density, 36,500 medium -density,
55,100 high -density, and 5,870 secondary units. The DGA density is 57 people and jobs per hectare.
The DGA unit mix is 58% low -density, 26% medium -density, 15% high -density, and 1 % secondary
units. The DGA unit amounts are 60,800 low -density, 27,500 medium -density, 16,300 high density,
and 660 secondary units. The total new unit mix is 34% low -density, 30% medium -density, 33% high -
density, and 3% secondary units. The total new community area land need is 1,500 hectares.
18 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?Nl?h§�
Scenario 3 Assessment
Achieving Targets • 50% intensification target met.
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/
Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the ha met.
Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area MTSA and UGC minimum densities can
boundary expansion? be met
Housing Market Choice
Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful-
some range of housing types?
How does the scenario respond to market demand?
Setting -up SGAs for success
3 Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including
Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and
Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as
higher density, mixed -use, and transit supportive urban
communities?
Protecting Agricultural and Rural
4
Systems, preparing for Climate Change and
Achieving Sustainable Development
To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist-
ing agricultural and rural areas?
Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel-
opment patterns, including transit -oriented development?
Does the scenario respond to the Region's Climate
Change Emergency declaration?
Competitive Economic and
Employment Conditions
To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region's
economic and sector strengths, including providing for
appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham
remains economically attractive and competitive over the
long term?
Key Considerations
• The scenario provides a range of housing
types and options in both the BUA and
DGA.
• Higher levels of low and medium density
provided in the BUA are accommodated
by growth in stable neighbourhoods and
lower densities in SGAs.
O Highest levels of low -and medium -
density housing forms in BUA
undermines SGA planned function and
transit supportive objectives.
O Requires additional land, consuming
existing rural and agricultural land.
• Focus on low- and medium -density
within BUA limits transit supportive
development opportunities. Return on
public transit investments undermined.
• Supply of low -density units encourages
new families to move to Durham.
• Focus on low -and medium -density
forms within BUA limits long-term
viability of SGAs due to limited
population growth.
• Scenario achieves intensification target using a balanced mix of housing forms
• Use of low- and medium -density housing forms in BUA and SGAs undermines transit oriented development
objectives and regional urban structure by placing a high share of grade -related housing forms in SGAs
• Low- and medium -density housing units in Regional Centres unlikely to align with market conditions
• Assumes highest level of lot splitting/ intensification within Community Area lands including existing
mature and stable neighbourhoods
Page 64 March 2022 19
Balancing the unit mix
with an emphasis on high and medium -density housing, while
achieving the minimum 50% intensification target
Scenario 4 builds from the approach of the Technical Reports with a preference for high -density housing
forms in the BUA, but is adjusted to increase the proportion of low- and medium -density forms in response
to public and stakeholder comments.
This mix is intended to reflect the rapidly growing population of Durham while preserving its capacity to
house new and growing families with a range of housing types and affordable housing options compared
to other Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) regions.
This Scenario achieves a focus on high -density units in Strategic Growth Areas (SGAs) with additional
low- and medium -density housing forms along Regional Corridors. The higher DGA density of 60 PJH is
achieved with approximately 50% low -density housing units. This scenario results in a lower Community
Area land need than the three previous scenarios.
Intensification Rate
50%
Durham Total New Unit Mix
3%
41% 28%
28%
Durham Total Units 2051
(Existing + New)
0 5 10152025
Outcomes
BUA New Unit Mix
6% 5%
29%
61%
DGA New Unit Mix
Durham Total Unit Mix
2051 (Existing + New)
BUA New Units
5,100
31,000
64,800
5,870
0 2 4 6 8 '0,000 units
DGA Units
53,500
28,800
22,600
660
0 2 4 6
0,000 units
DGA Density � 0
(PJH)
234,900 New Community Area
100,500 28%
50% Land Need (Hectares)
133,000
21% 9450
'0,000 units
❑ Low Density ❑ Medium Density ❑ High Density ❑ Secondary Units
The intensification rate is 50%. The BUA unit mix is 5% low -density, 29% medium -density, 61% high -
density, and 6% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 5,100 low -density, 31,000 medium -density,
64,800 high -density, and 5,870 secondary units. The DGA density is 60 people and jobs per hectare.
The DGA unit mix is 51 % low -density, 27% medium -density, 21 % high -density, and 1 % secondary
units. The DGA unit amounts are 53,500 low -density, 28,800 medium -density, 22,600 high density,
and 660 secondary units. The total new unit mix is 28% low -density, 28% medium -density, 41% high -
density, and 3% secondary units. The total new community area land need is 950 hectares.
20 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment PhMY
Scenario 4 Assessment
Achieving Targets • 50% intensification target met.
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/
Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the ha met.
Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area MTSA and UGC minimum densities can
boundary expansion? be met
Housing Market Choice
Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful-
some range of housing types?
How does the scenario respond to market demand?
Setting -up SGAs for success
3 Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including
Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and
Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as
higher density, mixed -use, and transit supportive urban
communities?
Protecting Agricultural and Rural
4
Systems, preparing for Climate Change and
Achieving Sustainable Development
To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist-
ing agricultural and rural areas?
Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel-
opment patterns, including transit -oriented development?
Does the scenario respond to the Region's Climate
Change Emergency declaration?
Competitive Economic and
Employment Conditions
To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region's
economic and sector strengths, including providing for
appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham
remains economically attractive and competitive over the
long term?
Key Considerations
• Shift to housing form and choice
creates balance between low, medium
and high density, providing housing
choice for a broad and changing
demographic.
• Focus on higher -density forms supports
the growth of the SGAs
• Proportion of medium density units in
the SGAs does not optimize the growth
potential in transit supportive areas
• Requires additional land, consuming
existing rural and agricultural land.
• Preference for compact housing forms
supports transit oriented communities.
• Compact form can align with efficient
building design and travel modes,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Supply of low- and medium -density
forms in BUA attracts new families.
• Supply of high -density units in DGA
supports new planned Centres.
• Higher -density focus in BUA supports
planned urban structure.
• Transit oriented development limits
future traffic congestion.
• Scenario achieves intensification target using a balanced mix of housing forms in the DGA and a
higher proportion of high -density housing forms in the BUA
• Supports compact, transit oriented communities and regional urban structure
• Moderate additional Community Area land required
Page 66 March 2022 21
5 Emphasis on higher densities
0 and intensification beyond minimum Growth Plan targets
Scenario 5 tests the growth pattern required to exceed the minimum intensification target (55%) and
require no new Community Land to accommodate the 2051 growth forecast. The Region -wide unit mix
is established by meeting these requirements. The Built-up Area (BUA) is forecast to contain the highest
amount of high -density housing units, and the DGA housing forecast results in a mix which is more oriented
towards high -density units than reported in active development applications.
The resultant output is a DGA unit mix which provides the lowest proportion of low -density and greatest
proportion of high -density units - a significant shift from past and recent development trends. The DGA
density of 64 pjh is the highest overall DGA density by 2051 and results in a no expansion scenario.
Intensification Rate BUA New Unit Mix BUA New Units
5% 4%
5,200
55% 27/o 0 32,000
63% 74,300
5,870
0 2 4 6 8 '0,000 units
Durham Total New Unit Mix DGA New Unit Mix DGA Units
3% 1%
36,000
47/o
0 20% 27 38% 33,100
25,500
31% 35% 660
0 1 2 3 4 0,000 units
Durham Total Units 2051 Durham Total Unit Mix DGA Density 64
(Existing + New) 2051 (Existing + New) (PJH)
1 216,700
106,500 31% New Community Area
46% Land Need (Hectares)
145,700
23% 0
0 5 10152025
0,000 units
❑ Low Density ❑ Medium Density ❑ High Density ■ Secondary Units
Outcomes
The intensification rate is 55%. The BUA unit mix is 5% low -density, 27% medium -density, 63% high -
density, and 5% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 5,200 low -density, 32,000 medium -density,
74,300 high -density, and 5,870 secondary units. The DGA density is 64 people and jobs per hectare.
The DGA unit mix is 38% low -density, 35% medium -density, 27% high -density, and 1% secondary units.
The DGA unit amounts are 36,000 low -density, 33,100 medium -density, 25,500 high density, and 660
secondary units. The total new unit mix is 20% low -density, 31% medium -density, 47% high -density,
and 3% secondary units. No additional Community Area land is required.
22 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?Agl?h§�
Scenario 5 Assessment
Achieving Targets • 50% intensification target met.
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/
Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the ha exceed.
Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area MTSA and UGC minimum densities can
boundary expansion? be met
• Significant emphasis on high -density
Housing Market Choice
O forms across the Region results in a DGA
that potentially provides an oversupply
Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful-
of apartment units compared to active
some range of housing types?
development applications.
• The highest level of intensification and
How does the scenario respond to market demand?
high density units within the BUA are not
likely to be absorbed even over the long
term
Setting -up SGAs for success
• Focus on higher -density forms
30
optimizes the planned growth of the
Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including
SGAs across the Region.
Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and
Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as
higher density, mixed -use, and transit supportive urban
communities?
Protecting Agricultural and Rural
4
Systems, preparing for Climate Change and
Achieving Sustainable Development
To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist-
ing agricultural and rural areas?
Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel-
opment patterns, including transit -oriented development?
Does the scenario respond to the Region's Climate
Change Emergency declaration?
Competitive Economic and
Employment Conditions
To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region's
economic and sector strengths, including providing for
appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham
remains economically attractive and competitive over the
long term?
Key Considerations
• • Requires no new Community Area
expansion.
• Focus on compact housing forms sup-
ports transit oriented communities.
• Compact form can align with efficient
building design and travel modes,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• Lack of market supply of low -and
medium -density units in DGA limits
growth of new families.
• Supply of high -density units in DGA
supports new planned centres, but may
not be absorbed by market demand
• Transit oriented development limits
future traffic congestion.
• Supports and optimizes regional urban structure and compact, transit oriented communities
• No additional Community Area land required
• Scenario exceeds intensification target as a result of focus on high -density housing forms in BUA
• Results in a DGA unit mix which is too oriented towards high -density housing forms and is not
representative of DGA market demand.
Page 68 March 2022 23
4. Range of Land Need
The five scenarios result in a range of Land
Need based on unit mix, DGA density and
intensification rates. As the intensification target
increases and the unit mix shifts more towards
high -density dwellings, the total Community Area
land need decreases. The range of land need
for both Community Areas and Employment
Areas is demonstrated in Figure 5-1 below. The
Figure below illustrates the Community Area
and Employment Land Need for each Scenario.
The resulting land need ranges from 1,171
ha (Scenario 5 + Revised Employment Area
Intensification Target) to 6,751 ha (Scenario
8,000
7,000
6,000
s,00a
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
1 + Employment Strategy Technical Report).
At the scale of Land Need of Scenario 1, with
either employment scenario, there may not be
sufficient land in the whitebelt to accommodate
the forecast without putting lands that should be
protected under pressure.
Summary Range of Total Regional New Land Need
1b
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Community Area Land Need ti Employment - 20% Intensification
Scenario 4 Scenario 5
E Employment - 15% Intensification
Figure 4-1: Summary range of total regional new land need combining Community Area and Employment Land Need by Scenario
24 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment?NfnaProy
5. Next Steps
The Region will be launching a public survey
to solicit feedback on the Scenario modelling
outcomes and assessment. The comment period
for this report and the survey will close on April
14th, 2022. The Project Team will review the
public feedback received and use this as input
along with the Scenario Assessment to prepare
a Recommended Land Need Scenario, including
both Community Area and Employment Area
land needs. A final recommendations package
will be presented to the Planning and Economic
Development Committee in May 2022. This
package will contain recommendations on the
Preferred Land Need Scenario, supporting
technical figures and tables and other
recommendations related to Phase 2 of the
Growth Management Study. This presentation
will represent the culmination of Phase One
of the Envision Durham: Growth Management
Study.
Following Regional Council's decision, the
Growth Management Study will move into
Phase 2 to determine Local Area Allocations and
preferred locations for Settlement Area Boundary
Expansion(s), which will focus on determining
the share and form of growth attributed to the
Area Municipalities. Phase 2 will culminate with
a Regional Official Plan and demonstration of
Growth Plan conformity.
The next steps and project schedule is outlined
below:
• March 10 —scenario modelling outcomes
and assessment posted for public review.
Response survey opens — visit www.durham.
ca/envisiondurham
March 24 — Virtual Public Information Centre
scheduled for 7pm. Notification of Public
Information Centre will be advertised via
local Newspapers, e-mailed to the Envision
Durham interested parties list, social media
channels and a public service announcement.
• April 14 — response survey closes.
• May 3 — Present the Preferred Land
Need Scenario to Planning and Economic
Development Committee.
Page 70 March 2022 25
Technical Appendix
Appendix A: Land Needs Calculation for Each Scenario
The following tables provide details on the land needs calculation for each Scenario. For additional
details regarding the methodology, please refer to the Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical
Report.
Figure A-1: Durham Region DGA Community Area Developable Land Supply
Total DGA Community Area Supply (Net of Growth Plan Take -Outs)
A
6,142
(developable ha)
Total Employment Area Conversions (Net of Growth Plan Take -Outs)
B
308
(developable ha)
Total DGA Community Area Supply (including Employment Area
C = A+ B
6,450
Conversions), developable ha
Vacant Land Contingency (gross ha) (1.5%)'
D = C * 1.5%
97
Total DGA Community Area Supply (Including Employment Area Conversions
E = C - D
6,353
and Land Contingency factor), developable ha
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Land Contingency factor accounts for Employment Area conversions that may not redevelop during the planning horizon, as w ell as other DGA Community
Area w hich may not develop by 2051.
26 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?NIPhYr)
Figure A-2: Scenario 1— DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051
6,353
Total Existing DGA
Developed
1,496
71,950
48
Category 1'
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
108,900
46
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
10,244
512,320
Total DGA at 2051
11,740
584,270
50
Expansion Requirement
5,387
247,790
46
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upwardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
Page 72 March 2022 27
Figure A-3: Scenario 2 — DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051
Total Existing DGA
6,353
Developed
1,496
71,950
48
Category 11
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
127,840
54
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
7,471
424,610
Total DGA at 2051
8,967
496,560
55
Expansion Requirement
2,614
1 141,140
54
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upwardly affected by a density of 83 within the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
28 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?NlPhY�
Figure A-4: Scenario 3 — DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051
•
�'•• �'•• • •• �'
Total Existing DGA
6,353
Developed
1,496
71,950
48
Category 1'
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
136,600
58
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
6,362
379,070
Total DGA at 2051
7,858
451,020
57
Expansion Requirement
1,505
1 86,840
58
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upwardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
Page 74 March 2022 29
Figure A-5: Scenario 4 — DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051
Total Existing DGA
6,353
Developed
1,496
71,950
48
Category 11
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
152,820
65
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
5,812
370,100
Total DGA at 2051
1 7,308
442,050
60
Expansion Requirement
1 955
61,650
65
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upwardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
30 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessmentl?MlPhY�
Figure A-6: Scenario 5 — DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051
Total Existing DGA
6,353
Developed
1,496
71,950
48
Category 11
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
177,560
75
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
4,760
325,890
Total DGA at 2051
6,256
397,840
64
Expansion Requirement
- 97
- 7,300
75
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.. 2022.
Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upwardly affected by a density of 83 within the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
Page 76 March 2022 31
Appendix B: Land Needs Calculation for Each Scenario
A housing propensity analysis by population age and housing structure type is a common approach
used to assess future housing demand by structure type. This approach uses current Census data,
in this case 2016 Statistics Canada Census data, as a starting point to derive housing propensity
rates by structure type to the Durham Region population by age group. From this data, assumptions
regarding shifting patterns in propensity are assumed for each growth scenario, to determine
housing growth by structure type for each age group.
It is important to note that if propensities are flat -lined to derive future housing needs, this would
result in an significant amount of low -density. It is not appropriate to flat -line propensity rates
because there are a multitude of factors which influence them and their volatility, such as housing
affordability and changing housing preferences (e.g. aging of the population which will put upward
pressure on high -density units). The 2021 to 2051 housing forecast by age group (age of primary
household maintainer) and housing type for all five residential growth scenarios is provided below.
Figure B-1: Scenario 1: Growth Plan Background Report —Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051
75+ 16% 1 40% 56,000
65-74 17% 1 18% 125,700
55-64
34,600
Q
0 42,500
UL 45-54 28% 6%
a 41,300
35-44 31% 17%
25-34
Under 25
19% 12% 69%
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
■Low Density' ❑Medium Density2 ❑High Density3
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
1 Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
32 Alternative Land Need Scenarios AssessmentI?Nlpnyr�
Figure B-2: Scenario 2: Higher Proportion of Low -Density Housing— Not Meeting Intensification Target —Total Housing Forecast by Propensity
and Type, 2021 to 2051
75+ 18% 1 55% 56,000
65-74 nlmzn23% 28% 25,700
n
55-64 22% 111%134,600
2
0 45-54 35% 14% 42,500
W
Q
35-44 32% 40% 41,300
25-34 ' 30% 59% 17,500
-3%
Under 25 ❑ 2,000
13% 90%
-10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
■ Low Density' ❑ Medium Density2 ❑ High Density3
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
' Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Page 78 March 2022 33
Figure B-3: Scenario 3: Higher Proportion of Low -Density — Testing Impact of Meeting Intensification Target —Total Housing Forecast by
Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051
75+
20%
1
57% 56,000
65-74
27% 30%
25,700
55-64
34,600
26% 13%
n
0
0 45-54
40%
1 15% 142,500
a)
Cm
Q 35-44
37% 1
43%
41,300
25-34
36% 60% 17,500
-7%
Under 25
ID 2,000
16% 91%
-10,000
0 10,000 20,000
30,000
40,000 50,000 60,000
■ Low Density' [:]Medium Density' ❑ High Density3
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
1 Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
34 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment�NlPhYrq
Figure B-4: Scenario 4: Modified Mix Meeting Targets — Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051
75+
.'. 19% 1
66% 56,000
65-74
25,700
25% 1 37%
55-64
34,600
24%
23%
a
0
0 45-54
38%
19% 42,500
a�
Q
35-44
34%
48%
41,300
25-34
34% 69% 17,500
Under 25
ILJ 2,000
-9% 14% 94%
-10,000
0 10,000 20,000
30,000
40,000 50,000 60,000
■ Low Density' []Medium Density' ❑ High Density'
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
I Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Page 80 March 2022 35
Figure B-5: Scenario 5: Exceeding Targets — No Additional Land Need — Focus on Higher -Density — Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and
Type, 2021 to 2051
75+
20%
68% 56,000
65-74
25,700
28% 48%
55-64
34,600
26%
26%
Q
0
0
45-54
28% 42,500
41 %
a:
a
35-44
37%
57%
41,300
25-34
38% 72% 17,500
Under 25
iD 2,000
17% 97%
-10,000
0 10,000 20,000
30,000
40,000 50,000 60,OOC
■ Low Density' ❑ Medium Density2 ❑ High Density3
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
' Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
36 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment�NlPhAj
Page 82
OWatson
&Associates
Fr-ONOMISTS LTD.
URBAN
STRATEGIES
INC .
Page 83
Appendix A: Designated Greenfield Land Supply and Density Analysis
The following tables provide details on the land needs calculation for each Scenario. As mentioned in Section 1.2 of the Alternative
Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Report, the DGA Community Area land supply and land needs calculations have been
revised. The following tables are reflective of these revisions. Since the release of the March 2022 Alternative Land Needs Scenarios
Assessment Summary Report, the density of the developed land area has been slightly adjusted. This adjustment has no impact on
the land needs by 2051 for each scenario. Accordingly, this technical appendix replaces the appendix of the March 2022 Alternative
Land Needs Scenarios Assessment Summary Report. For additional details regarding the land supply and land needs calculations,
please refer to the Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report.
Figure A-1: Durham Region, Total Designated Greenfield Area
Area Municipality
..VTotal.
DGA Land
Area, ha
Developable
Take-outs
B
Take -Outs, ha
I
C=A—B
Employment
Lands,hal
D
Areas,ha
E=C —D
A
Town of Ajax
1,093
277
816
279
537
Township of Brock
468
114
354
146
208
Municipality of Clarington
2,718
968
11750
413
1,337
City of Oshawa
2,425
679
1,745
236
1,509
City of Pickering2
3,028
1,726
1,303
359
944
Township of Scugog
422
105
318
171
147
Township of Uxbridge
153
54
99
0
99
Town of Whitby
2,925
992
1,933
573
1,360
.. TO
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
1 Gross Land Area in accordance with the Growth Plan, 2020 Developable Land Area
'The Pickering DGA is largely represented by the Seaton Community. Approximately five ha of developable land has been identified as part of the Duffin Heights Secondary Plan within
the DGA. The Green River DGA Community Area lands are not considered developable and have been removed from the supply.
Page 84
Figure A-2: Durham Region, DGA Community Area - Developed and Vacant
Developed
Total
Area Municipality
Community
Vacant
Community
Developable
% Developed
% Vacant
Area Lands,
Community
Area Lands, ha
hal
Area Lands, ha
A
B
C=A+B
D=A/C
E=B/C
Town of Ajax
385
152
537
72%
28%
Township of Brock
19
189
208
9%
91%
Municipality of Clarington
350
987
1,337
26%
74%
City of Oshawa
453
1,057
1,509
30%
70%
City of Pickering
0
944
944
0%
100%
Township of Scugog
42
105
147
29%
71%
Township of Uxbridge'
25
74
99
25%
75%
Town of Whitby
222
1,138
1,360
16%
84%
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
1 A building footprint coverage threshold was used to determine the development status of plans. Plans with a threshold greater than 20% were classified as
developed, while plans between 5% and 20% required a desktop review to determine development status. All plans categorized as developed may have the
potential for further development where appropriate, which has not been recognized herein.
z Uxbridge lands include Special Study Area 5 and 6
Page 85
Figure A-3: Durham Region, Vacant DGA Lands by Category, Hectares
•.
Approved,
Draft
Remaining
Total
Vacant
Vacant DGA
% Vacant
% Vacant
Area Municipality
Approved
(Category
Community••Category
2
and Under
Review
2)
Areas
(Category
A
B=C-A
C
D=A/C
E=B/C
Town of Ajax
92
61
152
60%
40%
Township of Brock
85
105
189
45%
55%
Municipality of Clarington
416
571
987
42%
58%
City of Oshawa
574
482
1,057
54%
46%
City of Pickering
859
86
944
91%
9%
Township of Scugog
81
23
105
78%
22%
Township of Uxbridge'
10
64
74
13%
87%
Town of Whitby
373
765
1,138
33%
67%
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
' Uxbridge lands include Special Study Area 5 and 6
Figure A-4: Durham Region, Existing
Density People and
Jobs on Developed
DGA Lands
DGA
Existing
Existing
Existing
Area Municipality
Developed
Population on
Existing Jobs
Developed
Population
Jobs
People andl
Land Area,
Developed
on
and on
Jobs Density
Gross•
DGA Lands'Developed
•
DGA Lands'
A
A
A
B
C = B / A
Town of Ajax
385
21,934
2,887
24,821
65
Township of Brock
19
263
247
510
27
Municipality of Clarington
350
13,152
2,694
15,846
45
City of Oshawa
453
15,134
1,205
16,339
36
City of Pickering
0
0
0
0
0
Township of Scugog
42
886
218
1,104
26
Township of Uxbridge
25
516
112
628
25
Town of Whitby
222
10,453
835
11,288
51
Total• of
•:
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
' Jobs Captured are within Community Areas and not Employment Areas.
Page 87
Figure A-5: Durham Region, Housing Units on Developed DGA Lands
MunicipalityArea
Detached
A
• •uses
B
Apartments
C
Total
D=A+B+C
Town of Ajax
4,869
824
8
5,701
Township of Brock
87
0
0
87
Municipality of Clarington
3,299
755
242
4,296
City of Oshawa
3,772
524
224
4,520
City of Pickering
0
0
0
0
Township of Scugog
290
2
0
292
Township of Uxbridge
98
69
0
167
Town of Whitby
2,491
552
1
3,044
• • 0 • 0 a•�.
Source: Derived from custom geocoded building permits from 2005 to 2018 by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Ir1fpse/SQ6MX11141=111 Mta{J[•J1 %- l�-f'UJV!L
fuA 1-iU•Jl
%11lL!lills 7Yt-111bu`
Total
Approved
Total
and Draft
Approved
Category 1
Category 1 Category 1
Area Municipality
Approved
and Draft Category 1
Category 1
People an
people and Housing
Approved Population
Employment
Jobs/Gross Units Per
(Category 1)
lobs
(Category 1)
ha Gross ha
Housing
UnitsTownship
Land, ha
Town of Ajax
.:
of Brock
Municipality
City of Oshawa
City of Pickering'
.�
•�
Township. •.•
•�
Township of Uxbridge
Town of Whitby
•�
�
Total Region of Durham DGA
44,190
2,490 127,170
28,460
155,630
63 18
Durham DGA Excluding
M
�
11
i6ii Pickeringl.hp
25,000
1,631 7
13,190
85,040
52 15
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
' The Pickering DGA is largely represented by the Seaton Community. Approximately five ha of developable Category 2 land has been identified as part of the Duffin Heights Secondary Plan within the
DGA.
Figure A-7: Durham Region, DGA People and Jobs Density (Developed, Approved and Draft Approved — Developed DGA Lands +
Category 1 Lands)
Total•
•
PopulationHousing
People and
Municipality
Housing
Area, Gross
Population
Employment
and
Units Per
Units
ha
EmploymentArea
ha
Gross
A
B
C
C
C
D=C/B
E=A/B
Town of Ajax
7,732
476
28,081
3,555
31,636
66
16
Township of Brock
896
104
2,653
740
3,393
33
9
Municipality of Clarington
9,931
766
29,281
4,629
33,910
44
13
City of Oshawa
14,479
1,027
42,522
7,675
50,197
49
14
City of Pickering
19,190
860
55,320
15,270
70,590
82
22
Township of Scugog
677
124
2,001
338
2,339
1 19
5
Township of Uxbridge
303
34
897
173
1,070
31
9
Town of Whitby
9,073
596
28,738
4,286
33,024
55
15
Durham DGA •
0•0
00
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
' The Pickering DGA is largely represented by the Seaton Community. Approximately five ha of developable Category 2 land has been identified as part of the Duffin Heights Secondary Plan within the DGA
Page 90
Figure A-8: Durham Region DGA Community Area Developable Land Supply
Total DGA Community Area Supply (Net of Growth Plan Take -Outs)
A
6,142
(developable ha)
Total Employment Area Conversions (Net of Growth Plan Take -Outs)
B
308
(developable ha)
Total DGA Community Area Supply (including Employment Area
C = A+ B
6,450
Conversions), developable ha
Vacant Land Contingency (gross ha) (1.5%)'
D = C * 1.5%
97
Total DGA Community Area Supply (Including Employment Area Conversions
E = C - D
6,353
and Land Contingency factor), developable ha
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Land Contingency factor accounts for Employment Area conversions that may not redevelop during the planning horizon, as w ell as other DGA Community
Area which may not develop by 2051.
Page 91
Scenario 1: Emphasis on Low -Density Housing
Figure A-9: Durham Region, Scenario 1 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
•
Location
•
470,250
612,500
77%
Population
Major Office
2,900
28,900
10%
c
Employment Lands Employment
0
82,400
0%
o
Rural
0
3,000
0%
E
Population -Related Employment
39,170
112,200
35%
"'
Total Employment
42,070
226,500
19%
Total People and Jobs
512,320
839,000
61%
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Figure A-10: Durham Region, Scenario 1 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
111r
Land Area
(ha)
6,353
People People and Jobs Per
and Jobs Developable ha
Total Existing DGA
Developed
1,496
70,540
47
Category 11
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
108,900
46
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
10,244
512,320
Total DGA at 2051
11,740
582,860
50
Expansion Requirement
1 5,387
1 247,790
1 46
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
1 Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upwardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
Page 92
Scenario 2: Primarily Low -Density Housing
Figure A-11: Durham Region, Scenario 2 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
Location
•
389,280
612,500
64%
Population
Major Office
2,900
28,900
10%
c
Employment Lands Employment
0
82,400
0%
o
Rural
0
3,000
0%
E
Population -Related Employment
32,430
112,200
29%
"'
Total Employment
35,330
226,500
16%
Total People and Jobs
424,610
839,000
51%
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Figure A-12: Durham Region, Scenario 2 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
Total Existing DGA
6,353
Developed
1,496
70,540
47
Category 11
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
127,840
54
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
7,471
424,610
Total DGA at 2051
87967
495,150
55
Expansion Requirement
2,614
141,140
1 54
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
' Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upwardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
10
Page 93
Scenario 3: Shifting the Unit Mix
Figure A-13: Durham Region, Scenario 3 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
•
Location
•
347,250
612,500
57%
Population
Major Office
2,900
28,900
10%
c
Employment Lands Employment
0
82,400
0%
o
Rural
0
3,000
0%
E
Population -Related Employment
28,920
112,200
26%
"'
Total Employment
31,820
226,500
14%
Total People and Jobs
379,070
839,000
45%
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Figure A-14: Durham Region, Scenario 3 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
• ' -.
'-•• - '-7MI NTSM • 9, •• '-
161
Total Existing DGA
6,353
Developed
1,496
70,540
47
Category 11
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
136,600
58
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
6,362
379,070
l DGA at 2051
7,858
449,610
57
ansion Requirement
L
1,505
86,840
58
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
1 Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upw ardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
11
Page 94
Scenario 4: Balancing the Unit Mix
Figure A-15: Durham Region, Scenario 4 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
DGA
P9
Community
Nor
Location
Communit
Region•
of •
.1
Area Total
338,960
612,500
Total
55%
Population
Major Office
2,900
28,900
10%
c
Employment Lands Employment
0
82,400
0%
o
Rural
0
3,000
0%
E
Population -Related Employment
28,240
112,200
25%
w
Total Employment
31,140
226,5010
14%
Total People and Jobs
370,100
839,000
45%
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Figure A-16: Durham Region, Scenario 4 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
• •• �- - ••,• - M.
