HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-020-12 Clarington REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: April 2, 2012 Resolution#: ' - / By-law#:
Report#: PSD-020-12 File#: PLN 2.9
Subject: MUNICIPAL POSITION ON PROVINCIAL AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE
CENTRAL PICKERING DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PROVINCIAL PLAN FOR
SEATON)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. That Report PSD-020-12 be received;
2. That the Minister of Municipal Affairs be advised that the Municipality of Clarington does
not support proposed Amendment 1 to the Central Pickering Development Plan;
3. That the Minister of Municipal Affairs be advised that the Municipality of Clarington has
similar concerns to those outlined in the Region of Durham Report 2012-J-10;
4. That the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Transportation, the
Regional Municipality of Durham and the Durham area municipalities be advised of
Council's decision and forwarded a copy of Report PSD-020-12.
Submitted by: Reviewed by:
David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu,
Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer
COS/df
26 March 2012
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379
REPORT NO.: PSD-020-12 Page 2
1. PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this report is to highlight the implications of Proposed Amendment No. 1
to the Central Pickering Development Plan with respect to the implementation of the
implementation of the Provincial Growth Plan and the impacts on the Municipality of
Clarington.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The Province of Ontario expropriated land in Pickering in the 1970's in concert with the
Federal Government expropriation of lands for a new international airport. The
provincial lands were acquired for the purpose of building a "New Town". Some of the
history of these lands is outlined in the attached Regional Report 2012-J-10
(Attachment 1).
2.2 On November 16, 2001, the Province of Ontario introduced the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan to preserve the ecological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine. As
the Plan was being completed, there were development applications in process that
were deemed to be critically detrimental to the future of the Oak Ridges Moraine. As a
consequence, the government of the day entered into a land exchange agreement in
late 2001. The agreement provided for an exchange of these privately owned lands in
Richmond Hill and Uxbridge for publicly owned lands in Seaton.
2.3 The Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) was prepared under the Ontario
Planning and Development Act,1994 (Attachment 3). The CPDC, approved on May 3,
2006, is better known as the Provincial Plan for Seaton.
2.4 The land exchange agreement between the Province and the Oak Ridges Moraine
developers was subsequently completed in August 2007. Over the past few years,
there has been a lot of activity with respect to the Seaton lands which is detailed in the
Regional Report. The land exchange developers and the Province appealed multiple
applications to the Ontario Municipal Board, including applications for amendments to
the Pickering Official Plan the Pickering Zoning By-law and various draft plans of
subdivision. In early 2011, the Province, the land exchange developers, the City of
Pickering and the Conservation Authority entered into Minutes of Settlement with
respect to the Pickering Official Plan and a timetable to complete various studies. The
Region, which is responsible for major infrastructure to service the lands, was not a
party to the settlement.
2.5 On January 31, 2012, notice of the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the CPDP was given.
The proposed amendment would:
a. Change the timing requirements associated with the implementation of financial
measures required by the Central Pickering Development Plan;
b. Clarify that infrastructure and other community facilities related to Central
Pickering will be required in a logical and sequential manner as the community
builds out;
REPORT NO.: PSD-020-12 Page 3
C. Clarify the population and employment forecasts in the Central Pickering
Development Plan and the intent that these forecasts are to be used for the
purposes of planning to 2031;
d. Clarify the relationship between the Central Pickering Development Plan and the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006;
e. Clarify the implementation process for Seaton; and
f. Undertake minor housekeeping changes.
2.6 The Region's Report 2012-J-10 on Proposed Amendment No. 1 was considered and
endorsed by the Joint Committees of Planning and Economic Development, Finance
and Administration, Health and Social Services and Works on March 22, 2012.
Regional Council is scheduled to consider the report on April 4, 2012.
3. COMMENTS
3.1 The proposed amendment to the Central Pickering Development Plan undermines
the Region's role in implementing the Provincial growth targets within Durham
Region
Land use planning has always been under Provincial oversight and Durham is
particularly constrained with the various provincial land use plans, including the Oak
Ridge Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan). The Growth Plan clearly sets as a
regional responsibility the allocation or distribution of the population and employment
projections to the municipalities within the Region. Furthermore, the Region has been
working on the implementation of the Provincial Growth Plan through the "Growing
Durham" exercise for the last few years in coordination with the local municipalities.
Regional Official Plan Amendment 128 (ROPA 128) has been adopted by Regional
Council. After going through this exercise, the Province now establishes growth targets
for Seaton that are contrary to the ROPA 128.
Moreover, the Proposed Amendment to the CPDP upsets the process of upper tier and
lower tier plans presumably as a result of the Minutes of Settlement referenced above.
It removes the requirement for an amendment to the Regional Official Plan prior to an
amendment to the Pickering Official Plan.
The proposed Provincial amendment to the CPDP clearly undermines not only the
Region's process to date, but also roles for the different levels of government set out in
the Growth Plan.
3.2 Seaton employment targets will negatively impact economic development in other
Durham municipalities including Clarington
The Province, through the Growth Plan, allocated a ratio of 3:1 (residents: jobs) to
Durham, the lowest in the GTA; the other regions were allocated a ratio of 2:1. Through
this amendment the Province allocates a ratio of 2:1 to Seaton (61,000:30,500). This is
much higher than the ratio allocated for the whole Region.
REPORT NO.: PSD-020-12 Page 4
The 30,500 jobs target for 2031 has major implications. The Growth Plan target is
160,000 net new jobs for Durham. This is approximately 5,300 new jobs per year. The
Seaton target represents almost 20% of the jobs created between 2001 and 2031.
Given that we are 10 years in on this period and nothing has started in Seaton, and
given the servicing challenges, it is unlikely for Seaton to be serviced for development
for at least another 5 years. As a result, for the period from 2018 to 2031, almost
50% of all new jobs in Durham would be expected to be located in Seaton.
Targets are just that — "targets". Business will not be compelled to one area or another.
Targets may never be realized without private investment. However, the significance of
the target is that public infrastructure funding will be oriented to help achieve those
targets. Furthermore, the Province will have an interest in seeing these targets met on
their own lands and have the ability to offer incentives to achieve this.
In addition to the above, the Province is also suggesting that 95% of the Seaton jobs
would be office-related, further reducing the ability of the other lakeshore municipalities
to attract and generate employment in other sectors other than manufacturing. This was
never factored-in when developing the recommendations of ROPA 128. This has three
impacts on Clarington:
• It reduces the our ability to develop Town Centres and business parks by
concentrating office-related space in Seaton;
• It will undermine the potential market absorption of already designated
employment lands in the other lakeshore municipalities; and
• It reduces the need for more employment lands throughout the Region even if
more easily serviced and strategically located such as the land east of Courtice
Road which was refused by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Refusal #3 see
Attachment 4).
The Region is also right to point out that the amendment is contrary to the recent
Minister's decision on ROPA 128 where the province allocated 70,000 people and
35,000 jobs to Seaton. There is no explanation for the change. It is also important to
mention that the Province has not released any technical documents (e.g. revised
population and employment projections for the GTA and Durham) to justify the targets.
3.3 Infrastructure Costs for Seaton pose a significant financial cost and risk for the
Region of Durham and the commitments to the Seaton development will be at the
expense of Clarington and other Durham Region municipalities.
The Region's report 2012-J-10 indicates that in excess of $900 million of infrastructure
costs is required for Regional water, sewer, roads and transit infrastructure to service
Seaton. Neither the Region nor Province has a plan to finance this infrastructure at the
moment.
The Region's report focuses on proposed amendments to the CPDP that seem to take
away the responsibility of the land owners including the province to pay for the external
infrastructure improvements that are obviously significant.
REPORT NO.: PSD-020-12 Page 5
The Regional Report indicates that the Provincial Amendment to the CPDP would force
the Region to plan and finance the infrastructure in Seaton as their first priority in the
Region's capital budget. So the question would be whether funding would be available
for other infrastructure needs, in particular to service Clarington's employment lands?
