Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-030-04 y Cl!J!mglOn REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE .itGffi- \\0-01.\- Date: Monday, March 8, 2004 L.f I Report #: PSD-030-04 File#: PLN 1.1.7.4 By-law #: Subject: SUBMISSION ON BILL 26 - THE STRONG COMMUNITIES ACT 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-030-04 be received; 2. THAT the Municipality of Clarington advise the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that the proposed Bill 26 is generally supported as contained in the comments of PSD-030-04, with the following revisions: i) amendments to the Planning Act be integrated with the Provincial Policy Statement reform to provide clear priority to policy direction; ii) a definition of a "complete application" be provided to include studies required by a municipality to review development applications; iii) allow municipalities to appeal decisions on urban settlement area expansions andlor new settlement areas by upper tier municipalities or adjacent municipalities; and iv) the Province's interest in an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board should be declared within 45 days of a Notice of Appeal 3. THAT the Planning Act be amended to stipulate a last day of appeal for applicationsfor official plan amendments and zoning by-law amendments that are not supported by Council; 4. THAT a copy of this report and Committee's decision be forwarded to the Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs FORTHWITH; and 5. THAT the Durham Region Planning Department be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: D id. Crome, MCIP, R.P.P. Director of Planning Services CP/DJC/df 3 March 2004 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 T (905)623- 3379 F (905)623-0830 -. 1 6.)1 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-04 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 On December 15, 2003, the Province introduced Bill 26, the Strong Communities Act, which proposes changes to the Planning Act. When the Bill was introduced, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable John Gerresten, said, if passed, the changes "will put the public first, by allowing more time for public scrutiny, boosting environmental protection and better protecting the public interest. PSD-006-04, an information report on Bill 26, was received by General Purpose and Administration Committee on January 12, 2004. 1.2 The Province is receiving written submissions on Bill 26 until March 15, 2004. Staff have now had opportunity to review the Bill in more detail. This report provides the Municipality's response and recommendations to the Province on the proposed Bill. 2.0 PROPOSED CHANGES TO BILL 26 2.1 Bill 26 proposes six major changes to the existing Planning Act, which are identified as follows: . The Planning Act relationship to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is changed by revising "have regard to" in the Planning Act to "be consistent with"; . eliminating the 65 day deadline requirement for scheduling a public meeting for official plan amendment applications; . increasing the time period for processing and making decisions on applications before appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) from: 90 to 180 days for Official Plan Amendments and subdivision applications; 60 to 120 days for Zoning applications; and 60 to 90 days for Consent applications. . deleting the right to appeal to the OMB with respect to applications that propose to expand or create an 'urban settlement area' as defined by the Bill; . empowering the Minister to identify mattes where Provincial interest is likely to be adversely affected by an application to be considered by the OMB; and . providing Cabinet the authority to confirm, vary or rescind OMB decisions and direct the Minister to make any required modification. 3.0 DECISIONS TO "BE CONSISTENT WITH" THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 3.1 Over the last decade the Planning Act has been amended under different provincial governments. In 1994 Bill 163 was introduced which required decisions of Council to "be consistent with" the Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements. In 1996, Bill 20 amended the Planning Act "to have regard to" the Provincial Policy Statement. Bill 26 OjL REPORT NO.: PSD-030-04 PAGE 3 as proposed requires municipalities to "be consistent with" Provincial Policy Statements issued under the Act. 3.2 In 2001 Clarington Council endorsed the Region of Durham comments on the Provincial Policy Statement review. The report indicated that on the one hand, the "have regard to" clause provides flexibility to tailor Provincial policy to local circumstances. On the other hand, the approach is considered weak as there may be no consistent application of policies across the province. 3.3 Staff consider the change to "be consistent with" as providing greater support for Provincial policy and certainty for all participants, especially where a decision of Council is appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. This is viewed as a step in the right direction. However, the Province has not identified proposed changes to the PPS at this time. Together with the change proposed through Bill 26, the Province must revise the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) to clearly identify what areas are a priority especially where policies appear to conflict, (ie. environmental protection and community growth) and define the Provincial interests that decisions must "be consistent with". 