HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-26-96THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REVISED
DN: POLICY.GPA D
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # .�
Date: Monday February 19, 1996 Res.
Report #: PD -26 -96 File #: PLN 1.1.4 By -law #
Subject:
DRAFT PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS
FILE: PLN 1.1.4
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -26 -96 be received;
2. THAT Report PD -26 -96 be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing as the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the Draft Provincial
Policy Statements;
3. THAT a copy of this Report and Council's resolution be forwarded to the
Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Region
of the Durham Planning Department.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Purpose of Report
1.1.1 In January 1996, the Province released a draft Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has requested that comments on
the draft Provincial Policy Statement be submitted by March 4th, 1996. This
report has been prepared in response to the Ministry's request for comments.
Staff's recommended comments on the draft Provincial Policy Statement are
provided in bold.
2
REPORT
1.2 Provincial Policy Statement
1.2.1 Provincial Policy Statements are prepared under Section 3 of the Planning Act
and are intended to provide policy direction on matters of provincial interest
related to' land use planning and development.
1.2.2 The PPS will replace the Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements (CSPS) which
came into effect on March 28, 1995 with the proclamation of changes to the
Planning Act (Bill 163) by the previous government. The PPS will be retroactive
to that date and will apply to all applications on which no decision has been
made. It is intended to come into effect at the same time as Bill 20 (The Land
Use Planning and Protection Act) is proclaimed, probably in July 1996. The
Implementation Guidelines for the PPS are also to be released at this time.
2. OVERVIEW AND COMMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT
2.1 General
2.1.1 The draft PPS differs from the CSPS in two significant ways. Firstly, the PPS is
much shorter, less detailed and much less prescriptive than the CSPS. The tone
of the PPS is also more permissive towards development. The PPS focuses on
expected results in matters relating to land use planning and gives relevant
authorities more flexibility in deciding how to achieve these results. As such, the
PPS sets minimum standards but does not prevent planning authorities from
going beyond these standards. However, greater onus will be placed on the
Municipality to justify any policies which are more restrictive than these minimum
standards. This approach is also reflected in the advisory nature of the
Implementation Guidelines for the PPS.
2.1.2 Secondly, under the provisions of both the PPS and Bill 20, planning authorities
shall have regard to the PPS in making decisions on land use planning matters.
This is in contrast to the language of Bill 163 and the CSPS which requires that
I
REPORT
decisions on planning matters shall be consistent with policy statements issued
under Section 3.
2.1.3 The Municipality of Clarington notes the reduced detail and direction
provided for in the proposed Provincial Policy Statement. This approach may
permit planning for Clarington to be more flexible and responsive to the
specific needs of the community. However, it could also result in fragmented
planning not in the long term public interest of the Province.
2.1.4 The policies of the PPS are prefaced with three principles on which Ontario's long
term economic and environmental health depend: promoting efficient
development and land use; protecting resources for their economic and
environmental benefits; and directing development away from hazardous areas.
These three principles replace the nine goal statements of the CSPS. The policies
of the PPS are grouped as follows:
• Efficient, Cost - Effective Development
• Resources
• Public Health and Safety
• Implementation /Interpretation.
Each of these specific policy groups is discussed below.
2.2 Eff icient, Cost - Eff ective Development
2.2.1 This section of the PPS contains policies relating to developing strong
communities, housing, and services and infrastructure. It replaces Section B
(Economic, Community Development, and Infrastructure Policies) and Section C
(Housing Policies) of the CSPS.
CI
REPORT PAGE 4
2.2.2 Developing Strong Communities
2.2.2.1 The PPS maintains the emphasis of the CSPS on cost - effective development
patterns, including the efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure and public
service facilities. More emphasis is placed on providing the infrastructure
necessary for long term economic growth. Urban areas and rural settlements are
to continue as the focus of concentrated growth, including support for public
transit and intensification. The expansion of settlement areas is to be permitted
only where a 20 year supply of land is not designated. Growth is to be directed
away from prime agricultural areas where possible. As well, development is to
protect significant and sensitive features and areas, using ecosystem -based
information.
2.2.2.2 The PPS differs from the CSPS in that it does not specifically require new
development within settlement areas to have a compact form or a mix of uses.
The need to justify rural residential development outside settlement areas as
required by the CSPS has not been carried forward into the PPS. The support
for the well -being of mainstreets and downtowns provided in the CSPS has been
replaced in the PPS with support for preserving the vitality of existing commercial
areas. As well, the CSPS policy requiring social and human service needs to be
recognized in land use planning has been removed.