Moreover, even if the Region took a disciplined approach to fairly distribute
development charge dollars, there will be tremendous pressure from the Province and
the influential developers in Seaton. Since this was a land-exchange arrangement to
facilitate the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Province will be under some
obligation to ensure a smooth development process.
With the Province anxious to see Seaton proceed, it could provide for partial funding
towards the cost-sharing of the infrastructure costs that would make it hard for the
Region to resist.
Given the development charges legislation is insufficient to provide for full cost recovery
of development costs, there would be an impact on tax payers across the Region of
Durham in the form of:
• An additional regional tax levy
• Increased user charges for water, sewer and transit
In addition, the financing of infrastructure would be done in part through front-ending
arrangements with the developers. The concern with such a massive front-ending
scheme is that the flow of Development Charge receipts back to the developers would
occur for years to come. This would cause cash-flow problems for Regional projects in
other municipalities and limit the Region's flexibility to address infrastructure needs.
Staff fully agree with the Region's statement that "This commitment to the Seaton
development will be at the expense of developing other areas of the Region."
Key impacts for Clarington:
• Development charge collections, user charges for sewer and water and tax levy
dollars would be heavily used in Seaton;
• Key infrastructure investments in Clarington would be delayed, including both
plant expansions and trunk sewer/watermain extensions or replacements; and
• Growth targets will not be met and progress to a more complete community with
jobs in Clarington will not be achieved.
At the very least, there should be an area-specific Development Charges By-law for
Seaton to minimize the fiscal impacts respecting the future infrastructure needs of the
other municipalities.
3.4 The Region will need to revisit the assumptions of its Growth Plan conformity
exercise at some expense and delay to the Regional and area municipal plan
updates
The Province is, in effect, directing the Region amend ROPA 128 around the
assumptions for Seaton Plan. To be fair to the Region and to all of us, the Province
REPORT NO.: PSD-020-12 Page 6
should have said so four years ago. This will further delay the OMB process/decision on
ROPA 128 and as a result Clarington's Official Plan Review.
We are a party to the appeals on ROPA 128. The land budget analysis will have to be
revisited, particularly for employment areas.
Clarington did not agree with the designation of new lands in the north Pickering area
given that there were readily serviceable lands in Clarington. If Seaton (Central
Pickering) results in changes to the allocation of population and employment targets
and the corresponding land uses, this should not be at the expense of growth areas in
other area municipalities.
4. CONCURRENCE - Not applicable
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 The Provincial Amendment No.1 to the Central Pickering Development Plan
undermines the autonomy of the Region of Durham in implementing the Provincial
Growth Plan. The Amendment would inevitably lead to make Seaton the number one
priority for infrastructure funding therefore reducing the Region's ability to properly fund
projects in other areas of the Region. The proposed targets for Seaton would require
the region to redraft ROPA 128 to recalculate the employment and population targets
for all Regional municipalities further delaying our own Official Plan Review,
5.2 Staff concur with the analysis of Regional Staff report 2012-J-10 and recommends that
Council support the Regional recommendations as outlined in that report and that
together with this report be considered the official comments of the Municipality of
Clarington on the proposed Amendment No.1 to the Central Pickering Development
Plan.
CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN
The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following
priorities of the Strategic Plan:
X Promoting economic development
Maintaining financial stability
Connecting Clarington
Promoting green initiatives
X Investing in infrastructure
Showcasing our community
Not in conformity with Strategic Plan
REPORT NO.: PSD-020-12 Page 7
Staff Contact: David Crome and Carlos Salazar
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Copy of Report from Region of Durham (2012-J-10)
Attachment 2 — Context Map (Excerpt from 2012-J-10)
Attachment 3 — CPDP Land Use Schedule (Excerpt from 2012-J-10)
Attachment 4 — Regional Official Plan Map A5 — Consolidation for ROPA 128
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
A.L. Georgieff, Region of Durham
Rick Bartolucci, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Bob Chiarelli, Minister of Transportation
Durham Area Municipalities
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-020-12
The Regional Municipality of Durham
To: The Planning & Economic Development, Finance &
Administration, Health & Social Services and Works
Committee
• From: A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning and Economic
Development
R.J. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance
H. Drouin, Commissioner of Social Services
R.J. Kyle, Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health
C. Curtis, Commissioner of Works
Report No.: 2012-J-10
Date: March 22, 2012
SUBJECT:
Regional Response to Proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Central Pickering
Development Plan (CPDP) — Initiated by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
pursuant to the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994.
Standing Committee Correspondence #2012-25 from Larry Clay, Regional Director,
Municipal Services Office-Central Region, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing,
dated January 25, 2012, File: D03-06-37
RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT the Planning & Economic Development, Finance & Administration, Health &
Social Services and Works Committee recommends to Regional Council:
a) THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be advised that the
Region of Durham does not support proposed Amendment No. 1 to the
Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) for the following reasons:
• It is contrary to the Province's stated purpose for the amendment of
"clarity" and "minor housekeeping", because it will have significant impacts
on the local autonomy for the development of Seaton, including planning,
the implementation of infrastructure and related financing requirements for
the Region and the City of Pickering;
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 2
• The 2031 population and employment allocations (e.g. 61,000 persons
and 30,500 jobs) are not consistent with the Region's growth management
"Growing Durham" study, and are in conflict with Regional Council's
position (e.g. 70,000 persons and 16,500 jobs);
• It deletes any consideration from the CPDP that market influences should
be taken into account in the planning of Seaton within the 2031 timeframe,
which is inconsistent with the Region's Growing Durham study and
methodology;
• It is inconsistent with the vision and policy direction of the Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan), as it hampers the Region's
ability to plan for complete communities;
• It contravenes the Growth Plan policy 5.4.2.2 requirement for upper-tier
municipalities to allocate population and employment forecasts to lower-
tier municipalities;
• It removes the requirement of a Durham Regional Official Plan
Amendment (ROPA) prior to the approval of an amendment to the
Pickering Official Plan to implement the CPDP, which essentially usurps
the Region's legislative authority, and is contrary to the current Ontario
land use planning framework, and specifically subsections 17(13) and 27
of the Planning Act,
• It potentially delays the construction of the Highway 407 interchanges in
Seaton, which detrimentally impacts CPDP Policy 4.6.3 and Regional and
City of Pickering direction for servicing Seaton's employment lands, prior
to or concurrent with the first phase of residential development;
• It is inconsistent with the Region's practice of having financial
arrangements in place prior to development approvals, because the
amendment proposes that financial arrangements be in place at a later
stage of the development process namely, prior to the issuance of building
permits;
• It is inconsistent with Regional Official Plan (ROP) Policy 8.3.3 and
Section 6, because the amendment removes the requirement that the
Region's financial interests and security be protected prior to development
approvals;
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 3
• It is contrary to the Provincially endorsed North Pickering Land Exchange
and Development Principles to respect local planning responsibilities, and
to remain an active participant in the development of Seaton;
• It is contrary to the Region's Principles for the development of Seaton,
established by Regional Council 10 years ago, that local planning
autonomy be maintained and that the Region's financial security be
protected; and
• It allows the Province and Seaton landowners to withdraw from any
responsibility to address internal and external infrastructure requirements
necessary to ensure that Seaton will function as a model community from
the outset, which will subject Regional taxpayers and ratepayers to an
inappropriate financial risk related to funding the water, sewer, roads and
transit infrastructure costs associated with the development of Seaton.
b) THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested not to
proceed with Amendment No. 1 to the CPDP;
C) THAT in order to ensure there is no financial impact on the Region's
taxpayers and ratepayers in the development of Seaton, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, be requested to:
• amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 to enable municipalities to
fully recover the costs of new development (e.g. eliminate the ten year
historical level of service restriction on soft services like transit), so that
"growth pays for growth";
• provide upfront funding for the infrastructure costs to service the
Provincially-owned lands (as the Province is a significant landowner within
Seaton, owning approximately 47% of the developable land area), to
ensure that the employment lands will be serviced prior to or concurrently
with the first phase of residential development; and
• provide financial assistance to the Region, in accordance with Section 20
of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 in the event that
increased costs are encountered in the implementation of the CPDP; and
Report No.: 2012-J-10. Page No. 4
d) THAT a copy of Report No. 2012-J-10 be forwarded to the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Region's area municipalities, Regional
Municipality of York, City of Toronto, Town of Markham, Toronto Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA), Minister of Infrastructure, Minister of
Transportation, Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation, Association of
Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), Sernas Associates, 407 ETR, Transport
Canada, Metrolinx, and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA).