3.4 Staff support the principle of requiring planning decisions to "be consistent with" the Provincial Policy Statements, premised on revisions to the Provincial Policy Statement that clearly identify those issue that are a priority for the Province. A report on the 2001 Provincial Policy Statement Review was adopted by Council on October 29, 2001. The conclusion of that report contained similar recommendations. 4.0 TIME PERIODS FOR MUNICIPAL REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS 4.1 During the tenure of the previous provincial government, the existing timeframes in the Planning Act, for processing applications were streamlined to reduce "red-tape". The Bill proposes to increase the time frame for municipalities to review applications and make decisions before proponents may appeal to the OMS as identified in Section 2.1 of the Report. In addition, the 65 day time frame for holding a public meeting after receiving an application for official plan amendment is proposed to be eliminated through Bill 26. 4.2 The proposed changes to the length of time municipalities can consider planning applications before an applicant can appeal to the OMB, represents a more realistic time frame for assessing "complete applications". The increase in timeframes for processing applications is supported. U J_1 REPORT NO.: PSD-030-04 PAGE 4 4.3 Currently the submission requirement for a planning application requires minimal information and the payment of required application fees. Often, the planning process is delayed when proponents fail to submit, in a timely manner, all of the information required by the Municipality to evaluate the merits of the application. The Province needs to strengthen the definition of a "complete application" to include all studies identified by municipalities as required to assess an application. The time period for reviewing applications should not begin until the 'complete application', including required studies, has been received. 5.0 ELIMINATE APPEALS TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD WHEN THE MUNICIPALITY DOES NOT SUPPORT AN URBAN BOUNDARY EXPANSION 5.1 Bill 26 proposes to eliminate the ability of any person or public body to appeal to the OMB any part of a requested amendment to alter all, or any part, of an 'urban settlement area' or to create a new urban settlement area. A similar provision covers a plan prepared by the Municipality that proposes to alter all or any part of an "urban settlement area" or to establish a new settlement area. Similar amendments are proposed for related zoning by-law amendments. These changes are intended to provide principal consideration to the growth management strategies established in the municipal Council. This amendment may discourage the submission of privately-initiated applications for urban boundary expansions or new urban settlements particularly in Durham and Clarington where urban boundary are provisions can only be considered in the context of an official plan review. This change may also assist in promoting infill development and reduce loss of rural land for urban uses. 5.2 The explanatory note for Bill 26 states that this amendment limits the ability to appeal to the OMB where a municipality has not adopted an amendment relating to a boundary alteration. The wording of the amendment does not appear to be that specific. 5.3 The proposed amendment does not recognize the two-tier planning system in place in Durham Region. A proposal to amend an urban boundary requires amendment to both the local and the regional official plans. The Regional Official Plan governs urban boundary expansions since the local official plan must "conform" to the upper tier plan. Should the Regional Council make a decision with respect to its Official Plan Review or an application for expansion to the urban boundary that is contrary to that of the local Council, the local Council would not have recourse to appeal the decision to the OMB. 5.4 Furthermore, the proposed amendment would restrict a municipality's ability to appeal the decision of an adjacent municipality to expand its urban boundary. An expansion to U.J .t REPORT NO.: PSD-030-o4 PAGE 5 an urban boundary or a new settlement area in an adjacent municipality could have implications for services or transportation network or other issues then transcend beyond municipal boundaries. A case in point was the proposed creation of Tucker Creek settlement area in the Municipality of Port Hope and its potential impact on the road network in Clarington. 5.5 Neither of the above two scenarios is common. However, the aspect of the proposed Bill to not allow appeals by 'public bodies' appears to be contrary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, John Gerresten's comments about the Bill making "the planning process responsive to local needs for change". 811126 should be amended to deal with 'a person' only, and not a 'public body' with respect to restrictions to appeal decisions of urban settlement area expansions or the creation of new settlement areas. Specifically, lower tier municipalities should have the ability to appeal decisions of upper tier municipalities or adjacent municipalities. 