2.2.2.3 The Provincial Policy Statements should re- enforce existing settlement areas
as the preferred location for new development by specifically encouraging
settlements to adopt a more compact form and a mix of land uses. They
should also balance the emphasis on "hard" infrastructure with the need to
supply "soft" services including parks, recreational facilities and libraries.
_V
REPORT
The focus on preserving commercial areas should be shifted back to
downtowns and mainstreets inasmuch as these areas are the traditional
centres of community activity and identity, and provide a broader mix of uses
and more compact development supportive of public transit.
2.2.3 Housing
2.2.3.1 The PPS maintains the policies of the CSPS which require that municipalities
maintain at least a 10 year supply of land designated for residential development
or redevelopment, and a 3 year supply of draft - approved or registered residential
units.
2.2.3.2 The PPS has not maintained the policies of the CSPS relating to the provision of
affordable housing. Rather, provision is to be made for a full range and mix of
housing types and densities to meet the projected demographic and market
requirements of current and future residents. Applications for redevelopment or
applications which would facilitate housing for moderate and lower income
housing should be facilitated. However, the PPS does not provide a definition of
affordable housing or require that the Municipality meet any minimum targets of
affordable housing. As well, cost - effective development standards should be
adopted to reduce the cost of housing.
2.2.3.3 The Municipality of Clarington generally supports the housing policies of the
Provincial Policy Statements. However, the Municipality is concerned with
the vagueness of the term "cost- eff ective development standards ", noting that
it could be applied to a wide range of services and infrastructure currently
required by a municipality (eg. road widths, sidewalks, landscaping,
parkland). Reduced municipal standards will not necessarily be translated
into lower housing costs without parallel action or commitment from the
0
REPORT
development industry. The policy should indicate that the appropriateness
of reduced development standards should be at the discretion of the
2.2.4 Services and Infrastructure
2.2.4.1 The PPS maintains the emphasis of the CSPS on full municipal sewage and water
services for urban development. Urban development will be permitted only if
sufficient municipal sewer and water services are available to accommodate it.
However, while the CSPS provides for development in rural settlements to be
serviced by either public communal systems or individual on -site systems, the
PPS indicates public communal services are the preferred means of servicing
multiple lot /unit developments. Individual on -site systems may be permitted
where the use of public communal systems is not feasible.
2.2.4.2 The Municipality of Clarington supports the principle of communal sewer and
water services for rural settlement areas, noting that it would allow for a more
compact development form. However, the construction and maintenance of
communal facilities, as well as liability issues, could have significant financial
implications for the responsible municipal body. The Policy Statements
should therefore specifically permit municipal authorities to assess both
technical and financial considerations when determining the feasibility of
communal services.
2.2.4.3 As with the CSPS, the PPS includes 'waste management systems' in the definition
of 'infrastructure'. The CSPS addresses the need for waste management systems
in Section E (Conservation Policies), and indicates the need for such systems to
complement reduction, re -use and recycling objectives. The PPS discusses waste
management systems as part of its infrastructure policies. Systems are to be
7
REPORT O
provided that are sufficiently large and of a type to accommodate present and
future requirements, and located and designed in accordance with provincial
standards and legislation.
2.2.4.4 The Municipality of Clarington supports the emphasis given in the previous
policy statements to the 3Rs of reduce, re -use and recycle. The proposed
policy on waste management, in particular the reference to size and location,
appears to emphasize single large waste management sites, including waste
disposal sites, rather than a waste management system composed of many
smaller elements, such as small recycling centres and composting sites. The
Municipality prefers the approach of the CSPS to waste management.
2.3 Resources
2.3.1 This section of the PPS contains policies relating to agriculture, mineral resources,
and natural heritage. It replaces parts of Section A (Natural Heritage,
Environmental Protection, and Hazard Policies) and Section B (Economic,
Community Development, and Infrastructure Policies), and all of Section D
(Agricultural Policies) and Section F (Mineral Aggregates, Mineral and Petroleum
Resource Policies) of the CSPS.
2.3.2 Agricultural Policies
2.3.2.1 The policies of the PPS regarding prime agricultural areas are very similar to
those of the CSPS. Such areas are to be protected for primary agricultural uses,
secondary agricultural uses and agriculture - related uses. Lot creation is permitted
for primary agricultural uses and agriculture - related uses, although the
requirement of the CSPS that the agriculture - related uses must be existing, has
been removed. Severances for farm retirement lots, surplus dwellings and
residential infilling are also permitted.