REPORT:
1. PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this Report is to recommend a Regional response to proposed
Amendment No. 1 to the CPDP. The CPDP was prepared by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing under the authority of the Ontario Planning and
Development Act, 1994, and came into effect on May 3, 2006. This Provincial
Plan applies to land located in the central part of the City of Pickering, namely
the Seaton Urban Area (Seaton) and the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve
(Agricultural Preserve).
1.2 This Report also provides historical context, background information, and an
update on recent activities related to the development of Seaton, including:
• Principles for the development of Seaton;
• A description of the CPDP;
• A summary of studies required to implement the CPDP;
• Seaton land ownership;
• Provincial Development Facilitator involvement, Minutes of Settlement and
Mediation; and
• Related Ontario Municipal Board activity.
1.3 For reference, a copy of the CPDP, illustrating proposed Amendment No.1 is
provided on CD in Attachment 1. The proposed amendment, including a
numerical reference to each change ("item"), are shown in red font.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 5
1.4 Comments on the proposed amendment are provided in italics.
2. HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND
Location
2.1 The land located within the central part of the City of Pickering, known as
Seaton, and the agricultural land to the west of West Duffin Creek, known as
the Agricultural Preserve, were originally acquired by the Province in the early
1970's for the purpose of building a "New Town". The New Town was to
achieve a population in the order of 150,000 —200,000. The lands are
immediately south of the land acquired by the Federal government for a
proposed airport (refer to Attachment 2 — Context Map).
2.2 Seaton has been designated as an Urban Area in the ROP since the first Plan
was approved by the Province in 1978. The planned population for Seaton at
that time was 90,000. The Agricultural Preserve, formerly a "Special Study
Area", was designated for agricultural uses in the early 1990's, and retains an
agricultural designation today in the ROP. In 1995, the Province announced
its intention to divest Agricultural Preserve lands into private ownership.
Since then, most of the land in the Preserve has been sold to private
interests.
Land Exchange Agreement and Principles for the Development of
Seaton
2.3 In late 2001, as part of the Province's strategy to protect the Oak Ridges
Moraine, the Province announced its intention to exchange some publicly
owned lands in Seaton for privately owned lands on the Moraine in Richmond
Hill and Uxbridge (land exchange agreement).
2.4 In 2002, the Province appointed a "North Pickering Land Exchange Review
Panel", chaired by David Crombie, to recommend a set of principles to guide
the valuation, exchange and future development of"North Pickering" (now
known as "Central Pickering"). Among the six principles recommended by the
Panel, and subsequently endorsed by the Region and the Province, are:
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 6
• that "the Province, as a local landowner, potential development partner,
regulator and guardian of the public interest, must remain an active
participant in the subsequent protection and development of North
Pickering"; and
• that "development of land in North Pickering must demonstrate innovation
and sustainability while respecting the planning responsibilities of the
City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, and the Province of Ontario".
[emphasis added]
2.5 The Region supported these principles because they were seen to support the
Region's interests to ensure Seaton was developed in a manner that
maintained the Region's autonomy in the planning of Seaton, and did not
cause any financial burden on the Region.
2.6 At the same time the Region was considering the Panel's recommendations,
Regional Council endorsed a set of Principles for the development of Seaton
that were consistent with ROP policy and the Panel's recommendations,
including:
• Seaton be developed as a model community, embracing the concepts of
compact urban form, transit supportive, mixture of uses, good urban
design, pedestrian and cyclist friendly, and in harmony with nature (ROP
Policies 8.1.4, 8.1.5, 8.1.6, 8.2.1, 8.3.2);
• The provisions of the ROP for the development of Seaton will be
implemented through appropriate policies in the Pickering Official
Plan (ROP Policy 8.3.11);
• Provincial involvement should continue in the development of Seaton
to provide for continuity in development, and to simplify financial
arrangements for infrastructure (ROP Policy 8.3.3);
• A study of the staging and timing of the development of Seaton, in
terms of financial impact on the Region (including water, sewer and
roads), will be undertaken prior to consideration of development
(ROP Policy 8.3.3);
Joint Report 2002-J-30, December 4, 2002.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 7
• "Growth must pay for growth" and each phase of development must be
financially sustainable (ROP Policy 6.2.1);
• Infrastructure costs incurred for non-sequential development must
be borne by the developers (ROP Policy 5.3.11);
• Infrastructure oversizing costs for development expected to occur in the
long-term, shall be borne in the interim through front-end financing by
the Province/developers/landowners (ROP Policy 6.2.1);
• Taxpayers and ratepayers shall not be adversely impacted due to the
development of Seaton (ROP Policies 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2); and
• Pickering and Durham have primary responsibility for planning
Seaton (ROP Policy 8.3.11).
[emphasis added]
2.7 These Principles have guided the Region throughout the process of advancing
the development of Seaton, and reflect the key interests of the Region to
ensure its local autonomy and financial security.
Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP)
2.8 In April 2003, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued an Order
under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 establishing a
"Planning Development Area" comprising Seaton and the Agricultural
Preserve. Subsequently the Province proceeded to prepare a Development
Plan for this area. This resulted in the approval of the CPDP, which came into
effect on May 3, 2006.
2.9 The CPDP provides policies for the development of Seaton and the
Agricultural Preserve (refer to Attachment 3 — CPDP Land Use Schedule).
2.10 The CPDP establishes policies for Seaton, which include:
• a large and diverse land area containing an extensive Natural Heritage
System (53% of the land base) that is to remain in public ownership and
be properly managed;
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 8
• a community with "an eventual population of up to 70,000 residents" and
35,000 jobs;
• providing sufficient opportunity for employment to be balanced with
population (i.e. one job for every two persons);
• a transit supportive community from the earliest stages of development;
and
• servicing employment lands along Highway 407, prior to or concurrent
with the first phase of residential development.
2.11 Early in the process, it was recognized that significant infrastructure
improvements are required to develop Seaton in a manner consistent with the
vision of the CPDP, including:
• major Regional water and wastewater infrastructure to service the new
community, including oversizing to accommodate future development of
the Federal lands as the Region's preferred approach (estimated at $572
million);
• new Regional arterial roads, with several significant bridge structures,
such as Whites Road and Whitevale By-pass crossing West Duffin Creek
(estimated at $278 million);
• transit infrastructure, including a new depot (estimated at $100 million);
• a solid waste transfer station (estimated at $4 million);
• community facilities (e.g. Police, EMS, Health and Social Services),
estimated to exceed $20 million;
• two new Highway 407 interchanges (estimated at $55 million);
• improvements and widening of Highway 7 through Seaton, which is
currently under Provincial jurisdiction (estimated at $73 million); and
• significant improvements to roads outside the Region (e.g. Steeles Ave in
Toronto, Markham By-pass and14th Avenue in York) to support the new
urban development (estimated at $117 million).