6.0 EMPOWERING THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS TO IDENTIFY MATTERS OF PROVINCIAL INTEREST PRIOR TO THE OMB HEARING 6.1 The Bill proposes to revise the Planning Act to permit the Minister where they are of the opinion that a matter of provincial interest is, or is likely to be, adversely affected in respect of an appeal to the OMB to notify the OMB 30 days prior to the hearing of said interest. Staff do not oppose the Minister participating in OMB hearings on matters of Provincial interest. However, 30 days before an OMB hearing is scheduled to commence great time and expense has usually been spent by all parties involved in the preparation of the hearing. 6.2 The Provincial interest, if any, should be declared during the circulation process of an application, to allow parties the opportunity to address Provincial concems. The Region of Durham exercises delegated provincial plan review functions, and it is appropriate for the Region in this role to advise of a provincial interest early in the processing of an application. 30 days prior to the commencement of a hearing is not the appropriate time frame for declaration of Provincial interest. It is recommended that as a minimum, the Province should declare their interest within 45 days of an appeal being filed. 6.3 In addition to the above, Provincial Cabinet is allowed to review decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board where the provincial interest was identified and to confirm, vary or rescind the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. This additional power would further ensure Provincial interest is being protected in any application that is determined by the OMB. Staff believe if the PPS is amendbd to provide clear provincial direction, and decisions are required to be consistent with the PPS and the Provincial interest is identified early in the application process, the Minister would not need to hav~ final REPORT NO.: PSD-030-04 PAGE 6 approval of Board decisions. Furthermore, if the role of the OMB is modified through implementation of the recommendations of the GTA Task Force, this additional change to the Planning Act is not seen as necessary. However, in the absence of these other reforms, Staff support the proposed change to allow the Cabinet to review certain OMS decisions. 7.0 OTHER ISSUES 7.1 The Planning Act does not stipulate a last day of appeal for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications denied by Council. Unlike an approval process where a by-law is passed and a time frame is specified for filing appeals, no such timeframe is identified when an application for OPA or ZBA is not approved. This means that an individual can appeal the decision of Council to deny either an application for Official Plan Amendment or Zoning By-law Amendment to the OMB years after a decision is made. Sections of the Planning Act dealing with Minor Variance, Consent and Subdivision applications require notice of the 'decision', to be given and provide timeframes for appealing the 'decision'. The Planning Act should be amended to specify the last day of appeal in the event that Council refused an Official Plan Amendment or rezoning amendment. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 The Planning Act changes proposed through Bill 26 are viewed as steps in the right direction toward strengthening municipal planning and growth management. However, the requirements to have all planning decisions to "be consistent with" the Provincial Policy Statement, instead of the current "have regard to" must go hand in hand with revisions to identify priority interests in the Provincial Policy Statement. 8.2 Eliminating appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board when the Municipality does not support an urban boundary expansion assists implementing growth management policies at both the local and regional level. However, change to the Act should be limited to eliminating private appeals, and not those of the local municipality, particularly in a two-tier planning environment. 8.3 Increasing time periods for municipal review of applications represents a more realistic timeframe for municipalities to deal with applications. However, the definition of a "complete application" needs to be reviewed to ensure the studies required by municipalities, to properly review an application, are submitted at the beginning of the process. U J _J REPORT NO.: PSD-030-04 PAGE 7 8.4 Empowering the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to identify matters of Provincial interest to the OMB, 30 days prior to an OMB hearing is not the appropriate time to identify provincial interest. Provincial interest should be identified through the processing of an application. The Minister should be required to identify a provincial interest 45 days after a Notice of Appeal to the OMB is received. 8.5 In consideration of the March 15th, 2004 deadline for comments, it is requested that should the General Purpose and Administration Committee concur with the comments and recommendations contained herein, that a copy of Committee's resolution and the report be sent to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs forthwith. C.J ./