Total Existing DGA
6,353
Developed
1,496
70,540
47
Category 11
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
152,820
65
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
5,812
370,100
Total DGA at 2051
7,308
440,640
60
Expansion Requirement
955
61,650
65
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
1 Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upw ardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
12
Page 95
Scenario 5: Emphasis on Higher Densities
Figure A-17: Durham Region, Scenario 5 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
DGA
Community
Durham
Area Share
Location
Comm �Tnit
Region Total
of Regional
Are.
298,150
612,500
..
49%
Population
Major Office
2,900
28,900
10%
c
Employment Lands Employment
0
82,400
0%
o
Rural
0
3,000
0%
E
Population -Related Employment
24,840
112,200
22%
w
Total Employment
27,740
226,5010
12%
Total People and Jobs
325,890
839,000
39%
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
Figure A-18: Durham Region, Scenario 5 DGA Community Area Population and Employment
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
• ' -.
'-•• -
' 00 MUSTIN •• '-
Total Existing DGA
6,353
Developed
1,496
70,540
47
Category 11
2,490
155,630
63
Category 22
2,367
177,560
75
Forecast, 2019 to 2051
4,760
325,890
Total DGA at 2051
6,256
396,430
63
Expansion Requirement
- 97
- 7,300
75
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
1 Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft
Approved and Applications Under Review. The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per
hectare is upw ardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area.
2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that
could become available for Community Area development.
13
Page 96
Appendix 6: Housing Propensity Forecast for each Scenario, 2021 to 2051
A housing propensity analysis by population age and housing structure type is a common approach used to assess future housing
demand by structure type. This approach uses current Census data, in this case 2016 Statistics Canada Census data, to derive housing
propensity rates by structure type to the Durham Region population by age group. The 2021 to 2051 housing forecast by age group
(age of primary household maintainer) and housing type for all five residential growth scenarios.
Figure B-1: Scenario 1: Growth Plan Background Report —Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051
75+ ' , 16% 40% 56,000
65-74 17% 18% 25,700
55-64 134,600
7% 10%
a
0 42,500
L
0 45-54 ..'. 28% 6%
a�
Q 41,300
35-44 31 % 17%
25-34
Under 25 11
19% 12% 69%
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
■ Low Density' []Medium Densityz ❑ High Density3
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
14
Page 97
Figure B-2: Scenario 2: Higher Proportion of Low -Density Housing — Not Meeting Intensification Target — Total Housing Forecast by
Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051
75+ 18% 1 55% 56,000
65-74 :' 23% 1 28% 25,700
55-64 22% 11 % 34,600
0
L
0 45-54 35% 14% 42,500
a�
Q
35-44 :' 32% 40% 41,300
25-34 ' 30% 59% 17,500
-3%
Under 25 'LJ 2,000
13% 90%
-10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
■ Low Density' ❑ Medium Density2 ❑ High Density'
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
15
Page 98
Figure B-3: Scenario 3: Higher Proportion of Low -Density —Testing Impact of Meeting Intensification Target —Total Housing Forecast
by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051
75+ 20% 157% 56,000
65-74 27% 1 30% 125,700
55-64 26% 13% 34,600
0
L
0 45-54 40% 15% 42,500
a�
Q /0
35-44 �' � 37% 43 ° 41,300
25-34 36% 60% 17,500
-7%
Under 25 [12,000
16% 91%
-10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
■ Low Density' ❑ Medium Density2 ❑ High Density3
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
' Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
16
Page 99
Figure B-4: Scenario 4: Modified Mix Meeting Targets — Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051
75+ .' . 19% 1 66% 56,000
65-74 IIEV. 1 25% 1 37% 25,700
55-64 24% 1 23% 34,600
45-54 38% 19% 42,500
35-44 34% 48% 41,300
25-34 1 34% 69% 17,500
Under 25 ILJ 2,000
-9% 14% 94%
-10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
■ Low Density' ❑ Medium Density2 ❑ High Density3
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
1 Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
17
Page100
Figure B-5: Scenario 5: Exceeding Targets — No Additional Land Need — Focus on Higher -Density — Total Housing Forecast by
Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051
75+ 111111111MA. 0 20% 1 68% 56,000
65-74 ' . 28% 1 48% 25,700
55-64 :' . 26% 26% 34,600
2
0 45-54 41 % 28% 42,500
a)
0)
Q
35-44 .VA. 37% 57% 41,300
25-34 1 38% 72% 17,500
-13%
Under 25 ID 2,000
17% 97%
-10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
■ Low Density' ■ Medium Density2 ❑ High Density3
Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051
' Low density represents singles and semi-detached.
2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes.
3 High density includes all apartments.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022.
18
Page 101
Appendix C: Intensification Analysis Density Precedents Research
Application ID Address Type Storeys �Ldvtililrea Rot Area #of Units �:=I(al'Dans
ity: Lot 1� GFA F51(non- year
(meters/i (hectars/ha] (residerrtial] nn- Coverage Coverage standardized) Bulk
standardized] Intl ]4%j
NA-baih
III Band St, E.
High Rise 9
4164
0.42
239
573.97
552
0,45
9030
1.74
2017
5 201E-03
135 Wore Street illi 2
High am
9060
0.90E
225
314.57
3642
a 40
295M
2.93
ISO
5-0.291E-03
135 Wuce5treet lB4ock 3)-1
High Rise 8
Bd60
0.34E
278
328.61
2600
031
18720
2.21
ISO
5�2016-03
13513,1m5treet l:Ild4)
high Rise 8
]27]a
2.177
155
131.69
MOO
015
226M
1.34
ISO
S41i .03
135 Wuce Street IB1ock 5.1)
high Rise 8
3100
0.31
210
677.42
Ig00
Gas
12960
4.19
TBD
Z-2019-01
137 antl 141 Sinim Street North and 10 io 24
High Rise 9
2453
0.25
101
4117A
L200
OA9
9720
3.96
no
SPA20174102C
1415 Hv I
High Rise 10
44651
4A7
464
103.92
25W
0,10
225M
0.50
TBO
SOi
1485 Whites Rd, 1473 Whites Rd, 1475 Whiles Rd
High Rise 12
]ION
1.11
227
204.54
27W
030
297M
2.58
T60
NA - bulk
161 Athol Storer East
High Rise 9
2161
0.22
185
856.09
999
0,46
3011
3.71
Tan
26/18
27,29, 31 Harwood Ave S
High Rise 10
5100
051
130
254.90
25DO
111
22143
2.39
no
1-201"1
35-0S Oivisian Street
High N. 11
2647
0.16
100
ii i6
L020
0,62
20098
6.13
ISO
NA- bulk
INN 8rnck St N IVlllage of Taunton Mills)
High Rise 8
12303
1.23
lad
149.56
ism
023
14445
1.17
20011•
S-0.201E-03
131 Wuce Street 1"11)
High Mae 13
26910
IADI
11"
461.3E
Saw
0.32
95940
3.59
Tito
NA - bulk
.458eily 5t 1511n Fransisa by the Bay)
Law nse- Stacked andlar US 3
1231
0.22
22
98.61
IZw
054
3240
1A5
2019
5-0-2016-03
135 Wure Street di 3).2
low dse-Stacked and/or SIR
B460
094E
18
2128
13M
0,1S
3510
0A1
TRD
S-Oi C3
135 Bruce Street lido[, 5.2)
low rise -Stacked and/or B20 3
335D
0.335
20
59.70
LIDO
036
324D
0.97
LBO
5�2016-03
135 Wuce Street IBlosk 5)
Low nse - Stacked and/ar US
13490
1.349
76
56.34
4270
0,32
22259
01
ISO
NA - bulk
1464.1666 Whims Rd
lore dse -Stacked and/nr Ri4
5550
0.6E
92
140A6
25"
a40
9504
14S
2019
NA -buih
1532 Kingston Rd
low dse-Stacked and/or B20A
9950
I.OD
136
136.68
4WO
140
244DO
IA5
2019
NA -1
1595 Green Rd
Lowdse-Racked and/ar US
25725
2.57
112
43.54
EiGN
0,35
243W
0.94
no
21119
593 Taunton Road fast
Lae dse Stacked and/or SIR
ge0n
had
%
I14.29
2gg0
014
S400
064
Tor
NA-buik
NE rnrner,Kingston Rd@Chapman Or.
low dse - Stacked and/a, BIG
4685
OA9
51
104.40
1871
038
5052
1.03
2015
NA-6uih
Pollak Hill Way
low nse-Stacked andfor 62a3
81fi4
oA169
64
]8.39294963
3900
037
8100
0.99
2018
NA -bulk
1125 Pure5Prings Bl"
I-dse-TH 3
5647
1-56
40
7093
201110
0,35
5400
0.96
2013
SPA2017-0047
415 Mill Street Saath and403 Robert Stn et East
lwr dse-TH 3
3636
0.39
22
57.35
12DO
031
3240
0.14
MD
NA -huiit
lerseyvlile Way
lsxe dse-TH 2
]23]0
1.24
38
30.72
3569
0.29
6429
0.52
2028
NA -pill
Quarry Lane LSE wrner. Taunton Rd. l Harwood
Lowdse-TM 3
235W
2-35
90
3830
$227
0,35
22213
095
201E
NA-buih
Simme St, N. noHhwesl of Brit on. i Towns)
Lour dse-TH 4
34131
3A2
101
59.89
Woo
026
32400
0.95
2017
NA bulk
SW turner, lh a pool Rd li Glenann. Rd
lour dse -TH 3
12000
1.20
51
42.50
6000
030
262M
1.35
IOLA
NA -bulR
SW corner, Taunton Rtl, dy Nanrmatl Ave.
Low l TH 2
9975
1.00
27
27.07
35DO
035
$300
0.63
20L7
5PA2016-0003
IN King Ave. E
Mid dse 6
4394
am
40
Still
2643
am
24272
3.25
2019
Tito-Unbullt
360E Chades St
N3 td dse 5
2000
0.2
30
15D
ism
0.75
57M
3.39
no
TBD-Unballt
1606 Chad. St
MA rise 5
2000
0.2
30
ISO
ISDO
0.75
5750
3.38
TeD
TRD-Unbullt
160E Chades It
Mid dse 5
2000
0.2
30
ISO
Ism
O.15
57W
3.39
Tito
Tito-Unbullt
360E Chades St
Md dse 5
2000
03
30
15D
1500
0.75
5750
3.35
no
TBD-Unballt
1606 Charles 5t
Mhd rise 5
2000
0.2
30
Ise
1500
035
6750
338
TED
NA - bulk
1645 Simme St. N.- Studeer Housing
Mid dse 3
2574
0.16
15
95.30
866
05S
2111
1A9
IDLE
NA, bulB
171 Steady St.)The liki l
Mid dse 5
5114
031
49
95.02
LIES
a25
5693
1.11
201C
NA -bulk
21 Braakhaasea
Mid nse 4
7aub
0.78
Its99.91
2212
017
76I2
01
Zola
NA - bulk
221ames Hill Lt
Mid rise 3
75t10
0.75
48
64.00
2456
0,33
6611
01
201B
TBD-Unbullt
500 Dandaa St E
MM dse 6
2962
0.3D
59
199.19
I082
037
5411
1.83
no
NA - hulk
80 Aspen Springs
Mid nse 4
25554
2.56
255
100.13
5384
all
18450
0.72
ZOIS
TRn-Unhullt
Kingsmn Rd/Elleaheth St
MA rise 4
1056
0.11
36
337.71
Kit
0,75
21180
2.70
no
NA - bulk
North title, Winchester west of Baldwin
Lori rise -Stacked and/or B20 4
5028
1
72
I19A4
3196
053
1150b
1.91
2013
NA -Erik
11118ay4Y 5t(san Frandsa bythe Bay l)
To 15
3750
111
]35
626.6T
1350
0,36
1b225
4.16
2011
NA but
12458ayly St lSan Frensis-by the Ray 2)
To 23
IWO
0.25
169
676A0
1000
OAO
201on
929
2017
NA -buih
1255 Gayly St lSan rrensism by the Bay 3)
Tower 26
6175,00
0.63
263
425.92
1250
030
29250
4.74
1D19
Tito-Unbullt
lbob Chad. st
Tower 18
2000
0.2
200
low
BID
'075
24300
12,25
Tito
NA - bulk
73 Rayly Sl-W. Reaxr Al
Tewer 2S
460q
DAR
272
59130
win
041
7715$
59n
2016
SP3/19
73 Wy St. W. )rawer B)
Tower 25
4241
OA1
309
726.24
1750
TO
23967
5.65
TOO
5P3/19
73 Bayly St. W. )lower L)
Tower 23
4213
OAZ
325
771.42
20M
0,47
255W
6.07
no
51,V19
73$ayly $t-W bower 01
Tower 19
4f02
OAI
211
141.51
toot)
0.49
1785n
435
ISO
SPA-2615i18
80 Bond St E
Tower 18
3930
0.39
37D
942,41
12DO
0,76
IS440
4.95
me
SPA-201E-31
Wndsfaid, Farm Or Wand 51mcoe 51 N
Tower 23
14067
lAl
479
340.51
21
0.14
450M
3.20
no
S4-200"
Regional Road4 and Gearbrook grlae
Loa+-0ansity 2
392411.11
11,14
"1
1111
2004
1ST-87021
Liberty Street North and Bons Avenue
U.-darsisy 2
]62W6.13
16.20
316
19.50
Built
Greenfield Crescent
low -density 1
26422
2.54
68
25.74
Bulk
OKeaepearl C-mm
Low-0ensiEy 1
49448
4.94
log
22.94
Built
Montsgue Avenue
lrnx-0ensily 1
28068
291
54
19.24
Rullt
Rebitleau Plate
lrne-0ensity 1
itul
029
24
27.15
19
Page102
Averages
Average
Average Lot
Average #
Average
Max Residential
Min Residential RANGE - Residential
Average FSI Max FSI Min
FSI RANGE - FSI
Storeys
Area
of Units
Residential
Density: Units/Ha
Density: Units/Ha Density: Units/Ha
(hectars/haj
(residential)
Density: Units/Ha
Tower
22
0.50
285
665
1000
0 340 - 1000
6.0
12.2
3.2 3.2 - 12.2
High Rise
10
1.09
289
390
856
104 103 - 856
2.9
6.1
0.4 0.4 - 6.1
Mid rise
5
0.51
56
141
338
64 64 - 337
2.3
3.4
0.7 0.6 - 3-4
Low rise - Stacked and/or 13213
3
0.88
69
88
140
21 21 - 140
1.1
1.9
0.4 0.4 - 1-5
Low rise - TH
3
1.45
68
47
71
27 27 - 70
0.9
1.4
0.5 0.5 - 1.4
Ii
Average Residential Density: Units/Ha
700 665
6UU
500
400
39U
300
200
141
100
88
47
Tower
High Rise Mid rise
Low rise - Stacked
Low rise - TH
and/or 62B
2.9
Average FSI
2.3
1.1
0.9
High Rise Mid rise Law rise - Stacked Low rise -TH
and/or62B
20
Page103
21
Page 104
I■
ALTERNATIVE GROWTH
SCENARIOS RECOMMENDATIONS
Part of the Region of Durham Growth Management Study:
Land Needs Analysis
April, 2022
OWatson
& Associates
ECONOMISTS LTD.
URBAN
STRATEGIES
INC .