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 9
2.12 The Seaton area and its development as envisioned by the CPDP is unique in
the Province of Ontario. No other area in the Province shares its history of in-
depth planning as a single development proposal for such a broad geographic
area, with higher than normal standards for natural heritage protection and
expectations for its development as a transit supportive, model community
from the outset. This is evidenced by the fact that the Province deemed it
necessary to enact the CPDP under the Ontario Planning and Development
Act, 1994 to develop a new urban community, an approach not used
anywhere else in the Province.
Supporting Studies to Implement the CPDP
2.13 Since the CPDP came into effect, numerous studies have been completed, or
are underway, to support the implementation of the CPDP (refer to
Attachment 4 - Summary and Status of Required Studies to Implement the
Central Pickering Development Plan),
2.14 Regional staff have participated and provided input throughout the
preparation of all of these studies, and continue to do so for the studies that
are underway. Regional involvement is guided by the Principles for the
development of Seaton established by Regional Council, to ensure that
Regional interests are protected.
2.15 Regional interests have also been identified and conveyed to the Province on
numerous occasions through Joint Reports to Regional Counci12 and
correspondence from the Regional Chair.
2.16 The preparation of these studies and the efforts expended in their completion,
confirm the Region's expectation that Seaton will be developed as a model
community, addressing Regional Council's Principles for the development of
Seaton (refer to Section 2.6).
2 Reports 2002-J-30, 2003-P-56, 2005-P-73, 2006-J-14, 2006-P-18, 2007-J-08, 2007-J-22, 2008-J-01,
2009-J-03, and 2009-J-22.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 10
Seaton Land Ownership and Appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board
2.17 In August 2007, the land exchange agreement between the Province and the
Oak Ridges Moraine developers was completed. As a result, a significant
portion of the residential/mixed use lands within Seaton was transferred to
private developers (the land exchange developers). The Province continues
to retain ownership of approximately 75% of the Seaton lands, including all of
the employment lands (400 hectares) along the Highway 407 corridor, the
entire Natural Heritage System, the Hamlet Heritage Open Spaces adjacent
to Whitevale and Green River, and portions of the residential/mixed use lands
generally along Brock Road (refer to Attachment 5 — Seaton Land Ownership
Map).
In terms of developable land area, the land exchange developers own
approximately 615 hectares (1,520 acres) or 53%, and the Province owns
approximately 550 hectares (1,360 acres) or 47%3.
2.18 During the 2008/2009 period, the land exchange developers submitted draft
plans of subdivision, Pickering Official Plan amendment and zoning-by-law
amendment applications to the City of Pickering for their respective properties
in Seaton.
2.19 In September 2010, the land exchange developers filed appeals to the
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) for the City's failure to make a decision on the
planning applications.
2.20 In April 2011, the Province submitted planning applications for its developable
land holdings, and subsequently in October 2011 also filed appeals to the
OMB, in order to consolidate Seaton planning matters before the OMB.
3 Proposed Staged Servicing and Implementation Strategy (SSIS), December 2011, Sernas Associates.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 11
3. RECENT ACTIVITIES
Provincial Development Facilitator
3.1 In June 2010, the Provincial Development Facilitator (Facilitator) was
assigned to advance the implementation of the CPDP. The Facilitator held a
number of confidential and without-prejudice sessions involving the Province,
land exchange developers, TRCA, the City of Pickering and the Region.
Minutes of Settlement
3.2 Following several months of meetings with the Facilitator, in
January/February 2011, the Province, land exchange developers, TRCA and
the City of Pickering entered into Minutes of Settlement expressing joint
support for a proposed Pickering OPA, and a time table to complete the other
required studies pertaining to the development of Seaton, to the satisfaction
of the City, including:
• Neighbourhood Plans;
• Sustainability Guidelines;
• a Staged Servicing and Implementation Strategy (SSIS);
• a Master Environmental Servicing Plan amendment;
• Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports (NFSSR);
and
• a Fiscal Impact Study for the City of Pickering.
3.3 The Region is not a party to this agreement, because major Regional issues
related to infrastructure, phasing, and planned growth to 2031 are not
addressed in the proposed Pickering OPA to the Region's satisfaction. In
particular, the proposed Pickering OPA includes a population of 61,000 and
30,500 jobs by 2031 for Seaton, whereas the Region's Growth Plan
conformity amendment (ROPA 128) includes a 2031 forecast of 70,000
people and 16,500 jobs. Further, the population and employment figures
contained in the proposed Pickering OPA conflict with the Province's decision
to modify ROPA 128 by allocating 70,000 people and 35,000 jobs to Seaton.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 12
Ontario Municipal Board Pre-hearings and Mediation
3.4 Between March and December 2011, four OMB pre-hearing conferences
occurred related to the Seaton appeals. Also, during this period, Regional
staff participated in 20 days of OMB mediated discussions with Provincial
staff, with the objective of resolving differences. Unfortunately, these efforts
were unsuccessful.
3.5 On July 4, 2011 the Region filed a Notice of Motion with the OMB to request
consolidation of the Seaton OMB appeals with the ROPA 128 appeals, or as
an alternative, an adjournment of the Seaton OMB hearing (the Motion). The
Motion was necessary to address the Region's concerns with the conflicts
between the ROPA 128 forecasts for population and employment, other
population and employment numbers in the Minister's modification to ROPA
128, and the proposed Pickering OPA for Seaton.
3.6 On July 7, 2011 the Regional Chair wrote to the Ministers of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, and Infrastructure, expressing concern that the issues the
Region has repeatedly brought forward regarding the development of Seaton
were not being addressed, including the potential financial burden on the
Region and taxpayers (refer to Attachment 6 — Letter from Chair Anderson to
Ministers).
3.7 During the week of November 28, 2011, the Region's Motion was heard by
the OMB. In its Motion, the Region argued that the Seaton hearing should
either be consolidated with the ROPA 128 hearing, and therefore be
considered comprehensively, or, in the alternative, be adjourned until the
hearing on ROPA 128 had progressed beyond the land budget exercise. A
key issue for the Region in seeking consolidation or adjournment included the
potential prejudice to the balance of the Region if Seaton was considered in
isolation.
3.8 In its decision on the Region's Motion, the OMB refused to order
consolidation. Instead, the OMB ordered that evidence on growth
management for the whole of the Region could be heard on issues with
respect to population and employment numbers for Seaton in the Seaton
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 13
hearing, and that those numbers could properly be considered as a
predetermined "input" into growth management for the balance of the Region
in the ROPA 128 hearing. The commencement of the Seaton hearing was
adjourned, but only until February 27, 2012.
Section 43 Review
3.9 In response to the OMB's decision on the Motion, the Region filed a request
to the OMB to review its decision in accordance with Section 43 of the Ontario
Municipal Board Act (Section 43 Review), on the basis that the decision was
incorrect.
3.10 The OMB scheduled a hearing on January 25, 2012 to re-argue the Motion
and to hear submissions on the Section 43 Review.
Declaration of Provincial Interest
3.11 Immediately prior to the commencement of the hearing on the Motion, the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued a declaration of provincial
interest under the Planning Act regarding the appeals to Pickering's OPA and
zoning by-law amendments affecting Seaton (refer to Attachment 7). The
declaration was accompanied by a proposed amendment to the CPDP
(proposed amendment).
3.12 Under the Planning Act, when the Minister has declared a provincial interest,
the decision of the OMB is not final until approved by the Lieutenant
Governor-in-Council, who may also vary or rescind the decision of the OMB.
3.13 The hearing of the Motion and the February 27, 2012 OMB hearing for the
Seaton appeals were subsequently adjourned. A pre-hearing conference for
the Seaton appeals is scheduled for June 11, 2012.