D
REPORT • •D PAGE 8
2.3.2.2 Both the PPS and the CSPS define 'prime agricultural area' on the basis of
specialty crop lands and CLI Soil Classes 1 -3. However, the provision in the
CSPS which permits prime agricultural areas to be identified through an
alternative land evaluation system has not been carried forward in the PPS.
2.3.2.3 The definition of 'prime agricultural area' should not rely exclusively on soil
capability. The definition does not recognize many other factors which
contribute to the stability and integrity of agricultural areas, such as lot size
and the presence of stable agricultural uses. It also does not recognize that
more intensive agricultural uses, such as mushroom farms and pig and
poultry farms, do not require high capability agricultural soils. The Policy
Statements should therefore provide for 'prime agricultural area' to be
defined on the basis of an alternative land evaluation system approved by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
2.3.2.4 The PPS would permit an area for a non - agricultural use to be excluded from a
prime agricultural area provided that there is a demonstrated need for additional
land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use, there are no
reasonable alternatives which avoid prime agricultural land, and there are no
reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority
agricultural lands.
2.3.2.5 The policy in the proposed Policy Statement significantly weakens the
protection of prime agricultural lands provided in the CSPS. Prime
agricultural lands are under constant pressure to convert to non - agricultural
uses. The Provincial Policy Statements should therefore protect such lands
for agricultural purposes by specifically discouraging new development
outside existing settlement areas.
REPORT • PAGE •.
2.3.3 Mineral Resources: Mineral Aggregates, Minerals, Petroleum Resources
2.3.3.1 The policies of the PPS regarding mineral aggregates differ significantly from
those of the CSPS. The CSPS protects pits and quarries from incompatible
activities. However, the PPS would protect mineral aggregate operations from
activities that would preclude their expansion or continued use or which would be
incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact.
The definition of 'mineral aggregate operation' in the PPS includes the licensed
lands as well as "associated facilities used in the extraction, transport,
beneficiation, processing or production of secondary related products."
2.3.3.2 The policies in the Provincial Policy Statements, as currently proposed,
would provide mineral aggregate producers with a level of protection that
simply cannot be justified. Of particular concern is the provision which
would protect mineral resource operations from uses which may preclude
their expansion. The term 'expansion' used in this context is vague and ill -
defined. The Municipality of Clarington prefers the approach used in the
CSPS which requires official plans to identify and protect mineral aggregate
resources.
2.3.3.3 The Municipality of Clarington is also concerned with the definition of
'mineral aggregate operation' in the proposed Policy Statements. It is
difficult to justify extending the protection provided the actual extraction
operation to associated facilities used for the transport, processing or
production of secondary related products. In particular, processing or
production facilities may be more appropriately located in industrial areas,
rather than at the actual extraction site. As well, the term ' beneficiation'
could be interpreted as any use or activity which could convey a benefit to
the aggregate extraction operation. The inclusion of such a vague and III-
defined term in the Provincial Policy Statements is inappropriate.
W
REPORT O PAGE 10
2.3.3.4 The CSPS indicates that non - aggregate land uses or development may be
permitted in areas of mineral aggregate resources where extraction is not feasible,
the proposed use serves a greater long term interest of the general public and
would not significantly preclude or hinder future extraction. However, the PPS
states that development which would preclude the establishment of new
operations or access to the resources will only be permitted if resource use is not
feasible, the proposed land uses or development serves a greater long term
provincial interest, and public health, public safety and environmental impact
issues are addressed.
2.3.3.5 The Municipality of Clarington is concerned that non - aggregate uses could
only be justified if they can be shown to serve a greater long term provincial
interest. The requirement to prove provincial interest, rather than public
interest as provided for in the CSPS, would place an unreasonable burden
of proof on the municipality. This policy is also contrary to the general thrust
of the proposed policy statements to empower municipalities to make local
decisions that reflect local needs. The reference in the CSPS to 'longer term
public interest' should therefore be maintained.
2.3.3.6 The CSPS states that as much of the mineral aggregate resources as is
realistically possible in the context of other planning objectives shall be identified
and protected from incompatible uses. The PPS, on the other hand, would
require that as much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible
in the context of other planning objectives be made available for extraction to
supply local, regional and provincial needs, as close to markets as possible.