Page105
Introduction
Durham Region is undertaking a Growth Management Study (GMS) as part of Envision Durham, the
Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). This is a two-phase study to
assess how to accommodate the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe forecast growth to
2051 of 1,300,000 people and 460,000 jobs in the Region of Durham. The first phase of the GMS is the
preparation of a Land Needs Assessment (LNA) to quantify the amount of land that will be required to
accommodate future population and employment growth to the year 2051.
During the summer and early fall 2021, the GMS Project Team released four Technical Reports (the
"Technical Reports") providing an analysis of the form of growth and resulting land needs in Durham.
These four reports were presented for public comment and Planning and Economic Development
Committee consideration:
1. The Region -Wide Growth Analysis
2. The Housing Intensification Study Technical Report
3. The Employment Strategy Technical Report
4. The Community Area Land Needs Technical Report
How the Number of Units Across the Alternative Community Area Scenarios were Determined
Forecast trends in population age structure provide important insights with respect to future housing
needs based on forecast trends in average household occupancy. Total housing needs for Durham
Region are generated from a population forecast by major age group using a headship rate forecast. A
headship rate is defined as the number of primary household maintainers or heads of households by
major population age group (i.e.: cohort). Average headship rates do not tend to vary significantly over
time by major age group; however, the number of maintainers per household varies by population age
group. For example, the ratio of household maintainers per total housing occupants is higher on average
for households occupied by older cohorts (i.e.: 55+ years of age) as opposed to households occupied by
adults 29 to 54 years of age.
The headship rate forecast provides insight into the number of total households that will be required in
Durham Region by 2051 to accommodate the population forecast. This headship rate analysis implicitly
examines the family structures that will exist in Durham by 2051. Understanding the family types in
Durham Region by 2051 is an important starting point because it informs the total households required
by 2051, regardless of housing structure type. The total number of households by 2051 does not change
based on the housing structure type, because that would assume a different family structure in Durham
Region by 2051. For example, a family would not decide to buy two apartment units instead of one
single -detached home under a planning policy objective to deliver more high -density housing to Durham
Region. Arriving at a higher total number of households by 2051 in Durham Region, for example, would
require a different age structure forecast in Durham Region which would assume less families are
migrating into Durham and are instead being replaced by older age cohorts (i.e.: 55+ years of age) and
non -families (typically younger age -groups). Upon determining the Region's total housing needs,
demographic and socio-economic factors related to housing affordability, location, and lifestyle will
dictate which type of housing unit by dwelling type that family or non -family household will occupy.
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 2
Page106
It is important to recognize that there will also be a turnover of existing dwellings within Durham
Region, as a result of the aging of the existing population. While Scenario 4 has an incremental housing
unit forecast of 28% low density, 28% medium density, 41% high density, and 3% secondary units, there
are a significant amount of existing ground -oriented units within Durham Region that will become
available for sale over the next 30 years. By 2051, it is expected that the housing units within Durham
Region will be distributed by 50% low density, 22% medium density, and 28% high density. This
distribution of housing by 2051 provides a range of housing options for all family and non -family types.
Alternative Scenarios Context and Development
The Land Need Assessment based on the four Technical Reports resulted in the following outcomes
• Meeting the Growth Plan minimum intensification rate of 50%;
• A designated greenfield area density target of 64 people and jobs per hectare;
• 737 new hectares of Community Area land; and
• 1,164 hectares area of Employment Area land.
Following the release of the four Technical Reports and a period for public consultation, planning staff
agreed at the October 5th, 2021 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting to run
modelling and assess a range of alternative land need scenarios.
Alternative Land Need Scenarios were developed for Community Area Land Need (5 scenarios) and
Employment Area Land Need (2 Scenarios). Each Scenario accommodates the Growth Plan forecast of
1,300,000 people and 460,000 jobs across Durham Region by 2051.
The Community Area Land Need Scenarios are intended to explore a broader range of strategies to
accommodate 2051 forecast growth across the Region. The five Community Area Land Need Scenarios
create a spectrum ranging from lowest density housing mix and highest land need to highest density
housing mix to lowest land need. All scenarios accommodate the Growth Plan forecast for Durham
Region to 2051. In doing so, key variables across the scenarios include housing mix (regionally and by
policy area), greenfield density targets, intensification targets and future land need.
The Employment Strategy Technical Report identified an Employment Area forecast of 99,500 jobs,
where 15% of employment growth is expected to be accommodated through the intensification of
existing businesses and sites. Employment Area Land Need Scenario 2 examines a higher Employment
Area intensification target of 20%. Accounting for additional Council -endorsed Employment Area
conversions as well as an updated natural heritage system dataset, adjustments to the land needs
calculations have been made since the release of the four technical reports. These updates result in an
overall land need of 1,170 gross hectares with a 20% intensification target compared to 1,350 hectares
required with a 15% intensification target.
In March 2022, the Alternative Land Need Scenario Assessment Summary Report was released for public
review and consultation, which included: a description of the intent of the alternative land need
scenarios, description of the five (5) Community Area scenarios and two (2) Employment Area scenarios,
outcomes from scenarios analysis, the assessment framework and assessment results for the 5
Community Area scenarios. The final recommendation was to be determined once the Region
undertook an engagement process and received feedback from stakeholders and the general public.
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 3
Page107
From March loth to April 14th, the Region and the consultant team engaged stakeholders and the
community through a variety of avenues:
• Meeting with key stakeholders directly including BILD, Provincial staff, and through early
engagement with the Area Municipal Working Group
• Circulation and notification to a variety of stakeholders
• Presented at the Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change
• Hosted a Public Information Centre (PIC), which included live polling and a Question and Answer
(Q&A) component
• Launched a survey to collect feedback on the alternative land need scenarios
This Memorandum considers the input from the engagement, and on the basis of the Assessment
Framework outcomes, recommends Scenario 4 as the Community Area land need scenario and
Employment Area Scenario 2, which assumes that 20% of Employment Area job growth will be
accommodated through intensification.
It is recommended that the Region use Community Area Land Need Scenario 4 and Employment Area
Land Need Scenario 2 as the Preferred Scenario to proceed to Phase 2 of the Growth Management
Study. In Phase 2, the Study will provide recommendations on where within the Region this new urban
land should be located and also provide the allocation of population and job growth by area
municipality.
Engagement Feedback
Since the release of the Assessment Report, the Region of Durham has been actively seeking feedback
on the public and stakeholder opinion regarding the structure and outcome of the alternative scenarios
modelling and the assessment results.
Staff and the consultant team met with stakeholders for technical discussions regarding the structure,
assumptions and outcomes as contained in the Assessment Report. Feedback from these meetings
informed the review process and ultimate recommendation.
Staff and the consultant team launched a survey based on the alternative scenarios on March loth to
coincide with the release of the Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Report. This
survey was hosted online until April 141h. The survey included ranked choice, weighted response, and
open response questions.
On March 241h, staff and the consultant team hosted a virtual Public Information Session (PIC) from 7:00
PM to 8:45 PM. The PIC included a presentation from Region staff and the Consultant Team, focusing on
the context, process and outcomes from the Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary
Report. The presentation included live polls and was followed by a Q&A session with upvoted questions
from attendees. Following the PIC, attendees were forwarded the link to the Survey.
Through this process several key themes arose and have been considered in the recommendations
found in this Memorandum. These themes include:
• Preventing and adapting to climate change
• Protecting the natural environment — supporting a connected wildlife system
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 4
Page108
• Assessment Framework Principle 4 was too broad and needed to be split into sub -categories for
further analysis
• Preserving food security and local food production through limited urban expansion
• Benefits of high -density housing: more affordable, efficient, and sustainable
• Alternatives to detached homes for families, and range of tenures
• Efficient use of public resources / keeping taxes low
• Demand for detached homes
• Post -pandemic employment conditions
During the PIC Question and Answer period, and through the survey, numerous attendees/survey
responders identified Principle 4 as important but reflecting multiple priorities. It was questioned
whether the independent thoughts in Principle 4 should be expanded into sub -components and
assessed independently of one another. This has been reflected in the revised assessment framework
further below.
Survey respondents were asked to identify gaps in the principles that were applied in the assessment
framework. Many responses focused on the efficient use of municipal resources/tax dollars and
infrastructure services. In this regard, the Growth Plan states:
"The policies of the Plan regarding how land is developed, resources are managed and
protected, and public dollars are investment are based on the following principles:
Prioritize intensification and higher densities in strategic growth areas to make efficient use of
land and infrastructure and support transit viability."
While the Scenario Assessment scope did not analyze the effect on taxation and finances, using
resources (land and existing infrastructure) efficiently can minimize the need for urban expansion, linear
extension of infrastructure and resultant increased operations and maintenance costs. In response to
the engagement responses and to reflect the direction from the Growth Plan, "the efficient use of land
and infrastructure" has been added as an assessment Principle in the revised scenario assessment.
Revised Scenario Assessment
The scenarios were reassessed using the expanded and new principles identified below. The ultimate
recommendation is described on page 16.
1. Achieving Targets
a. Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the Growth Plan, before advancing
additional settlement area boundary expansion?
2. Housing Market Choice
a. Does the scenario provide for the development of a fulsome range of housing types?
b. How does the scenario respond to market demand?
3. Setting up Strategic Growth Areas for Success
a. Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs,
Regional Centres, and Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as higher
density, mixed -use, and transit supportive urban communities?
4. Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems, preparing for Climate Change and Achieving
Sustainable Development
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 5
Page109
a. *New — assessed independently - To what extent would the scenario negatively impact
existing agricultural and rural areas?
b. *New — assessed independently - Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable
development patterns, including transit -oriented development?
C. *New — assessed independently - Does the scenario respond to the Region's Climate
Change Emergency declaration?
5. Competitive Economic and Employment Conditions
a. To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region's economic and sector
strengths, including providing for appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham
remains economically attractive and competitive over the long term?
6. *New - The efficient use of land and infrastructure
a. To what degree does the scenario provide for the efficient use of land and
infrastructure?
The revised scenario assessment, informed by public and stakeholder feedback, has been applied to the
Community Area Land Need Scenarios. The assessment outcome and noted key considerations are
summarized below:
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 6
Page110
Scenario 1: Emphasis on low -density housing, not meeting the minimum Growth Plan intensification
target
Scenario 1: Revised Assessment Summary
Principle
Assessment
Ranking
1. Achieving Targets
• 50% intensification target not met
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ha met but
is below the density of currently approved projects
2. Housing Market
• Would result in more -low density housing units
Choice
than are in active development pipeline
• Assumes housing unit mix would be based on flat
line projection of current housing propensities
3. Setting up SGAs for
• Lowest intensification density within the BUA;
success
lowest development potential within SGAs — not
achieving their potential
4.a. Protecting
• Requires the highest amount of new land,
Agricultural and
consuming existing rural and agricultural land
Rural Systems
• Negative impact on local food production system
4.b. Responding to
• Low -density housing forms tend to be car -
Climate Change
dependent, leading to increased vehicle related
CO2 emissions from vehicle production and use
• Lower density reduces the ability to decrease GHG
emissions and provide active transportation
networks
4.c. Achieving
• Low -density housing forms are more reliant on
Sustainable
auto dependency and are less efficient for transit
Development
service
including transit-
• Low -density neighbourhoods, depending on their
oriented
design, are more dispersed and less connected
development
limiting active transportation and transit -oriented
development opportunities
5. Competitive
• Supply of low -density housing units appeals to
Economic and
families
Employment
• Low -density form and associated car dependency
Conditions
leads to traffic congestion long-term
6. The efficient use of
• Low -density urban form creates a larger
land and
infrastructure and service network per capita
infrastructure
• Less efficient use of existing land and services —
greatest increase in new linear services required
Key Considerations:
• Last place selection among survey responses.
• Highest proportion of low -density housing forms across all policy areas
• Strategic Growth Areas planned to achieve lowest level of density
• Development of urban structure as a compact, transit -oriented places least supported
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 7
Page111
• Highest relative Community Area land need of the Five Scenarios
• Largest impact on food production system — negative outcome for food security
• Lowest densities minimize opportunities to decrease GHG emissions
• Costlier to maintain in the long-term due to outward extension of infrastructure and service grid
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 8
Page112
Scenario 2 Primarily low -density housing, with increased share of medium and high -density housing
Scenario 2: Revised Assessment Summary
Principle
Assessment
Ranking
1. Achieving Targets
• 50% intensification target not met
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ha met but
is below the density of currently approved projects
2. Housing Market
• The scenario provides a range of housing types and
Choice
options in the BUA and a range of low- and
medium -density housing options in the DGA,
though likely provides less density in the DGA than
there is demand, based on active development
applications
3. Setting up SGAs for
• Densities within Regional Centres are elevated to
success
transit -supportive levels, but densities along
Regional Corridors generally do not meet the same
threshold
4.a. Protecting
• Requires the second highest amount of new land,
Agricultural and
consuming existing rural and agricultural land
Rural Systems
• Negative impact on local food production system
4.b. Responding to
• Compared to Scenario 1, higher densities in SGAs
Climate Change
reduce car dependency
• Lower densities outside SGAs leads to car
dependency
• Lower density reduces the ability to decrease GHG
emissions and provide efficient active
transportation networks
4.c. Achieving
• Lower density forms unlikely to support transit use
Sustainable
outside SGAs within BUA
Development
• DGA density for new communities less likely to
including transit-
support transit use
oriented
development
5. Competitive
• Supply of low -density units encourages new
Economic and
families to move to Durham
Am
Employment
• Higher densities in SGAs supports their growth as
Conditions
economic centres
6. The efficient use of
• Low -density urban form outside SGAs creates a
land and
larger service network per capita
infrastructure
• Transit investments in major centres supported
with moderate ridership resultant from proximal
higher -density
Key Considerations
• Fourth place selection among survey responders.
• Shift toward market -based supply and higher density in the DGA (55 PJH density)
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 9
Page113
• Scenario does not achieve Growth Plan intensification target (achieves 45%).
• Regional Centres supported for growth although Regional Corridors growth potential is not
optimized given lower numbers of medium and high -density units.
• Higher relative new land need (Community land area need of 2600 ha) compared to Scenarios 3,
4 and 5
• Higher long-term cost of service and infrastructure maintenance given extent of DGA lands
needed.
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 10
Page114
Scenario 3: Shifting the unit mix and adding low density intensification to BUA and SGAs to achieve the
minimum Growth Plan intensification target
Scenario 3: Revised Assessment Summary
Principle
Assessment
Ranking
1. Achieving Targets
• 50% intensification target met
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ha met
2. Housing Market
• The scenario provides a range of housing types and
Choice
options in the DGA and BUA
• High amount of growth required in stable
neighbourhoods
3. Setting up SGAs for
• High portion of medium and low- and medium -
success
density housing in SGA undermines planned
function and transit supportive density
4.a. Protecting
• Requires the third highest amount of new land,
Agricultural and
consuming existing rural and agricultural land
Rural Systems
• Negative impact on local food production system
4.b. Responding to
• Limited supply of high -density housing outside
Climate Change
SGAs leads to vehicle dependency
• Lower density reduces the ability to decrease GHG
emissions
4.c. Achieving
• Higher proportion of low- and medium -density
Sustainable
within BUA reduces transit supportive
Development
development opportunities.
including transit -
oriented
development
5. Competitive
• Supply of low -density units encourages new
Economic and
families to move to Durham
Employment
• Limited economic development in SGAs due to
Conditions
lower overall density of housing
6. The efficient use of
• Low -density urban form outside major centres
land and
creates a larger service network per capita
infrastructure
• Lower density housing may limit ridership for
Transit investments in major centres
Key Considerations
• Third place selection among survey responders.