Comments:
3.14 The intervention of the Minister at this stage in the OMB hearing process
is alarming and without precedent. It is evident that the Province is quite
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 14
concerned that the potential outcome of the proceedings may affect its self
interest as a major land owner in Seaton. The material that was produced by
the Province as a result of an OMB Order through the course of the Seaton
pre-hearings, clearly indicates that the Province is promoting development
in Seaton without competition from potential development elsewhere in
the Region.
4. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CPDP
4.1 On January 31, 2012, notice of the proposed amendment was received by the
Region from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, consisting of 23
changes or items (refer to Attachment 8 -Standing Committee
Correspondence #2012-25).
4.2 The stated purpose for the proposed amendment is to:
• change the timing requirements associated with the implementation of
financial measures;
• clarify that the need for infrastructure and other community facilities will
be required as Seaton builds out in a logical and sequential manner;
• clarify the population and employment forecasts, and the intent that these
forecasts are to be used for the purposes of planning to 2031;
• clarify the relationship between the CPDP and the Growth Plan;
• clarify the implementation process for Seaton; and
• undertake minor housekeeping changes.
[emphasis added]
Comments:
4.3 Contrary to the Province's assertion that the proposed changes to the
CPDP are minor in nature and intended to provide "clarity"or "minor
housekeeping"changes, the amendments will have significant impacts
on local autonomy and the financial security of the Region and the City
of Pickering. In some cases, the changes proposed by the Province
introduce additional policy conflicts (e.g. absorption rates in relation to
phasing) rather than the desired clarity.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 15
4.4 As previously noted, local autonomy and the financial security of the Region
have been the key principles directing the Region's involvement in the Seaton
development process for over ten (10) years.
Interference in Local Autonomy
4.5 The proposed changes to the CPDP reduce the Region's autonomy for
planning its future growth and development, including:
• the addition of policies to recognize a population of 61,000 residents and
30,500 jobs at 2031, and requirements for the Region to use these
numbers when undertaking its conformity exercise with the Growth Plan
(refer to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 of the
proposed amendment);
• the deletion of Section 4.8.6 to remove consideration of future market
demands in forecasting growth in Seaton (refer to item 17 of the proposed
amendment); and
• the revision to Section 5.3 to remove the necessity for a ROP amendment
prior to approval of the City's OPA, plans of subdivision and zoning
amendments to implement the CPDP (refer to item 23 of the proposed
amendment).
Comments:
4.6 The CPDP currently includes policies that recognize that Seaton will
accommodate an eventual population of"up to" 70,000 residents and 35,000
jobs, with no reference to a specific timeline within which that would occur.
The requirement to take into account "future market demands"in the planning
for Seaton (as was done in the Region's Growing Durham study
methodology) is proposed to be deleted. The Province is proposing
population and employment numbers (61,000 people and 30,500 jobs) for
Seaton that have been calculated on the basis of an unrealistic and
unprecedented development capacity for the lands within the 2031
timeframe, with no consideration for the reality of market influences.
The proposed employment numbers rely upon an unrealistic and
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 16
improbable assumption that over 95% of jobs in Seaton's designated
employment area will be office related.
4.7 The proposed population and employment numbers are most troubling in the
context of the employment (ie.jobs) allocation for the broader Region for the
period to 2031. The implication of the Province's amendment proposal will
require the reallocation of almost 15,000 jobs. Two options would be
available, as described below.
4.8 One option is to maintain the Growing Durham employment allocations by
area municipality, and to re-allocate the jobs within Pickering. The Province's
proposal includes a disproportionate number of population-related and office
type jobs directed toward Seaton. As a result, less than 400 population-
related and office jobs would remain for allocation in the remainder of
the existing Pickering Urban Area, including the Urban Growth Centre to
2031. This outcome would not provide the opportunity for the remainder
of Pickering to grow as a complete community. This is not in
conformity with the vision and policy directions of the Growth Plan.
4.9 The other option is for the entire Region to share in the loss of the
employment allocation because of the Province's proposal to direct most of
the Region's new jobs to Seaton. The result would be significantly less
Employment Area expansions in Whitby(-30 hectares), Oshawa (-55
hectares) and elsewhere in Pickering (414 hectares) than the Growing
Durham (350,000 jobs) allocations, representing over 500 fewerjobs in
Whitby, about 1,500 fewerjobs in Oshawa, and almost 4,000 fewerjobs
elsewhere in Pickering. In addition, almost 9,000 population-related and
other non-employment area related jobs would have to be redirected
from the remaining area municipalities to Seaton, resulting in declining
employment activity rates (i.e. employment/population) in all area
municipalities except Pickering. The disproportionately small share of new
employment that would be distributed to the area municipalities other than
Pickering, hampers the Region's ability to plan for complete
communities through the rest of Durham, as required by the Growth
Plan.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 17
4.10 Collectively, these changes to the CPDP seriously compromise the Region's
ability to comprehensively plan for the future growth and development of the
entire Region. The changes conflict with the provisions of Growth Plan
policy 5.4.2.2, which gives the Region the responsibility for allocating
growth forecasts to the Region's lower-tier municipalities. In addition,
the changes also interfere with the Region's ability to plan for complete
communities throughout the Region -- not just Seaton. In effect, the
Province is proposing to nullify the Region's comprehensive review
exercise (Growing Durham) and impose numbers that are in conflict
with Regional Council's position.
4.11 The proposed amendment also removes the necessity for a ROPA prior to
approval of the Pickering OPA, thereby usurping the Region's legislative
authority under subsections 17(13) and 27 the Planning Act, which identifies
the ROP as a "mandatory" Official Plan and requires lower-tier Official Plans
(i.e. the Pickering OP) to be in conformity with upper-tier Official Plans (i.e.
the ROP). In addition, the proposed amendment is contrary to the
Province's Principle to respect local planning responsibilities, and the
Region's Principle that local planning autonomy be maintained.
Infrastructure
4.12 The proposed changes to the CPDP have the potential to impact the phasing
of infrastructure, and costs related to infrastructure both within and outside
the Seaton urban area. These include:
• the revision to Section 3.2 to require that the costing and development of
infrastructure apply to the "Development Planning Area" only, rather than,
taking into account the broader surrounding community, as currently
contained in the CPDP (refer to item 7 of the proposed amendment);
• the revisions to Sections 4.3.3, 4.5.1, 4.5.3 to require that the
development of regional and inter-regional transportation infrastructure
outside of the Development Plan Area be on an "as required" basis and
that the "progressive" development of such infrastructure will occur "with
the build-out" of Seaton (refer to items 8, 9, 13 of the proposed
amendment);
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 18
• the revision to Section 4.6 to require that servicing be phased, based on
an "absorption rate for residential and employment lands" (refer to item 14
of the proposed amendment); and
• the revision to Section 4.6 to delete the provision that permits
development "subject to the availability of servicing" (refer to item 14 of the
proposed amendment).