2.3.3.7 This proposed policy would also appear to interfere with the ability of
individual municipalities to make locally responsive decisions regarding
11
REPORT PD-26-96 PAGE 11
aggregate extraction. The term 'be made available for extraction' is vague
and poorly defined. Identification and protection in the official plan, as
provided for in the CEPS, provides mineral aggregate resource areas with
sufficient protection. As well, the term 'as close to markets as possible' is
not appropriate in a provincial policy statement. The cost of transporting the
aggregate to market, as with all products, is only one of numerous factors
considered by approval authorities when dealing with aggregate extraction
applications.
2.3.4 Natural Heritage and Water Quality and Quantity
2.3.4.1 The PPS provides for the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water
and the function of sensitive ground water recharge /discharge areas, aquifers and
headwaters to be maintained or enhanced. This is similar in intent to the policies
of the CSPS.
2.3.4.2 The PPS differs from the CSPS in the emphasis that it places on the protection
of the natural environment. The CSPS provides for development to be prohibited
in a wide range of significant natural features and areas, including significant
stream corridors, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, significant wildlife
habitat, the significant portion of the habitat of endangered and threatened
species, and provincially significant wetlands. The PPS would only permit
development to be prohibited in these latter two areas. Development would also
be permitted in and adjacent to other significant natural features and areas if there
is no negative impact on the natural feature or its ecological functions. However,
this latter policy would not apply to existing agricultural uses.
2.3.4.3 The proposed Policy Statements still continue to provide a significant level
of protection to the natural environment, although the emphasis has shifted
iF
REPORT
away from the ecosystem approach apparent in the CSPS to the protection
of individual features and areas and their ecological functions.
2.3.5 Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources
2.3.5.1 The PPS provides for significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage
landscapes to be conserved. Development may be permitted on lands containing
archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential if significant
archaeological resources have been conserved by removal and documentation,
or preservation on site. This policy is similar in intent to that of the CSPS.
2.3.6 Public Health and Safety
2.3.6.1 This section replaces part of Section A of the CSPS (Natural Heritage,
Environmental Protection, and Hazard Policies).
2.3.6.2 Both the PPS and the CSPS generally direct development away from lands
adjacent to Lake Ontario which are subject to flooding, erosion, and /or dynamic
beach hazards. Both Policy Statements also permit limited development to occur
on lands susceptible to erosion and flooding subject to a number of conditions,
such as ensuring safe passage for vehicles and people during emergencies.
However, the PPS differs from the CSPS in that it would permit development
within certain areas of a dynamic beach, while the CSPS prohibits development
anywhere within a dynamic beach.
2.3.6.3 The Municipality of Clarington prefers the approach of the CSPS which
prohibits development within all areas identified as a dynamic beach. Such
areas are inherently unstable and development should not be encouraged.
13
REPORT
2.3.6.4 Both the PPS and the CSPS generally direct development away from lands
adjacent to stream corridors which are subject to flooding and erosion hazards.
Both also prohibit development within the floodway (inner portion of a floodplain).
The CSPS provides for the application of a one zone floodplain within which new
development is prohibited or restricted, and the selective application of a two -
zone floodplain, which permits limited development within the floodplain.
However, the PPS does not address the zonal concept for floodplains. Rather,
it would permit development in a floodplain provided a number of conditions are
met.
2.3.6.5 It is Staff's understanding from discussions with the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing that the proposed Policy Statements would allow
authorities to apply a one zone or two zone concept to riverine floodplains.
The Municipality supports this approach, but recommends that the Policy
Statements be reworded to specifically indicate this.
2.4 Implementation /Interpretation
2.4.1 This section is intended to replace Policy G (Interpretation and Implementation)
of the CSPS.
2.4.2 As with the CSPS, the PPS requires all applicable provincial policies to be
integrated into official plans and to be applied to applications submitted under the
Planning Act. One significant difference, as discussed earlier, is that the PPS
would only require planning authorities to have regard for the policy statements.
As well, the policies in the CSPS that indicate when an environmental impact
study is to be prepared and the contents of such a study have not been carried
forward in the PPS.
14
REPORT • PD-26-96 PAGE 14
3. CONCLUSION
3.1 The above are the comments of the Municipality of Clarington on the draft
Provincial Policy Statements. Staff note that these comments are consistent with
the Council adopted Clarington Official Plan. The principles of the draft Policy
Statements are reflected in the Council adopted Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.,
Director of Planning
and Development
JAS *DC *FW *jip
February 20, 1996
Attachments
Reviewed by,
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
No. 1: Draft Provincial Policy Statements
15