• Scenario achieves Growth Plan 50% intensification target by incorporating a balanced mix of
housing forms resulting in an increased portion of low -density housing in the BUA compared to
all other scenarios.
• Use of low- and medium -density housing forms in BUA and SGAs undermines transit -oriented
development objectives and regional urban structure by placing a high share of grade -related
housing forms in SGAs
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 11
Page115
• Low- and medium -density housing units in Regional Centres unlikely to align with market
conditions.
• Assumes highest level of lot splitting and intensification within BUA including existing mature
and stable neighbourhoods.
• Higher new land need (Community land area need of 1500 ha) compared to Scenarios 4 and 5.
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 12
Page116
Scenario 4: Balancing the unit mix with an emphasis on high and medium -density housing, while
achieving the minimum 50% intensification target
Scenario 4: Revised Assessment Summary
Principle
Assessment
Ranking
1. Achieving Targets
• 50% intensification target met
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ha
exceeded
2. Housing Market
• The scenario provides a range of housing types and
Choice
options in the DGA and BUA
3. Setting up SGAs for
• SGAs, including Centres and Corridors supported
success
with medium and high -density to achieve viable
community densities
4.a. Protecting
• Requires Community Area expansion, though less
Agricultural and
than Scenarios 1, 2 and 3
Rural Systems
• Negative impact on local food production system,
though less than Scenarios 1, 2 and 3
4.b. Responding to
• The mix of housing focuses on medium and high
Climate Change
density within the BUA, while providing for a range
of all housing types in the DGA. The mix can
support walkable, transit -oriented communities.
• Shift toward higher density increases potential to
decrease GHG emissions
4.c. Achieving
• Shift to higher density housing forms supports
Sustainable
walkability, complete and transit -oriented
Development
communities
r
including transit -
oriented
development
5. Competitive
• Mix of housing supply appeals to a range of new
Economic and
residents and growing families
Employment
• Supply of housing in BUA supports growth and
Conditions
intensification of existing communities
6. The efficient use of
• Higher densities in BUA supports transit
land and
infrastructure investments
infrastructure
• Higher proportion of high -density housing forms in
DGA encourages efficient use of infrastructure in
new communities
Key Considerations
• Second place selection among survey responders.
• Scenario achieves Growth Plan intensification target of 50% using a balanced mix of housing forms
in the DGA and a higher proportion of high -density housing forms in the BUA.
• Supports compact, transit -oriented communities and SGAs in regional urban structure.
• Higher Community Area land need required (950 ha) than Scenario 5.
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 13
Page117
Scenario 5: Emphasis on Higher Densities and intensification beyond the minimum Growth Plan targets
Scenario 5: Revised Assessment Summary
Principle
Assessment
Ranking
1. Achieving Targets
• 50 % intensification target exceed
• Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ha
exceeded
2. Housing Market
• The supply of high -density housing may not be
Choice
absorbed by the market by 2051
• DGA unit mix not representative of DGA market
demand
3. Setting up SGAs for
• SGAs, including Centres and Corridors supported
success
with medium and high -density to achieve viable
community densities
4.a. Protecting
• Requires no Community Area land need. Existing
Agricultural and
DGA can supply enough land for new communities
Rural Systems
4.b. Responding to
• The mix of housing focuses on high density within
Climate Change
the BUA, while providing for low-, medium-, and
high -density in the DGA. The mix can support
walkable, transit -oriented communities.
• Increased density optimizes potential to decrease
GHG emissions and provide active transportation
networks (reduced energy need)
4.c. Achieving
• Shift to higher density housing forms supports
Sustainable
walkability, complete and transit -oriented
Development
communities
including transit-
• Density within DGA high enough to support
oriented
complete community and nodes of transit -oriented
development
development
5. Competitive
• Mix of new units likely least appealing to growing
Economic and
families.
Employment
• Supply of housing in BUA supports growth and
Conditions
intensification of existing communities
6. The efficient use of
• Higher densities in BUA supports transit
land and
infrastructure investments
infrastructure
• Higher -densities in DGA encourages efficient use of
infrastructure in new communities
Key Considerations
• First place selection survey responders
• Supports and optimizes regional urban structure and compact, transit -oriented communities
• No additional Community Area land required
• Scenario exceeds Growth Plan intensification target (55%) as a result of focus on high -density
housing forms in BUA
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 14
Page118
• Results in a DGA unit mix which is too oriented towards high -density housing forms and is not
representative of DGA market demand.
• Highest level of densities provides greatest opportunity to decrease GHG emissions.
• No new Community Land Area need. New Employment Land Need is still required.
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 15
Page119
Recommendations
Based on the refined Scenario Assessment, informed by consideration of community input through the
engagement process, the consultant team recommends Scenario 4 to establish Community Area Land
Need across Durham. This recommendation considers the following:
• Findings of the Scenario Assessment Framework which indicate that Scenario 4 ranks most
positively across the 6 Principles
• Balancing the Region's priorities of housing choice, increasing sustainable development
patterns, climate resilience and economic competitiveness
• Planning for a range of housing types that are aligned with changing demographics and future
forward housing propensities in Durham Region by 2051
• Optimizing intensification potential in MTSAs, Regional Centres and Corridors while aligning high
density -housing supply with anticipated demand
• Planning for increased but achievable densities in DGA/new communities
• Minimizing new Community Area land need required
In terms of the Employment Scenarios, Employment Area Scenario 2 with a 20% intensification target
for Durham Region is recommended. Based on historical building permit activity over the past decade as
well as ample opportunities across Durham Region's underutilized employment lands to accommodate
job growth through intensification, a 20% intensification target appears achievable in Durham Region.
While intensification is largely left to the discretion of individual landowners, this increased
intensification target will lessen the need for urban expansion to accommodate long-term employment
growth. Critical to this intensification target is to monitor employment growth and employment land
absorption over the next decade, at which point the intensification target and corresponding
employment land need can be reassessed through the next Durham Region Municipal Comprehensive
Review.
On this basis, combining Alternate Community Land Need Scenario 4 and the Employment Land Need
Scenario 2 with 20% employment intensification target, the region -wide land need area, housing mix
and minimum targets would be:
• 950 ha Community Area land need
• 1171 ha of Employment Area land need
• 2121 ha total additional urban area land need to accommodate growth forecast to 2051
• Minimum 50% intensification rate
• Durham Total New Housing Unit Mix: 28% Low -Density; 28% Medium -Density; 41% High -
Density; 3% secondary units
• Durham Total Unit Mix at 2051 (Existing + New): 50% Low -Density; 21% Medium -Density; 28%
high -Density
• Minimum overall density target of 60 PJH for Designated Greenfield Areas
• Employment Area land density of 27 jobs per gross hectare by 2051
The consultant team recommends this Land Need Assessment be used as the basis, region -wide, to
conclude Phase 1 of the Land Need Assessment. Phase 2 of the Growth Management Study would use
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 16
Page120
this as a starting point to assess where and how this new land need would be accommodated and to
determine growth allocations within area municipalities.
Alternative Growth Scenarios Recommendations 17
Page 121
Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant
City of Pickering
York Region
Notice of Construction
Works Department July 14, 2021 Public Notice
The Regional Municipality of Durham and the Regional Municipality of York (the Regions) are undertaking a
project to upgrade the outfall diffusers at the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (Plant). The outfall is a
1.1 kilometre (km) pipe that conveys treated effluent from the Plant to Lake Ontario. The scope of work is to
replace the existing 63 diffuser ports at the end of the outfall with new variable opening diffuser check valves,
which will improve treated effluent dispersion in Lake Ontario. This work will not impact Plant operations and
the Plant will remain fully operational during construction of the outfall diffuser upgrades. The Regions have
consulted with and received project approval from Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
The construction contract was awarded to Kehoe Marine Construction with Dundee Marine as a subcontractor.
The work is scheduled to commence as early as July 19, 2021. In -lake work may continue until November 15,
2021, when the contract will break for the winter. The remainder of the installation will resume May 1, 2022,
and finish by July 15, 2022.
The contractor will travel to the construction area from Frenchman's Bay Marina (591 Liverpool Road), and
diving activities will occur between Monday to Friday during daylight hours. No construction activity at the
shoreline is required. The contractor will use up to three boats to remove and replace the diffusers, working
approximately 1 km from the shoreline.
The contractor is required to comply with an Environmental Protection Plan to minimize impacts on the area
during construction. Temporary construction control measures, such as floating booms, will be used to contain
and capture any debris that may be released during the work, and sediment suspension/disturbance is
expected to be minimal.
For more information about this project, please visit durham.ca/OutfallEA.
Town of
Ajax
f' Frenchman's Bay Greed
Marina WpC? RotaryAjax Waterfront
Park
Park
Outfall
- Pickering Nuclear Ke On�aCr 44
50C]ELL.
Generating Plant �' j V
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact one of the following staff members listed below:
Brad Dobson, P.Eng., MBA
Project Superintendent
Regional Municipality of Durham
905-435-2105
Brad. Dobson(c-)durham.ca
Soyuz Mitra, P.Eng.
Project Manager
Regional Municipality of York
905-830-4444 ext. 75176
Sovuz.Mitra(a)-york.ca
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3560.
91 facebook.com/Reg ion OfDurham
twitter.com/Reg ion OfDurham
The Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department
605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, Ontario UN 6A3
Telephone: 905-668-7711 or 1-800-372-1102
durham.ca/OutfallEA
Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant
City of Pickering
York Region
Notice of Construction Restart
Works Department April 14, 2022 Public Notice
The Regional Municipality of Durham and the Regional Municipality of York (the Regions) are undertaking a
project to upgrade the outfall diffusers at the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (Plant). The outfall is a
1.1 kilometre (km) pipe that conveys treated effluent from the Plant to Lake Ontario. The scope of work is to
replace the existing 63 diffuser ports at the end of the outfall with new variable opening diffuser check valves,
which will improve treated effluent dispersion in Lake Ontario. This work will not impact Plant operations and
the Plant will remain fully operational during construction of the outfall diffuser upgrades. The Regions have
consulted with and received project approval from Transport Canada (TC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO), and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP).
The construction contract was awarded to Kehoe Marine Construction with Dundee Marine as a subcontractor.
The first portion of the work was completed in the August and September 2021 when 25 diffuser check -valves
were installed on schedule. The remaining 38 diffuser check -valve installation is scheduled to resume as early
as May 10, 2022, and finish by July 15, 2022.
The contractor will travel to the construction area from Frenchman's Bay Marina (591 Liverpool Road), and
diving activities will occur between Monday to Friday during daylight hours. No construction activity at the
shoreline is required. The contractor will use up to three boats to remove and replace the diffusers, working
approximately 1 km from the shoreline.
The contractor is required to comply with an Environmental Protection Plan to minimize impacts on the area
during construction. Temporary construction control measures, such as floating booms, will be used to contain
and capture any debris that may be released during the work, and sediment suspension/disturbance is
expected to be minimal.
For more information about this project, please visit durham.ca/OutfallEA.
Pickering
Fre C s y Creek
Marina �pCp
Rotary
Park
Town of
Ajax
Ajax Waterfront
Park
Onta�,o
Lak�
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact one of the following staff members listed below:
Brad Dobson, P.Eng., MBA Soyuz Mitra, P.Eng.
Project Superintendent Project Manager
Regional Municipality of Durham Regional Municipality of York
905-435-2105 905-716-7828
Brad. Dobson(a)-durham.ca Sovuz.Mitra(cb-vork.ca
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3560.
91 facebook.com/RegionOfDurham twitter.com/RegionOfDurham
The Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department
605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, Ontario UN 6A3
Telephone: 905-668-7711 or 1-800-372-1102
durham.ca/OutfallEA
age
MULTI -MUNICIPAL WIND TURBINE WORKING GROUP
TOM ALLWOOD, COUNCILLOR, GREY HIGHLANDS, CHAIR
STEVE ADAMS, COUNCILLOR, BROCKTON, VICE -CHAIR
1925 BRUCE ROAD 10, Box 70, CHESLEY, ON NOG 1 LO
519-363-3039 FAx:519-363-2203
deputyclerk@arran-elderslie.ca
April 22, 2022
Dear Mayor and Members of Council,
The mandate of the Multi Municipal Working Group (MMWTWG) is to share,
discuss and advocate best practices and other means to address mutual
concerns regarding proposals to locate and install industrial/commercial wind
generation facilities to all the relevant Government Ministries and Agencies.
At the April 14, 2022 meeting of the Multi -Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group
passed the following resolution:
Agenda Number: 7.2.4
Resolution No. MMWTWG-2022-17
Title: Setback Recommendation
Date: Thursday, April 14, 2022
Moved by: Bill Palmer - Citizen - Municipality of Arran-Elderslie
Seconded by: Bob Purcell - Mayor - Municipality of Dutton Dunwich
To address concerns related to noise and the public safety of citizens, the Multi
Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group recommends that the following setbacks
from wind turbines should be adopted in each municipality:
1. 2000 metres from any wind turbine and any noise receptor, including
homes, schools, places of worship, and locations where citizens go for
relaxation, such as parks and community centres.
2. 1200 metres from any wind turbine and the lot line of any non-
participating citizen, or a place where a citizen can access, such as
public roadways, or waterways.
Further, that the Recording Secretary is empowered to prepare a letter to all
municipalities in Ontario and the responsible Ministries, (Ministry of the
Environment Conservation and Parks, and Ministry of Municipal Affairs) to be
signed by the chair of the MMWTWG for immediate release.
CARRIED
Page 124
Through changes made to the Planning Act in 2019, the province returned
powers to municipalities to ensure that they have the final say on energy
projects in their community. Proponents of new projects need to confirm that
their project is permitted by the municipalities' zoning bylaws. Now that there
are reports that sites are being sought for new wind turbines, it is timely that
municipalities review the provisions in their zoning bylaws and update them as
appropriate.
Key elements in zoning bylaws are setbacks between activities. While
experience with the existing wind turbine projects in Ontario and changes in
other jurisdictions indicate that the current provincial setbacks are inadequate
to protect health of nearby residents. Municipalities are free to establish their
own setbacks used in local bylaws. It is in this context that the MMWTWG is
providing these recommendations to your municipality.
Attached is a summary of information related to setbacks. It includes a review of
different setbacks based on a review by the Polish Public Institute of Health as
well as information on setbacks used in other jurisdictions. The 2000 m setback
from noise receptors is designed to provide protection from audible noise as well
as low frequency noise and infrasound which travels greater distances that
could occur from multiple turbines permitted by the current setback of 550
metres. Similarly, although 1200 metres may be a larger distance than we have
observed significant pieces of blades travel from the towers, it provides a buffer
to give protection from fire, or shadow flicker, that can cause problems further
than blade pieces fall.