Comments:
4.13 The proposed change to the geographical area reference from "the City of
Pickering" to "the Development Plan Area" will release the Province and
Seaton land exchange developers from any responsibility for the phasing and
construction of infrastructure external to the Development Plan Area. The
provision of the essential external infrastructure is left to the agencies
that have jurisdiction, when and if it suits them,
4.14 The Region repeatedly has advised the Province about necessary Regional
infrastructure improvements needed to serve Seaton, including transit. The
Region has reiterated its concerns to the Province about the potential
financial burden on the Region, and the impact it may have on infrastructure
construction in the rest of the Region, including:
• construction of the Regional road network including significant bridge
structures to service Seaton (estimated at$278 million in 2011 dollars,
with an estimated$226 million in development charge funding and$52
million in property tax funding). The Region is not in a financial
position to construct the Regional roads required for Seaton, while
addressing the substantial demands related to the Regional road
network throughout the rest of the Region;
• construction of water and sewer infrastructure estimated at$572 million
(2008 dollars) will be incurred with the development of Seaton. A
substantial portion (estimated at$222 million) is attributable directly to
Seaton. Approximately$226 million is attributable to future growth in Ajax
and Pickering, and these costs are included in the current DC By-law or
will be included in future development charge studies. An estimated$58
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 19
million in costs is attributed to a benefit to existing residents, and must be
recovered by water and sewer user rates. The remaining $66 million in
costs are attributable to the oversizing of the water supply and sanitary
sewerage infrastructure for the Federal lands. The development of
Seaton is accelerating the need to resolve the issue of servicing the
Federally-owned lands. The most practical and logical approach to
providing the requisite infrastructure is to oversize through Seaton, so that
such construction to install water and sanitary sewerage services does not
occur twice. The Region however, is not in a financial position to
carry the cost of oversizing to accommodate the long-term timetable
for the development of the Federal lands. These oversizing costs
cannot be funded by development charges. Without senior level
government funding, or funding from the landowners, these costs
would have to be financed 100% from water supply and sanitary
sewerage user rates, which will ultimately have a financial impact on
residents across the Region; and
• the provision of an enhanced transit system for Seaton to meet the
objectives of the CPDP's for a transit supportive community and to
provide transit at the outset of residential development. The estimated
capital cost is $100 million (2011 dollars). Undercurrent development
charges legislation, it is estimated that$10 million will be recovered
by development charges, resulting in a $90 million funding shortfall
to be funded by Regional taxpayers, in addition to ongoing operating
costs for transit service.
4.15 The Region has also expressed significant concerns with the eventual timing
for, and related costs of infrastructure that is not within the Region's
jurisdiction or is located outside the Region, including:
• road improvements to ensure the adequate connectivity with adjacent
municipalities, including the widening of Highway 7 (owned by the
Province) and improvements to Steeles Avenue and 14th Avenue/stn
Concession in Toronto and York Region. Because these roads are not
within the Region's jurisdiction, the Region has no control over when or if
improvements will be implemented. In fact, the Province has advised that
it has no plans to widen Highway 7. Likewise; the City of Toronto and
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 20
Region of York have advised that they have no plans to improve Steeles
Avenue or 14th Avenue/5th Concession. The lack of improvements on
these roads will significantly reduce the inter-regional functionality
of the road network; and
• the early construction of the Highway 407 interchanges within the
employment lands in Seaton to ensure that development can proceed
concurrent with the initial phases of residential development. If the
interchanges are not built in time to coincide with the development
of the first phase of residential lands, the employment area will not
be marketable, and anticipated development charge revenues will
not be realized.
4.16 To address some of these concerns, as required by the CPDP, the Province
prepared the Durham/Toronto/York (DTY) Area Transportation Plan Study, to
identify and prioritize key transportation infrastructure investments required to
address inter-regional transportation and transit network deficiencies in the
eastern part of the GTA. The Study was completed in 2009, and provides
cost estimates and a recommended timetable for improvements that are
required to ensure Seaton develops as envisaged by the CPDP, and to
maximize land values through improving services in this part of the GTA. The
Study was to form the basis for provincial/municipal investments for this part
of the GTA, and form part of a larger Treasury Board submission in support of
the Seaton development that was being coordinated by the then Ontario
Realty Corporation and Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure.4 Financial
support from the Province to address this infrastructure, essential to
the functioning of the Seaton community, has never materialized.
4.17 The proposed changes to the CPDP with respect to the required timing and
phasing of infrastructure, removes any responsibility for the Province or the
Seaton landowners to provide any assistance to the Region, to provide
necessary infrastructure in the early stages of development that would ensure
that Seaton will function as a sustainable, model community from the outset.
4 Seaton Intergovernmental Group Meeting, Presentation by Ministry of Transportation staff, October 23,
2009; and letter to Garry Cubitt, CAO, Regional Municipality of Durham and Thomas Quinn, CAO, City of
Pickering from Peter Rzadki, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, January
22, 2008.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 21
The proposed changes could also delay the construction of the
Highway 407 interchanges, which would have a detrimental impact on
Policy 3 in Section 4.6 of the CPDP and Regional and City of Pickering
directions to provide services to Seaton's employment lands, prior to or
concurrent with the first phase of residential development. Further, the
proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Province's and Region's
Principles for the development of Seaton that provides for the Province
to remain an active participant and continue to be involved in the
development of Seaton for continuity, and to simplify financial
arrangements for infrastructure.
4.18 Each of these situations demonstrates a glaring lack of commitment by the
Province to actually advancing the physical implementation of the
Seaton project in any practical way.
4.19 The amendment proposes to introduce the use of"absorption rates5"to
achieve Seaton's proposed 2031 population and employment forecasts, while
retaining CPDP policy related to "cost-efficient and logically sequential
extension of infrastructure". This combination presents a contradictory
servicing policy. On one hand, CPDP policy would continue to promote
"cost-efficient and logically sequential extension of infrastructure", which
indicates that Seaton's development would occur from south to north. As
such,job creation on Seaton's employment lands would not occur in
conjunction with residential development, as specified in other CPDP policy,
the Pickering OPA and the ROP. On the other hand, the proposed
amendment introduces absorption rates, suggesting that the CPDP, Pickering
OPA and ROP policies for the early servicing of Seaton's employment lands
are being upheld, by requiring residential and employment land development
to occur concurrently. Given that the stated purpose for amending the
CPDP is, in many instances, "to clarify" the CPDP, this servicing policy
should have been more carefully crafted, to clearly direct that phasing
must accommodate the servicing of Seaton's employment lands prior to
or concurrent with the first phase of residential development.
5 Residential absorption rates would be based on a set number of residential units that would have to be
constructed on an annual basis, while employment land absorption rates would be based on an amount
of land area (hectares) that is to be developed or"absorbed" on an annual basis.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 22
4.20 The amendment proposes to delete the provision that permits development to
occur"subject to the availability of servicing"from the CPDP's servicing
policies. This deletion does not change the Region's jurisdiction to
provide Regional services at its discretion. Under current law in
Ontario, the Region has absolute discretion as to whether to service
Seaton, and the OMB cannot compel the Region to build infrastructure
or connect development to its infrastructure. Therefore, the rationale for
this change to the CPDP is not clear.
Financial Issues/Risks
4.21 The proposed changes to the CPDP introduce further financial uncertainties
on the Region, and expose existing Durham taxpayers and ratepayers to
substantial and inappropriate financial risk. These include:
• the deletion of part of Section 5.1.5 which stipulates that the
implementation of appropriate measures and financial agreements,
including front-ending agreements, cost-sharing agreements and
development charges are required to ensure the development of Seaton
will not cause a financial burden on the Region or the City;
• the modification to Section 5.1.5 to require appropriate financial
arrangements be in place prior to the issuance of building permits, rather
than prior to or concurrent with the approval of Neighbourhood Plans; and
• the deletion of part of Section 5.1.5 which states that Fiscal Impact
Studies be completed prior to or concurrent with the approval of the first
Neighbourhood Plan.
(Refer to item 22 of the proposed amendment)
Comments:
4.22 As indicated in Section 4.14 of this Report, in excess of$900 million (plus
inflation) in Regional water, sewer, roads and transit infrastructure will
need to be expended with the development of Seaton. The proposed
amendment subjects the Region to substantial financial risks with the
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 23
proposed removal of policy that ensures that the Seaton development
would not pose a financial burden on the Region. As previously noted, the
Region's direction has long been to advance the process towards the
development of Seaton in a manner that would not place a financial burden
on the Region, or in other words that the development of Seaton would pay
for itself. This financial security is currently contained in Section 5.1.5 of the
CPDP. However, the proposed amendment, as described above,
removes the financial protection of Durham taxpayers and ratepayers.
4.23 The proposal to amend the CPDP to remove the assurance of financial
security in the development of Seaton is of major concern. This concern
is shared by the City of Pickering, as detailed in Attachment 9. The
deletion of the provision related to "financial burden"is not consistent with the
Minister's stated "purpose"for the amendment to change the timing for when
financial arrangements must be in place. The removal of the reference to
"financial burden"is unrelated to "timing". The proposal to amend the
CPDP to remove this assurance puts the Region and City at
considerable financial risk. It is also inconsistent with the Region's
Principles for the development of Seaton and Section 6 of the ROP.
4.24 The second major financial concern with the proposed amendment is the
requirement for the Region to use the 30,500 employment forecast for Seaton
in its Growth Plan conformity exercise. The Region would then be required to
use this employment forecast in the future water supply and sanitary
sewerage area specific development charge by-law and the Region-wide
Development Charges (DC) By-law, rather than the 16,500 employment
forecast established by the Region for Seaton. As identified previously, the
30,500 employment number is unrealistic, as it relies on the assumption
that 95% of jobs in Seaton's designated employment area will be office-
related.. This will expose the Region to an inappropriate financial risk. The
Region will be required to construct the necessary infrastructure to
accommodate the 30,500 employment forecast, thereby incurring higher
capital costs than would occur under the Growing Durham employment
forecast of 16,500. If the employment number proposed by the
amendment does not materialize, the Region will not recover the DCs
necessary to fund the capital expenditures for water, sewer and roads
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 24
(i.e. the Region will be under-collecting from each non-residential unit if the
employment number is not achieved).
4.25 The proposed amendment also changes the timing that the financial
measures are to be in place. The substantial capital infrastructure
requirements involved with the development of Seaton (in excess of$900
million) will require front-ending and cost-sharing agreements, and DC By-
laws will be required, to ensure that the development of Seaton does not have
a negative financial impact on Durham Region taxpayers and ratepayers.
The current policy in the CPDP (5.1.5) is to have all these financial
arrangements, including the results of the Fiscal Impact Study, in place prior
to the approval of the Neighbourhood Plans. With the proposed
amendment, the land exchange developers and the Province can have
their Neighbourhood Plans approved and submit draft plans of
subdivision (and subsequently sell lots), prior to having the necessary
financial measures in place, and without knowing the financial
consequences of the development. This is a dangerous precedent. It
would create financial uncertainty to both the Region and the City on
the feasibility of ever developing Seaton.
4.26 Current CPDP Policy 5.1.5 prevents the proposed Pickering OPA from
moving forward, unless appropriate measures and financial agreements are
in place. By changing the timing for financial arrangements to the
building permit stage, the OMB could approve the City and Seaton
landowner's planning applications (OPAs, subdivisions, zoning), in the
absence of understanding the financial consequences of the
development, and in the absence of necessary financial arrangements.
This is inconsistent with ROP Policy 8.3.3, ROP Section 6, and the
Region's Principles for the development of Seaton that are in place to
protect the Region's financial security. More specifically, it conflicts with
the ROP Policy 8.3.3, which requires Regional Council to be satisfied
that appropriate arrangements can be made prior to consideration of
any development in Seaton.
4.27 The proposed change in timing requirements for the completion of
financial arrangements to the building permit stage is contrary to the
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 25
Region's practice. Based on discussions with City of Pickering staff, similar
concerns have been expressed (refer to Attachment 9). In order to protect
the interests of the Region, a number of criteria must be met prior to
processing development applications (i.e. executing a subdivision
agreement). Based on the proposed amendment, it is unclear if the Region
can impose conditions on draft plans of subdivisions within Seaton, or if the
Region would have to rely on the OMB to include the Region's standard
conditions for draft plan of subdivision approval, which cannot be
guaranteed,
4.28 As stated previously, front-ending and cost sharing agreements and
development charge by-laws will be required to advance the water, sewer,
roads and transit infrastructure in order to accommodate the development of
Seaton. However, there is an inherent risk to the Region when entering
into front-ending agreements. Front-ending agreements commit future
development charge receipts to specific capital projects. Therefore, with a
front-ending agreement for Seaton, a share of the Region's future
development charges will be tied up in DC credits for Seaton and would
limit the DC cash receipts available for infrastructure work in other
areas of the Region. This commitment to the Seaton development will
be at the expense of developing other areas of the Region.
4.29 The development of the Seaton community is unique, since the Province is a
substantial landowner, and thus must be directly involved with financial
arrangements to ensure that Seaton develops as a sustainable community,
and not at the expense of the rest of the Region. However, the proposed
amendment does not support the objectives identified in the CPDP for a
sustainable community, as it transfers an inappropriate financial risk to
the Region to develop Seaton.
4.30 It is because the Region has long recognized the potential financial
,implications and impacts associated with the infrastructure necessary for the
development of Seaton as a sustainable, model community, that the Region
has repeatedly requested the Province to:
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 26
• amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 to enable municipalities to
fully recover the costs of new development (i.e. eliminate the ten year
historical level of service restriction on soft services like transit), so that
"growth pays for growth';• and
• provide financial assistance to the Region in implementing the CPDP in
accordance with Section 20 of the Ontario Planning and Development
Act,1994 in the event that increased costs are encountered in the
implementation of the CPDP.
The Province has not acted on these requests. It is noted however, that
the Province amended the Development Charges Act, 1997 to better support
the extension of the Yonge subway from Toronto into York Region,
Additional Comments
4.31 The CPDP includes a policy indicating that a review will be undertaken by the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing every five years. The CPDP came
into effect in May 2006, and more than five years have elapsed. It is not
clear whether proposed Amendment No.1 to the CPDP constitutes the
"review"; particularly since the stated purpose is to provide "clarity"
and "minor housekeeping"changes. If so, it is not understood why, for
example, the following matters were not addressed.
• correction to the inconsistent use of the terms "Development Planning
Area"and "community"throughout the CPDP to avoid confusion,
particularly with population and employment references;
• clarification that the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) is being
undertaken by the land exchange developers, as opposed to being
"municipally-undertaken", and that it applies to the Seaton Urban Area
only, not the "entire Development Planning Area", which includes Seaton
and the Agricultural Preserve;
• clarification that the Province completed the Natural Heritage System
Management Plan and Master Trails Plan Study for Seaton in 2008, and
that the Study should now be implemented by Official Plan policy,
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 27
• clarification that the Province completed the Durham/Toronto/York (DTY)
Area Transportation Study in 2009, and that the Province will undertake
an update of the DTY Study, in order to keep information current for
Provincial decision-making;
• clarification that the Province completed the Highway 407 (Seaton Lands)
Economic Development Study in 2007, and that the Study should now be
implemented by Official Plan policy;
• clarification that the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve is subject to
Ontario Regulation 154103 and the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve
Act, 2005;
• an update to indicate that the Seaton Urban Area is designated a "Specific
Policy Area"in the ROP, and replacing the ROP Schedule contained in
the CPDP, to reflect the current in-force ROP as approved by the OMB in
January 2008 through ROPA 114; and
• correction to Schedule 4— Transportation Network, to designate Fairport
Road, south of the east Cherrywood cluster, to a "Type C Arterial",
consistent with the ROP and Pickering OP.
It appears that the Province's motivation for the proposed amendment
is to develop Seaton without regard for the Region's planning authority
or financial security. If the amendment was truly for"clarification"and
"housekeeping"purposes, presumably input and consultation with major
stakeholders, such as the Region, would have been sought prior to the
release of the proposed amendment, and the language and policy
inconsistencies previously identified would have been included. This did not
occur.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The Province entered into a land exchange agreement with certain Richmond
Hill and Uxbridge developers in order to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine. To
do so, a portion of Seaton's developable lands was conveyed by the Province
to the land exchange developers, and is now under private ownership. As
such, the Province has a vested interest in satisfying the land exchange
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 28
developers. Moreover, a significant portion of the lands continue to be
owned by the Province. Therefore, the Province also has a vested interest
in successfully developing and marketing the land it owns in Seaton.