The Multi -Municipal Wind Turbine Working Group invites the participation of all
municipalities across Ontario. To obtain details regarding the group's mandates,
Terms of Reference and how to be come a Member, please reach out to our
Recording Secretary, Julie Hamilton at deputyclerk@arran-elderslie.ca. Size in
numbers provides a louder voice to be heard!
Warmest Regards,
On behalf of the Chair, Tom Allwood
Julie Hamilton, Recording Secretary
Deputy Clerk
Municipality of Arran-Elderslie,
1925 Bruce Road 10, PO Box 70
Chesley, ON NOG 1 LO
519-363-3039 ext. 105
der)utvclerk@arran-elderslie.ca
Page 125
c. Honourable David Piccini, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks,
minister. mecp@ontario.ca, Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, minister.mah@ontario.ca
Encl.
Page126
Setback Information
Receptors 550 metres Audible noise only based on 40 dBA
Property Lines Blade length Typically 60 metres
plus 10 metres
Audible Noise .5 to .7 km No adjustments for pulsing/tonal quality
Total Noise 1.0 to 3 km Includes low frequency noise & pulsing/tonal
adjustments
Shadow Flicker 1.2 to 2.1 km Depends on height of turbine
Ice Throw .5 to .8 km Fragments of ice thrown from blades
Turbine Failure .5 to 1.4 km Potential distance for blade fragments
Page127
Examples of Setbacks
Jurisdiction-
.. -
Dutton-Dunwich, ON
21000
M
To receptors
Mason County, Kentucky
11600
M
To property line
Caratunk County, Maine
21414
M
To property line
Wyoming
11110
M
5.5 X height to property line
Bavaria, Germany
21073
M
10 X hub height plus blade
length
Sachsen, Germany
11380
M
10 X hub height
Northern Ireland
11386
M
10 X rotor diameter
Poland
21073
M
10 X hub height plus blade
length
Page128
April 21, 2022
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A OA2
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau:
Re: New Home Tax Rebate Program
At the regular Council meeting held on April 19, 2022, the Council for the Corporation of
the Town of South Bruce Peninsula discussed the New Home Tax Rebate Program.
Our Council is focused on increasing the instances where both attainable and affordable
housing are available to more residents of not only South Bruce Peninsula, but all
across Canada. Council is pleased that the New Home Tax Rebate Program exists,
and they applaud the government's commitment to assisting new home buyers.
Council, in their review of the program, respectfully requests that the Federal
Government reconsiders their portion of the program. Council is encouraged by the
Province of Ontario's program and would like to see the Federal Government either
mirror the rebate program implemented by the Province of Ontario, or alternatively,
increase the purchasing threshold to an amount which is greater than the current
$450,000 ceiling. In today's housing market, the instances of new houses being
purchased for anything under $450,000 is extremely rare, making the receipt of Federal
rebate money not possible for most new home buyers.
Council adopted resolution R-144-2022 which is attached to this correspondence. We
look forward to your consideration of this important issue and receiving a response with
regard to same.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Yo s very truly,
anice Jac so
Mayor
519-534-1400 ext 200
0anice. jackson southbrucepeninsuIa. com
Enclosure
cc: Premier Doug Ford, MP Alex Ruff, MPP Bill Walker, all Ontario municipalities
Q PO Box 310, 315 George Street ` Tel: 519-534-1400 � Fax: 519-534-4862
Marton, Ontario NOH 2TO F119'� N91400 WIF www.southbrucepeninsula.com
Excerpt from Council Meeting Minutes —
April 19, 2022
28. Notice of Motion — Mayor Jackson, New Home Tax Rebate Program
Discussion included the purchasing of homes and the government programs.
R-144-2022
It was Moved by J. Jackson, Seconded by K. Durst and Carried
Whereas attainable housing has been a concern for residents across Canada;
And whereas attainable housing is a priority for all levels of government,
And whereas the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario have implemented
HST and GST rebate programs for those purchasing newly constructed and majorty
renovated homes;
And whereas the Province of Ontario rebate program applies to the first $400,000 of the
purchase price of the new home and land, as the case may be, with a maximum rebate of
$24,0001
And whereas the Government of Canada rebate program applies only to new home and
land purchases, as the case may be, under $450,000, with an incremental decrease in
rebate as the purchase price reaches $450,000 and the maximum rebate being $6,000;
And whereas the cost of new home construction has risen exponentially such that the
majority of Canadians cannot afford to purchase a newly constructed home;
And whereas the Province of Ontario rebate program goes a long way toward assisting
Ontarians purchase newly constructed homes.
Now therefore be it resolved that the Corporation of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula
requests that the Government of Canada reviews its rebate program and considers
implementing their rebate program in the same manner as that of Ontario meaning that
there is no incremental decrease applied to the rebate and instead a maximum rebate is
established for new home purchases under $450,000;
And that alternatively, if the Government of Canada does not see fit to mirror the rebate
program of the Province of Ontario, that the Government of Canada increases its new home
purchasing threshold to an amount significantly higher than $450,000 which is reflective of
today's housing market;
Page130
And further that Council's position on this matter is circulated to Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau, Premier Doug Ford, MP Alex Ruff, MPP Bill Walker and all municipalities in
Ontario.
Page 131
West Lincoln
Your Future Naturally
CLERKS DEPARTMENT
March 1, 2022
Ministry of Government & Consumer Services
5t" Floor
777 Bay St.
Toronto, ON
M7A 2J3
Sent via email: Ross. Romano(a-ontario.ca
Dear Hon. Ross Romano,
318 Canborough St. P.O. Box 400
Smithville, ON
LOR 2AO
T: 905-957-3346
F: 905-957-3219
www.westlincoln.ca
Re: Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 and Ontario Regulation 30/11
This is to confirm that at the April 25, 2022 Council Meeting the following resolution was adopted
with respect to the above noted matter:
1. That, Recommendation Report REC-03-2022, "Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services
Act, 2002 and Ontario Regulation 30/11 ", dated April 19, 2022 be received for
information; AND
2. That, the Council of the Township of West Lincoln hereby supports Prince Edward
County's call for Government action concerning the current legislation and regulations
surrounding municipal requirements to take over and maintain abandoned operating
cemeteries; AND
3. That, a copy of this resolution be sent to the Minister of Government & Consumer
Services, ROMA, and all Ontario municipalities.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the above, do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Sincerely,
Joanne Scime, Clerk
cc. ROMA
All Ontario Municipalities
X:\cl-Clerks\Council\Council-2022\Letters\Letter to Minister of Government & Consumer Services - Ontario Regulation 30/11 - April 25.doc
Page132
The Corporation of the
Municipality of Mississippi Mills
Council Meeting
Resolution Number 124-22
Title: Info Item H.5.f - City of Waterloo Resolution re: Ontario Must Build it Right the
First Time
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022
Moved by Councillor Maydan
Seconded by Councillor Ferguson
THAT Council support the City of Waterloo's resolution,
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets of 30% by 2030, and
emissions from buildings represented 22% of the province's 2017 emissions,
WHEREAS the draft National Model Building Code proposes energy performance tiers for new
buildings and a pathway to requiring net zero ready construction in new buildings, allowing the building
industry, skilled trades, and suppliers to adapt on a predictable and reasonable timeline while
encouraging innovation;
WHEREAS the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is consulting on changes for the next edition
of the Ontario Building Code (ERO #: 019-4974) that generally aligns with the draft National Model
Building Code except it does not propose adopting energy performance tiers, it does not propose
timelines for increasing minimum energy performance standards step-by-step to the highest energy
performance tier, and, according to Efficiency Canada and The Atmospheric Fund, it proposes
adopting minimum energy performance standards that do not materially improve on the requirements in
the current Ontario Building code;
WHEREAS buildings with better energy performance provide owners and occupants with lower energy
bills, improved building comfort, and resilience from power disruptions that are expected to be more
common in a changing climate, tackling both inequality and energy poverty;
WHEREAS municipalities are already leading the way in adopting or developing energy performance
tiers as part of Green Development Standards, including Toronto and Whitby with adopted standards
and Ottawa, Pickering, and others with standards in development;
WHEREAS while expensive retrofits of the current building stock to achieve future net zero
requirements could be aligned with end -of -life replacement cycles to be more cost-efficient, new
buildings that are not constructed to be net zero ready will require substantial retrofits before end -of -life
replacement cycles at significantly more cost, making it more cost-efficient to build it right the first time.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council request the Province of Ontario to include energy
performance tiers and timelines for increasing minimum energy performance standards step-by-step to
the highest energy performance tier in the next edition of the Ontario Building Code, consistent with the
intent of the draft National Model Building Code and the necessity of bold and immediate provincial
Page133
action on climate change;
THAT Council request the Province of Ontario to adopt a more ambitious energy performance tier of
the draft National Model Building Code as the minimum requirement for the next edition of the Ontario
Building Code than those currently proposed;
THAT Council request the Province of Ontario provide authority to municipalities to adopt a specific
higher energy performance tier than the Ontario Building Code, which would provide more consistency
for developers and homebuilders than the emerging patchwork of municipal Green Development
Standards;
THAT Council request the Province of Ontario to facilitate capacity, education and training in the
implementation of the National Model Building Code for municipal planning and building inspection
staff, developers, and homebuilders to help build capacity; and
THAT this resolution be provided to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to area MPPs, and to
all Ontario Municipalities.
CARRIED
I, Casey Munro, Deputy Clerk for the Corporation of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills, do hereby
certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution enacted by Council.
Casey Munro, Deputy Clerk
Page 134
_
THE CITY OK l
Waterloo
March 23, 2022
Hon. Steve Clark
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
College Park, 17t" Floor
777 Bay St.
Toronto, ON M7A 2J3
RE: Resolution from the City of Waterloo passed March 21St, 2022 re: Ontario
Must Build it Right the First Time
Dear Minister Clark,
Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Waterloo at its Council
meeting held on Monday, March 21 St, 2022 resolved as follows:
WHEREAS the Province of Ontario adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets of
30% by 2030, and emissions from buildings represented 22% of the province's
2017 emissions,
WHEREAS all Waterloo Region municipalities, including the City of Waterloo,
adopted greenhouse gas reduction targets of 80% below 2012 levels by 2050
and endorsed in principle a 50% reduction by 2030 interim target that requires
the support of bold and immediate provincial and federal actions,
WHEREAS greenhouse gas emissions from buildings represent 45% of all
emissions in Waterloo Region, and an important strategy in the TransformWR
community climate action strategy, adopted by all Councils in Waterloo Region,
targets new buildings to be net -zero carbon or able to transition to net -zero
carbon using region -wide building standards and building capacity and expertise
of building operators, property managers, and in the design and construction
sector,
WHEREAS the City of Waterloo recently adopted a net -zero carbon policy for
new local government buildings and endorsed a corporate greenhouse gas and
energy roadmap to achieve a 50% emissions reduction by 2030 for existing local
government buildings and net -zero emissions by 2050 (provided the provincial
electricity grid is also net -zero emissions),
WHEREAS the draft National Model Building Code proposes energy performance
tiers for new buildings and a pathway to requiring net zero ready construction in
new buildings, allowing the building industry, skilled trades, and suppliers to
adapt on a predictable and reasonable timeline while encouraging innovation;
Waterloo City Centre 1 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, ON N2J 4A8 I P. 519.886.1550 1 F. 519.747.8760 1 TTY. 1.866.786.3941
The City of Waterloo is committed to providing accessible formats and communication supports for persons with disabilities. If another format would work better
for you, please contact: clerkinfo@waterloo.ca or TTY at 1-866-786-3941.
www.waterloo.ca
Page 135
111-0
THE CITY OK l
Waterloo
WHEREAS the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is consulting on
changes for the next edition of the Ontario Building Code (ERO #: 019-4974) that
generally aligns with the draft National Model Building Code except it does not
propose adopting energy performance tiers, it does not propose timelines for
increasing minimum energy performance standards step-by-step to the highest
energy performance tier, and, according to Efficiency Canada and The
Atmospheric Fund, it proposes adopting minimum energy performance standards
that do not materially improve on the requirements in the current Ontario Building
code;
WHEREAS buildings with better energy performance provide owners and
occupants with lower energy bills, improved building comfort, and resilience from
power disruptions that are expected to be more common in a changing climate,
tackling both inequality and energy poverty;
WHEREAS municipalities are already leading the way in adopting or developing
energy performance tiers as part of Green Development Standards, including
Toronto and Whitby with adopted standards and Ottawa, Pickering, and others
with standards in development;
WHEREAS the City of Waterloo is finalizing Green Development Standards for its
west side employment lands and actively pursuing Green Development
Standards in partnership with the Region of Waterloo, the Cities of Kitchener and
Cambridge, and all local electricity and gas utilities through WR Community
Energy;
WHEREAS while expensive retrofits of the current building stock to achieve
future net zero requirements could be aligned with end -of -life replacement cycles
to be more cost-efficient, new buildings that are not constructed to be net zero
ready will require substantial retrofits before end -of -life replacement cycles at
significantly more cost, making it more cost-efficient to build it right the first time.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council request the Province of Ontario
to include energy performance tiers and timelines for increasing minimum energy
performance standards step-by-step to the highest energy performance tier in the
next edition of the Ontario Building Code, consistent with the intent of the draft
National Model Building Code and the necessity of bold and immediate provincial
action on climate change;
THAT Council request the Province of Ontario to adopt a more ambitious energy
performance tier of the draft National Model Building Code as the minimum
requirement for the next edition of the Ontario Building Code than those currently
proposed;
Waterloo City Centre 1 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, ON N2J 4A8 I P. 519.886.1550 1 F. 519.747.8760 1 TTY. 1.866.786.3941
The City of Waterloo is committed to providing accessible formats and communication supports for persons with disabilities. If another format would work better
for you, please contact: clerkinfo@waterloo.ca or TTY at 1-866-786-3941.
www.waterloo.ca
Page 136
_
THE CITY OK l
Waterloo
THAT Council request the Province of Ontario provide authority to municipalities
to adopt a specific higher energy performance tier than the Ontario Building
Code, which would provide more consistency for developers and homebuilders
than the emerging patchwork of municipal Green Development Standards;
THAT Council request the Province of Ontario to facilitate capacity, education
and training in the implementation of the National Model Building Code for
municipal planning and building inspection staff, developers, and homebuilders to
help build capacity; and
THAT this resolution be provided to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing,
to area MPPs, and to all Ontario Municipalities.
Please accept this letter for information purposes only.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Julie Scott
City Clerk, City of Waterloo
CC (by email):
Catherine Fife, M.P.P (Waterloo)
Laura Mae Lindo, M.P.P (Kitchener Centre)
Belinda C. Karahalios, M.P.P (Cambridge)
Amy Fee, M.P.P (Kitchener -South Hespeler)
Mike Harris, M.P.P (Kitchener -Conestoga)
Waterloo City Centre 1 100 Regina Street South, Waterloo, ON N2J 4A8 I P. 519.886.1550 1 F. 519.747.8760 1 TTY. 1.866.786.3941
The City of Waterloo is committed to providing accessible formats and communication supports for persons with disabilities. If another format would work better
for you, please contact: clerkinfo@waterloo.ca or TTY at 1-866-786-3941.
www.waterloo.ca
Page 137
Aft N PR 1 OR
Town of Arnprior Support for Humanitarian Efforts in Ukraine
To Whom it may concern,
Council of the Corporation of the Town of Arnprior passed the following
resolution regarding supporting Ukraine in these difficult times. Council at their
meeting, requested staff provide this resolution to all municipalities in the
province of Ontario for their information.