5.2 The rationale for some of the amendment proposals remains unclear,
given that some of the proposals are inconsistent with the Minister's stated
"purpose" which are supposedly for "clarification" and "housekeeping"
purposes.
5.3 The proposed amendment appears to reflect an attempt by the Province to
resolve specific issues that are hindering the approval of Seaton's
planning applications currently before the OMB. The resolution of these
issues through an amendment to the CPDP under the authority of the Ontario
Planning and Development Act, 1994 could serve to avoid a lengthy OMB
hearing for Seaton, to the detriment of the Region.
5.4 However, the proposed amendment, in no way, advances the physical
development of Seaton. There are no financial agreements in place, which
are required to address the infrastructure costs associated with the
development of Seaton (estimated to exceed $900 million) as development
charges will not sufficiently cover the associated infrastructure costs to
develop Seaton as a sustainable, model community. The proposed
amendment is a vehicle for the Province and land exchange developers
to impose a plan for their lands and withdraw from their responsibility to
finance the necessary infrastructure for Seaton, and to download this
responsibility to the Region--without any regard to the Region's
planning autonomy or financial implications. Proceeding with the
development of Seaton based on the proposed amendment will be at the
expense of development elsewhere in the Region, and expose Regional
taxpayers and ratepayers to a substantial and inappropriate financial
risk.
5.5 Based on the long history of planning for Seaton as a model community,
including the time, effort, and cost that has been invested by the Region, City,
TRCA, Provincial staff, land exchange developers and others, there was an
expectation that a model community would emerge. With the proposed
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 29
amendment, the expected form of development is a typical suburban
subdivision, contrary to the expectation and promise of a model
community. Furthermore, the Province is prepared to circumvent the
conventional subdivision process (which ensures financial security for
municipalities), by changing the timing for financial arrangements to the
building permit stage.
5.6 For the most part, the amendment proposals compromise the Province's
own Principles for the land exchange and development of Seaton, and
the Region's Principles for the development of Seaton put in place to
respect local planning autonomy and financial security. Further, the
amendment proposals do not recognize the Region or City's practice for
financial arrangements, and are inconsistent with the provisions and
directions in the ROP, the Growth Plan, the Growing Durham study,
ROPA 128, and Ontario's current land use planning framework (i.e. the
Planning Act).
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 It is recommended that proposed Amendment No. 1 to the CPDP not be
supported for the reasons contained in this Report, and that the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing be advised accordingly.
6.2 In order to minimize the impact on Durham residents from the development of
Seaton, it is recommended that the Province be requested to:
• amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 to enable municipalities to
fully recover the costs of new development, so that "growth pays for
growth";
• provide upfront funding for the infrastructure costs to service the
Provincially-owned lands (as the Province is a significant landowner within
Seaton, owning approximately 47% of the developable land area), to
ensure that the employment lands will be serviced concurrently with the
first phase of residential development; and
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 30
• provide financial assistance to the Region in accordance with the Ontario
Planning and Development Act, 1994 in the event that increased costs are
encountered in the implementation of the CPDP.
6.3 Finally, it is recommended that a copy of this Report be forwarded to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the area municipalities, and various
other agencies that have interest in the development of Seaton.
7. NEXT STEPS
7.1 The Province is accepting submissions on the proposed Amendment until
April 2, 2012. In accordance with the Ontario Planning and Development Act,
1994 (refer to Attachment 8), if submissions on the proposed amendment to
the CPDP are received within the specified time period, the Minister may:
• appoint a hearing officer to conduct a hearing with respect to the proposed
amendment and make a written recommendation on it;
• refer the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board to conduct a hearing with
respect to the proposed amendment and make a written recommendation
on it;
• after considering the submissions, approve the proposed amendment in
whole or in part or make modifications to it and approve the amendment
as modified; or
• after considering the submissions, propose to refuse the proposed
amendment in whole or in part.
7.2 Staff will monitor the amendment process, and report back as appropriate.
7.3 This report was prepared in consultation with the Regional Solicitor.
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 31
A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP R.J. Clapp, CA
Commissioner of Planning and Commissioner of Finance
Economic Development
Clifford Curtis, P.Eng., MBA, R.J. Kyle MD, MHSc, CCFP, FRCPC
Commissioner of Works Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health
Dr. Hugh Drouin
Commissioner of Social Services
RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE
Garry H. Cubitt, M.S.W.
Chief Administrative Officer
Report No.: 2012-J-10 Page No. 32
Attachments:
1. CD copy of the Central Pickering Development Plan, illustrating proposed
Amendments
2. Context Map
3. CPDP Land Use Schedule
4. Summary and Status of Required Studies to Implement the Central Pickering
Development Plan
5. Seaton Land Ownership Map
6. Letter from Chair Anderson to Ministers dated July 7, 2011
7. Declaration of Provincial Interest dated January 25, 2012
8. Standing Committee Correspondence #2012-25 from Larry Clay, Regional Director,
Municipal Services Office-Central Region, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing,
dated January 25, 2012
9. Summary of Key Messages Relayed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
by the City of Pickering, March 2012
All attachments are on file with the Planning Services Department
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-020-12
UXBRIDGE
YORK 0 Glasgow
REGION DURHAM
stouffville REGION
. o -
:...: •• Balsam
• o Claremont.Q 1t". o
Federal
-p,` __ . Airport
V-
3
r n
= Cornell MAE-
Locust Hill 1- Highway?
Markham O c
Highway 7" O Whitevale Br ugham j
�- �
High y 407
�
OB x Grove i l Seaton
Agricultural Taunton Rd.
r Preserve
Cedar 4js G p,R
Steeles Ave. Grove Chi od
Rouge Park
PICKERING
O AJAX
Qp1
N�ghv�ay
SCARBOROUGH
Attachment 3
To Report PSD-020-12
a
0 0
rnrn J e C
D D
E N
E � H y
N Y�
a`O 0'c' N o o c c 'd
E Nc0) J N 0 KQ'Cr U O GJ
G l0 N l0 L'
�.T d 4 N •� m m o N V
rnrn0O a? wE IMM m rrr G , of
(MMQ)- �. Q � o a�aaQo�� �
> � U EZaci mZ° c 0aN 00 f 'm
=ssCL �W c� c� c0m maa.raomx LO
rn$ cmmE (D =0 FtL F.-ULL WCI-
m m c y d rn �O- Ev
3� EL'i� E N L E �
M o w'R 10 m m m p�i �p o,x m V I I I •
G Z Lu x 'T-�c)2n_
N
tU
p 9
T K m T
° v o T W 1 K
0 M I 0
c yg
= U ( M 1 ¢
1
1
$ 1
� 1 CO
OZ eU11eP!S I
r
ZZ eullePl
4Z augeplS PPO 1
0
9Z eglapis
W
t
ez auilePlS m � ..
Pena vuoN —
—�
J
� � V
I �
Bull uewl we4ina-4joA
0
a
Attachment 4
wa ��
To Report PSD-020-12
Ln w> wz
Q LLJ J"�
d mo <_ o w o M
F o�" ono g u 6
`>w °
J =
LLI Q - o xo � - cri I • h a P.
p w z z Q i 1 — �o wo - - < J
2 Q
Q J D
Q~m Q a J Q U O= J O < o�d a w oaa s J
z o a Z
o LLJ w °z 9w
Q ° f 'of t m a,2 0z LLJ W o
v) 0 o
..Q O 0 aW o w" a LL Ln J LL W LL J a m o rc yfmw
z w
3 om o°V � o
wz Wo
--- --
Y
77
-
3
CO
a o p f
0
n
C a
i o
o
I �
P . 0 � CREEKO '•C J (� m oS
.O=
a 3 ! g�gH9
H I
L