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Arnprior supports
our Federal, Provincial and local municipalities in condemning the
aggression and violent acts that Russia is taking upon Ukraine; and
Whereas on March 2, 2022 Mayor Stack issued a press release voicing the
Town's support of "the Ukrainian people, who are fighting bravely against
the invading Russian forces" and asked that everyone in Arnprior keep
"these brave souls in our hearts and minds, and hope for a swift end to this
conflict," and
Whereas the clock at the D.A. Gillies (Museum) will stay lit in blue and
yellow until the attacks cease.
Therefore Be It Resolved That:
1. That Council support the humanitarian efforts in Ukraine with a
$1000.00 donation to the Canadian Red Cross Ukraine Humanitarian
Crisis Appeal.
2. That the Mayor send a letter to the Ukrainian Embassy in Ottawa in
support and solidarity of those in Ukraine, their friends and families
across the globe and those of Ukrainian heritage within our
community.
The Town of Arnprior has sent a donation to the Canadian Red Cross Ukraine
Humanitarian Crisis Appeal, and the Mayor has issued a letter to the Ukrainian
Embassy in Ottawa, as noted.
Sincerely,
Kaila Zamojski
Deputy Clerk
Town of Arnprior
613-623-4231 Ext. 1818
Page138
Patenaude, Lindsey
From: ca.office (MECP) <ca.office@ontario.ca>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 3:45 PM
Subject: Regulations and Policy under the Conservation Authorities Act — Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks
You don't often get email from ca.office@ontario.ca. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL
Ministry of the Environment, Ministere de I'Environnement, de la
Conservation and Parks Protection de la nature et des Pares
Conservation and Source Protection Direction de la protection de la nature et des
��
Branch sources
14,1 Floor 14e etage
40 St. Clair Ave. West 40, avenue St. Clair Ouest
Toronto ON M4V 1 M2 Toronto (Ontario) M4V 1 M2
Good afternoon:
We are moving forward with Phase 2 regulations to improve the governance, oversight, transparency
and accountability of conservation authority (CA) operations. These new regulations and provincial
policy build on the first phase of regulations put in place in October 2021 and support amendments to
the Conservation Authorities Act that focus CAs on their core mandate:
• Ontario Regulation 402/22: Budget and Apportionment. This regulation details CA budget and
municipal apportionment methods and requirements.
• Ontario Regulation 401/22: Determination of Amounts Under Subsection 27.2 (2) of the Act.
This regulation details the methods available to CAs to determine amounts owed by their
specified municipalities for CA programs and services provided in respect of the Clean Water
Act, 2006 and Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008.
• Policy: Minister's Fee Classes Policy. This policy is a published list of the classes of programs
and services for which a CA may charge a fee.
• Ontario Regulation 400/22: Information Requirements. This regulation increases transparency
of CA operations by requiring the public posting of prescribed information on a Governance
section of a CA's website.
• Ontario Regulation 399/22: Amending the Minister's Transition Plans and Agreements for
Programs and Services Under Section 21.1.2 of the Act regulation (Ontario Regulation
687/21). This regulation increases transparency of user fees for programs and services that a
CA determines is advisable to provide in its jurisdiction, where a cost apportioning agreement
is in place.
The regulations and policy build on current CA budgetary practices with updates to align the levy
apportionment methods and budget processes with the new funding framework and categories of
programs and services established by recent amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and
first phase of regulations. The changes will ensure a smooth transition by January 1, 2024 of CAs to
the new funding framework and three categories of programs and services.
Page139
The regulations and policy were consulted on through the Environmental Registry of Ontario from
January 26 to February 25, 2022. We held webinars on the proposals in which over 400 people
attended, and we received 24 submissions from municipalities, conservation authorities,
environmental non -government organizations, community groups, industry, agricultural sector, and
individuals. A decision notice with links to the final regulations and policy is available on the
Environmental Registry of Ontario (notice number 019-4610), which includes a summary of the
feedback received and how it was considered.
Thank you again for your input. You can reach the Conservation Authority Office at
ca.office(cr_ontario.ca if you have any questions. We will have information on training webinars in the
near future.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Corrigal
Director, Conservation and Source Protection Branch
Page140
Newcastle BIA MINUTES April 14th, 2022
www.vil lageofnewcastle.ca
Attendance: Janeen Calder, Marni Lewis, Angela Booth, Councilor Granville Anderson, Lina
Schmahl, Valentine Lovekin, Bonnie Wrightman (CBOT), Doug Sirrs
Regrets: Greg Lewis, Theresa Vanhaverbeke, Tracy Yates, Jane Black, Ann Harley
1. Meeting called to order at 9:05 a.m.
2. Approval of March Minutes
Motion by: Lina Schmahl Seconded by: Janeen Calder
3. Business Arising from Minutes: n/a
4. President's Report: n/a
5. Treasurer's Report:
The current bank balance is approximately $95,000.
6. Council Report:
n/a
7. Committee Reports:
Safety & Decor: n/a
Advertising:
Facebook- reaches up
Top posts:
On Demand Transit
Snug Frozen Food at Foodland
Welcome Spring
Massey House
Sift
Instagram
Reached 1133
Top Posts
Buddha Belly
Sift Bakery
Gold Reflections
The Snug frozen Food
Page 141
On Demand Transit
Special Events:
a) Town Hall Lighting -Will call the light company and see if they can come take the
lights down, or leave up all year?
b) Breakfast with Santa- Hall is booked for November 26th, 8:OOam-11:OOam
c) Santa Parade — November 20th at S:OOpm
d) Harvest Festival — Planning has started. They are looking for face painters.
Activities happening are- pony rides, jumping castles, pancake breakfast and the
Lions dog walk. They have been advised from MOC that vendors will require their
own insurance policies to participate. Granville is looking into if this is something
they can waive.
Shop Clarington just wrapped up. Shop where you live — Durham wide is expanded.
Bonnie will arrange a call to participate in the next round of shop where you live.
9. Chamber News: n/a
10. CI P: n/a
11. New Business:
Perogies fundraiser. Janeen will ask Gabrielle what May dates are available. Angela
will price out Costco and White feather perogies. Should we ask the Lions to help?
12. Next meeting, Thursday, May 12th, 2022, at Town Hall
13. Motion to adjourn meeting
by Janeen Calder seconded by Lina Schmahl
Page142
Patenaude, Lindsey
From: Board Chair <MPACBoard.Chair@mpac.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 11:27 AM
To: Gallagher, June
Subject: MPAC: 2021 Annual Report
Attachments: MunicipaIPropertyAssessmentCorporation FinancialState ments2021.pdf
You don't often get email from mpacboard.chair@mpac.ca. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL
�pa�cMUNICIPAL
PROPERTY
ASSESSMENT
CORPORATION
Good morning June,
MPAC is proud to share three documents with you today. One is attached and two are links
embedded in this email.
The first document is our Annual Report. The past year's focus has been on asking
ourselves who we are as an organization, what role we play in Ontario and looking at how
we can do more to help communities overcome obstacles that impact municipal and
business operations. With the province -wide assessment on pause, MPAC took the year as
an opportunity to focus on the other ways we provide value, and reflect on how we can
improve our services. Not only were we able to maintain a 0% increase to the total
municipal levy for the second year in a row, we were also able to continue our work on
capturing new assessments by working closely with municipal partners on innovative
technology such as enhancing Municipal Connect, our property data -sharing platform. I am
also proud to announce that in 2021, we launched our new Strategic Plan, building on
MPAC's success — delivering value, beyond assessments alone.
You will also find included MPAC's Financial Statements for the Year Ended December
31, 2021. This is being provided as an addendum to the Annual Report above. If you have
Page143
any questions, please contact Mary Meffe, Vice -President, Corporate and Information
Services and Chief Financial Officer at mary.meffe@mpac.ca.
The third document is new to MPAC this year and is an outcome from the Ontario
Government's 2021 Fall Economic Statement: our Corporate Performance Report. MPAC
is committed to continuing to find ways to showcase our accountability and
transparency. This document provides a wealth of statistics on how well we are meeting
our goals on areas such as capturing new assessment, the proportion of property
assessments that are accepted without going to appeal, customer contact centre
satisfaction and many more.
Should you have any questions regarding the reports, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Alan Spacek
Chair, MPAC Board of Directors
Copy Nicole McNeill, President & CAO
Mary Meffe, VP Corporate and Information Services & CFO
Page 144
Financial statements of
Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation
December 31, 2021
Page145
Independent Auditor's Report
Statement of financial position
Statement of operations
Statement of changes in net assets
Statement of cash flows
Notes to the financial statements
1-2
3
4
5
6
7-15
Page146
Deloitte
Independent Auditor's Report
To the Board Members of
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Deloitte LLP
400 Applewood Crescent
Suite 500
Vaughan ON L41K 0C3
Canada
Tel: 416-601-6150
Fax: 416-601-6151
www.deloitte.ca
Opinion
We have audited the financial statements of Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
(the "Corporation"), which comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2021, and
the statements of operations, changes in net assets and cash flows for the year then ended, and notes
to the financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies (collectively referred
to as the "financial statements").
In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of the Corporation as at December 31, 2021, and the results of its operations and its
cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for
not -for -profit organizations.
Basis for Opinion
We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards
("Canadian GAAS"). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the
Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are
independent of the Corporation in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our
audit of the financial statements in Canada, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in
accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient
and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.
Other Information
Management is responsible for the other information. The other information comprises the information
included in the Annual Report, but does not include the financial statements and our auditor's report
thereon. The Annual Performance Report is expected to be available to us after the date of this
auditor's report.
Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and we do not express
any form of assurance conclusion thereon.
In connection with our audit of the financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other
information identified above and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially
inconsistent with the financial statements or our knowledge obtained in the audit, or otherwise
appears to be materially misstated.
When we read the Annual Report, if we conclude that there is a material misstatement therein, we are
required to communicate the matter with those charged with governance.
Responsibilities of Management and Those Charged with Governance for the
Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in
accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not -for -profit organizations, and for such internal
control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that
are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
In preparing the financial statements, management is responsible for assessing the Corporation's
ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and
using the going concern basis of accounting unless management either intends to liquidate the
Corporation or to cease operations, or has no realistic alternative but to do so.
Page147
Those charged with governance are responsible for overseeing the Corporation's financial reporting
process.
Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole
are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report
that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee
that an audit conducted in accordance with Canadian GAAS will always detect a material misstatement
when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually
or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users
taken on the basis of these financial statements.
As part of an audit in accordance with Canadian GAAS, we exercise professional judgment and
maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. We also:
• Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to
fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit
evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. The risk of not
detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error,
as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override
of internal control.
• Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit
procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the Corporation's internal control.
• Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting
estimates and related disclosures made by management.
• Conclude on the appropriateness of management's use of the going concern basis of accounting
and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related to events
or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the Corporation's ability to continue as a going
concern. If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in
our auditor's report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, if such disclosures are
inadequate, to modify our opinion. Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to
the date of our auditor's report. However, future events or conditions may cause the Corporation
to cease to continue as a going concern.
• Evaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements, including the
disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and
events in a manner that achieves fair presentation.
We communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned
scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in
internal control that we identify during our audit.
Other matter
The financial statements of the Corporation as at and for the year ended December 31, 2020 were
audited by another auditor who expressed an unmodified opinion on those statements dated
March 30, 2021.
kUO�= Z- L P
Chartered Professional Accountants
Licensed Public Accountants
March 30, 2022
Page148
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Statement of financial position
As at December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
Assets
Current assets
Cash
Investments
Accounts receivable
Prepaid expenses
Long-term investments
Capital assets
Long-term prepaid expenses
Intangible assets
Liabilities
Current liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
Deferred revenue
Current portion of capital leases
Employee future benefits
Deferred lease inducements
Long-term portion of capital leases
Commitments and contingencies
Net assets
Unrestricted
Internally restricted
Invested in capital and intangible assets
2021 2020
Notes
16,519
10,233
3 -
2,076
3,335
3,728
2,054
2,570
21,908
18,607
3 147,690
131,493
4 8,804
10,343
367
-
s 9
50
178,778
160,493
14 27,909
27,425
6 2,761
1,801
10 685
759
31,355
29,985
7 49,267
49,899
1,901
2,306
10 463
1,116
82,986
83,306
9 and 11
61958
6,816
8 81,169
61,853
7,665
8,518
95,792
77,187
178,778
160,493
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
Approved by then Board of Directors
&I -A
Director
D°' Di rector
Page 149 Page 3
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Statement of operations
Year ended December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
Revenue
Municipal
Other
Interest and dividend income
Expenses
Salaries and benefits
Professional services
Information technology
Facilities
General and administrative
Royalties
Amortization of capital and intangible assets
Gain on disposal of capital assets
Excess of revenue over expenses before
change in fair value of investments
Change in fair value of investments
Excess of revenue over expenses for the year
2021 2020
214,919
214,919
23,601
19,884
3,353
3,217
241,873
238,020
186,315
182,419
13,320
12,741
111222
10,578
8,581
9,013
6,096
6,411
4,024
3,352
3,601
3,883
(65)
(245)
233,094
228,152
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
8,779 9,868
6,998 8,229
15,777 18,097
Page 150 Page 4
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Statement of changes in net assets
Year ended December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
Invested
in capital
and
Internally
intangible
2021
2020
Unrestricted
restricted
assets
Total
Total
Notes $
$
$
$
$
(Note 8)
Net assets, beginning of year
6,816
61,853
8,518
77,187
65,460
Excess of revenue over
expenses for the year
19,313
—
(3,536)
15,777
18,097
Remeasurements and other
items on employee future benefits
2,828
—
—
2,828
(6,370)
Acquisition of capital
and intangible assets
(2,054)
—
2,054
—
—
Proceeds from disposal of capital and
intangible assets
98
—
(98)
—
—
Incurred lease obligations for vehicles
accounted for as capital leases
32
—
(32)
—
—
(Repayment) retirement of lease
obligations for vehicles accounted
for as capital leases
(759)
—
759
—
—
Interfund transfers to internally
restricted reserves
(19,316)
19,316
—
—
—
Net assets, end of year
6,958
81,169
7,665
95,792
77,187
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements
Page 151 Page 5
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Statement of cash flows
Year ended December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
Operating activities
Excess of revenue over expenses for the year
Employee future benefits payments
Add (deduct): Items not affecting cash
Change in fair value of investments
Reinvested investment income
Employee future benefits expense
Amortization of capital assets
Amortization of intangible assets
Gain on disposal of capital assets
Amortization of lease liabilities
Changes in non -cash working capital
Accounts receivable
Prepaid expenses
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
Deferred revenue
Investing activities
Purchase of investments
Proceeds from sale of investments
Purchase of capital assets
Proceeds on disposal of capital assets
Purchase of intangible assets
Financing activity
Repayment of lease obligations
Increase in cash during the year
Cash, beginning of year
Cash, end of year
Supplementary cash flow information
Non -cash transactions
Acquisition of leased vehicles
Incurrence of lease obligations
Notes
2021 2020
15,777 18,097
(505) (308)
(6,998)
(8,229)
(3,122)
(2,948)
2,701
2,762
3,560
3,830
41
53
(65)
(245)
(405)
(167)
10,984
12,845
393
(369)
149
(249)
484
2,139
960
493
12,970
14,859
(7,343)
(17,532)
3,342
5,532
(2,022)
(2,040)
98
270
—
(11)
(5,925)
(13,781)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
(759) (755)
6,286 323
10,233 9,910
16,519 10,233
(32) (16)
32 16
Page 152 Page 6
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
1. Description of business
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (the Corporation), formerly the Ontario Property
Assessment Corporation, was incorporated effective January 1, 1998 and is a special act
corporation under the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Act, 1997 (Ontario). The
Corporation is responsible for providing property assessment services for municipalities in the
Province of Ontario, as well as providing other statutory duties and other activities consistent
with such duties as approved by its board of directors. All municipalities in Ontario are members
of the Corporation.
2. Summary of significant accounting policies
The financial statements are prepared in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for
not -for -profit organizations.
The significant accounting policies are summarized as follows.
Fund accounting
The financial statements include the following funds:
• The unrestricted fund comprises mainly amounts available for immediate use for the
general purpose of the Corporation.
• The reserve for board -appropriated working fund is set aside by the board of directors in
accordance with the Corporation's reserve strategy for contingencies and funding for
identified one-time expenditures.
• The reserve for employee future benefits is the portion of net assets consisting of internally
restricted investments set aside to settle employee future benefits.
• The reserve for enumeration was established to fund the costs associated with the
preparation of preliminary voters' lists for municipal and school board elections. The next
enumeration process is scheduled for 2022.
• The reserve for assessment update was established to fund the costs associated with the
assessment update. The Corporation generally contributes $2,400 annually to the reserve
but may vary the annual contribution with approval from the board of directors. The
unspent reserve balance will be maintained to finance the Assessment Update when the
Minister of Finance announces the new Assessment date and will be drawn down as
expenses are incurred.
• Invested in capital and intangible assets represents assets that have been invested in long-
lived capital and intangible assets which are not readily converted to cash, net of any
liabilities related to the acquisition of those assets.
Financial instruments
The Corporation records cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued liabilities
initially at fair value and subsequently at amortized cost. Financial assets are tested for
impairment at the end of each reporting period when there are indications the assets may be
impaired.
Investments are recorded at fair value. Transaction costs incurred on the acquisition of financial
instruments measured subsequently at fair value are expensed as incurred.
Page 153 Page 7
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
2. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued)
Capital assets
Capital assets are recorded at cost and are amortized using the straight-line method as follows:
Office equipment
5 years
Furniture and fixtures
5 to 10 years
Computer equipment
3 to 4 years
Small boats and vessels
3 to 8 years
Vehicles under capital lease
5 years
Leasehold improvements are also amortized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease
or ten years, whichever is less.
Impairment of long-lived assets
The Corporation reviews the carrying amount, amortization and useful lives of its long-lived
assets on an annual basis. If the long-lived asset no longer has any long-term service potential
to the Corporation, the excess of the net carrying amount over any residual value is recognized
as an expense in the statement of operations.
Intangible assets
Intangible assets consist of computer software, which is recorded at cost and is amortized over
three years.
The costs of developing in-house software are expensed as incurred.
Revenue recognition
Municipal revenue relates to assessment services and is recognized in the year in which the
services are provided and collection is reasonably assured.
Other revenues are comprised of services sold and products delivered from business
development. These revenues are recognized when the services have been provided and/or the
product is delivered, and collection is reasonably assured.
Interest income is recognized when earned.
The Corporation follows the deferral method of accounting for contributions. Restricted
contributions are recognized as revenue in the year in which the related expenses are incurred.
Unrestricted contributions are recognized as revenue when received or receivable if the amount
to be received can be reasonably estimated and collection is reasonably assured.
Employee future benefits
The Corporation has defined benefit plans that provide for post -retirement medical and dental
coverage and special termination benefits for defined eligible employees. Certain investments
have been internally restricted but not segregated to pay for post -retirement benefits.
Page 154 Page 8
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
2. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued)
Employee future benefits (continued)
The Corporation has the following policies:
The Corporation accrues its obligations under defined benefit plans and the related costs
when the benefits are earned through current service using the accounting valuation
method.
The cost of post -employment benefits earned by employees is actuarially determined using
the projected benefit method pro -rated on service and management's best estimates of
retirement ages of employees, expected health-care costs and dental costs. The accrued
benefit obligation related to employee future benefits is discounted using market rates on
high -quality debt instruments.
Remeasurements and other items are composed of actuarial gains (losses) on the accrued
benefit obligation and arise from differences between the actual and expected experience
and from changes in the actuarial assumptions used to determine the accrued benefit
obligation, past service costs and gains and losses arising from settlements and
curtailments. Actuarial gains and losses arise when the accrued benefit obligations change
during the year. The actuarial gains and losses and other remeasurements including plan
amendments are recorded in the statement of changes in net assets when incurred.
In addition, all employees of the Corporation are part of a defined benefit multi -employer
benefit plan providing both pension and other retirement benefits. Contributions made to this
plan are expensed as paid as the plan is accounted for as a defined contribution plan.
Deferred lease inducements
Lease liabilities include deferred lease inducements, which represent the free rent and
improvement allowances received from landlords and are amortized over the term of the lease,
and step -rent liability, which represents the difference between the average annual rent over
the term of the lease agreement and actual rent paid in the year.
Use of estimates
In preparing the Corporation's financial statements, management is required to make estimates
and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of
contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of
revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those
estimates. Accounts requiring significant estimates include accounts payable and accrued
liabilities, useful lives of capital assets and employee future benefits.
3. Investments
Investments are held within third party managed accounts, which invest independently.
The current portion of investments consists of amounts that management estimates to be
liquidated within 12 months.
Long-term investments consist of amounts that management estimates and intends to hold
longer than 12 months for future use.
Page 155 Page 9
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
3. Investments (continued)
The breakdown of total investments by category is outlined below:
2021
2020
Cash
250
-
Fixed income
82,154
80,910
Equity
47,528
38,525
Real assets
17,758
14,134
147,690
133,569
Less: Current portion
-
2,076
Long-term investments
147,690
131,493
The Corporation internally restricts certain securities
to fund employee future benefits.
The breakdown of total investments by intended use is outlined below:
2021
2020
General investments
76,845
69,895
Internally restricted investments
70,845
63,674
147,690
133,569
4. Capital assets
Accumulated 2021 2020
Cost amortization Net Net
Office equipment
546
545
1
3
Furniture and fixtures
8,442
7,437
1,005
901
Computer equipment
15,263
12,933
2,330
2,273
Small boats and vessels
390
377
13
16
Leasehold improvements
20,991
16,605
4,386
5,421
Vehicles under capital
3,768
2,750
11018
1,729
lease
Assets under construction
51
-
51
-
49,451
40,647
8,804
10,343
5. Intangible assets
Accumulated
2021
2020
Cost
amortization
Net
Net
Computer software
3,022
3,013
9
50
Page 156 Page 10
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
6. Deferred revenue
Business development unearned revenue and
customer down payments
Other deferred amounts
7. Employee future benefits
2021 2020
2,583 1,620
178 181
2,761 1,801
The Corporation has accrued an obligation for its post -employment benefits as follows:
Employees who transferred to the Corporation from the Government of Ontario on
December 31, 1998
Employees who transferred to the Corporation with less than ten years of service with the
province will receive post -retirement group benefit coverage through the Corporation for
themselves and for their dependants' lifetimes. The cost of these benefits is shared equally
between the Corporation and the employee for those employees who retire after
January 1, 2018.
The Government of Ontario continues to provide post -retirement benefits for employees
who transferred to the Corporation with ten or more years of service with the province.
Employees hired by the Corporation after December 31, 1998
These employees will receive post -retirement group benefit coverage for themselves and
for their dependants through the Corporation until age 65.
All employees
The Corporation is a Schedule II employer under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act
(Ontario), 1997 and follows a policy of self-insurance for all its employees. The obligation
as at December 31, 2021 is $829 ($1,261 in 2020) and is included in the total obligations
below.
Information about the Corporation's accrued benefit obligations and accrued benefit liabilities is
as follows:
Accrued benefit obligations, beginning of year
Current service costs
Interest on accrued obligations
Actuarial (gain) losses
Contributions
Accrued benefit obligations, end of year
2021 2020
49,899
41,075
1,298
1,447
1,403
1,315
(2,828)
6,370
(505)
(308)
49,267
49,899
Page 157 Page 11
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
7. Employee future benefits (continued)
All employees (continued)
The employee future benefits expense recorded in the statement of operations during the year
is as follows:
Current service costs
Interest on accrued obligations
2021 2020
1,298 1,447
1,403 1,315
2,701 2,762
Remeasurements and other items, consisting of curtailments, settlements, past service costs
and actuarial gain of $2,828 (loss of $6,370 in 2020), have been recognized directly in net
assets.
The significant actuarial assumptions adopted in measuring the Corporation's accrued benefit
obligations are as follows:
Discount rate
Health care inflation
Vision and dental care inflation
2021 2020
3.10%
5.4% grading
down to 4%
by 2040
4.93% grading
down to 4% by
2040
2.8%
5.55% grading
down to 4%
by 2040
4.71% grading
down to 4% by
2040
The date of the most recent actuarial valuation of the accrued benefit obligations was
December 31, 2019.
The Corporation paid $28,150 ($27,634 in 2020) of employer and employee contributions to the
defined benefit multi -employer benefit plan.
S. Internally restricted net assets
Reserve for board -appropriated working fund
Reserve for employee future benefits
Reserve for enumeration
Reserve for assessment update
2021 2020
47,283 37,121
21,578 13,775
2,200 2,681
10,108 8,276
81,169 61,853
Interfund transfers are approved by the board of directors. During the year, the board of
directors approved the transfers between the unrestricted fund and the internally restricted net
assets as follows: $10,162 to ($11,400 to in 2020) the board -appropriated working fund
reserve to pay for future one-time expenditures; $1,832 to ($1,389 to in 2020) the assessment
update reserve to set aside funds for the property assessment process, and $481 from
($1,968 to in 2020) the enumeration reserve.
Page 158 Page 12
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
S. Internally restricted net assets (continued)
The purpose and use of the employee future benefits reserve was approved by the board of
directors at initial setup, and an annual approval for transfers is not required. A transfer of
$7,803 to ($1,611 from in 2020) the employee future benefit reserve was made during the
year.
Refer to note 2 for a description of the reserves.
9. Commitments
The Corporation has commitments under various operating leases for properties. Minimum lease
payments due in each of the next five years and thereafter are as follows:
2022
4,714
2023
4,579
2024
3,590
2025
2,906
2026
1,814
Thereafter
703
18,306
The Corporation is also committed to paying operating costs and property taxes on its various
property leases.
10. Capital leases
The Corporation entered into several vehicle leases with an interest rate of between 2.51% and
4.34%, with lease terms up to 60 months. On termination of the lease, the Corporation has
guaranteed a certain residual value of the vehicle to the lessor, depending on the ultimate lease
term.
As at December 31, 2021 the current portion of the capital leases is $685 ($759 in 2020) and
the long-term portion is $463 ($1,116 in 2020).
Future minimum annual lease payments required under capital lease arrangements are as
follows:
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total lease payments
Less: amount representing interest
Less: current portion
729
412
57
8
1,206
(58)
1,148
685
463
Page 159 Page 13
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
11. Contingent liabilities and guarantees
The Corporation has been named as a defendant in certain legal actions in which damages have
either been sought or, through subsequent pleadings, could be sought. The outcome of these
actions is not determinable or is considered insignificant as at December 31, 2021 and,
accordingly, no provision has been made in these financial statements for any liability that may
result. Any losses arising from these actions will be recorded in the year the related litigation is
settled.
In the normal course of business, the Corporation enters into agreements that meet the
definition of a guarantee, as outlined in the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada
Handbook. The Corporation's primary guarantee subject to disclosure requirements is as
follows:
The Corporation enters into agreements that include indemnities in favor of third parties,
such as purchase agreements, confidentiality agreements, leasing contracts, information
technology agreements and service agreements. These indemnification agreements may
require the Corporation to compensate counterparties for losses incurred by the
counterparties as a result of breaches of contractual obligations, including representations
and regulations, or as a result of litigation claims or statutory sanctions that may be
suffered by the counterparty as a consequence of the transaction. The terms of these
indemnities are not explicitly defined and the maximum amount of any potential
reimbursement cannot be reasonably estimated.
The nature of the above indemnifications prevents the Corporation from making a reasonable
estimate of the maximum exposure due to the difficulties in assessing the amount of liability,
which stems from the unpredictability of future events and the unlimited coverage offered to
counterparties. Historically, the Corporation has not made any significant payments under such
or similar indemnification agreements and, therefore, no amount has been accrued in the
statement of financial position with respect to these agreements.
12. Risk management
Market risk
The Corporation's investments are susceptible to market risk, which is defined as the risk the
fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in
market prices. The Corporation's market risk is affected by changes in the level or volatility of
market rates or prices, such as interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates and equity
prices. The Corporation is subject to cash flow interest rate risk due to fluctuations in the
prevailing levels of market interest rate sensitive investments. The risk is mitigated through the
Corporation's investment policy, which requires investments to be held in high grade, low risk
investments.
Credit risk
Credit risk arises from the potential a counterparty will fail to perform its obligations. The
Corporation is exposed to credit risk from banks and debtors. The risk is mitigated in that the
Corporation conducts business with reputable financial institutions and its debtors are mainly
entities within a level of the provincial government.
Liquidity risk
Liquidity risk is the risk the Corporation will not be able to meet its financial obligations as they
come due. The Corporation manages liquidity through regular monitoring of forecasted and
actual cash flows.
Page 160 Page 14
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 2021
(In thousands of dollars)
13. Credit facility
The Corporation has an unsecured credit facility of $10,000 to be used for its operations, which
is renewable annually. The credit facility was temporarily extended to $50,000 in 2020 and
continued to December 31, 2021. Starting on January 1, 2022, the extended credit facility was
not renewed. The unsecured credit facility of $10,000 remains in place.
14. Government remittances
Government remittances consist of workplace safety insurance costs, sales taxes and payroll
withholding taxes required to be paid to government authorities when the amounts come due.
In respect of government remittances, $3,258 ($3,140 in 2020) is included in accounts payable
and accrued liabilities.
15. Significant event
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized the outbreak of a strain of the
novel coronavirus ("COVID-19") as a pandemic which has resulted in a series of public health
and emergency measures that have been put in place to combat the spread of the virus. The
duration and impact of COVID-19 is unknown at this time. While it has limited business travel,
reduced office utilization, and postponed the Assessment Update, it is not possible to reliably
estimate the impact that the length and severity of these developments will have on the
financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Corporation in future periods.
16. Prior year comparative figures
Certain of prior year's comparative figures have been reclassified to conform with current year's
presentation.
Page 161 Page 15