HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-030-15 Clarington
Planning Services
Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal
Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102.
Report To: General Purpose and Administration Committee
Date of Meeting: May 25, 2015
Report Number: PSD-030-15 Resolution Number: C�P�.-2j�� v`5
File Number: PLN 1.1.20 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Bill 73 — Smart Growth for our Communities Act 2015
Proposed Amendments to the Planning Act
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-030-15 be received;
2. That Report PSD-030-15 be endorsed as the municipality's comments on Bill 73;
3. That a copy of Report PSD-030-15 be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing; and
4. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and any
delegations be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-030-15 and Council's decision.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 2
Report Overview
The Province of Ontario is proposing a number of changes to the Planning Act which will
necessitate changes to the planning approvals process in Clarington.
On the whole, there are positive steps although some of the proposed changes are not
recommended for support. The greater accountability and transparency bring also greater
administrative costs to the Municipality.
1 . Background
1.1 In the Fall of 2013, the Province began a review of the Ontario land use planning and
appeal system as well as the development charges system. An 80-day consultation
period concluded on January 10th, 2014.
1.2 The feedback received by the Province described that the planning system is too
complex and unpredictable while the development charges system needs to balance
competing municipal and development interests in paying for growth.
1.3 On March 5th, 2015, the Province of Ontario put forward a number of proposed changes
to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act (Bill 73). Report PSD-030-15
outlines a selected number of the proposed changes to the Planning Act which would
have the greatest impact on Clarington if they are approved.
1.4 The objectives of the proposed legislation specific to the Planning Act are to:
• allow for more effective citizen engagement in the planning process;
• provide more stability for municipal planning documents and increase municipal
accountability;
• strengthen the protection of provincial interests;
• encourage more up-front planning; and
• provide enhanced tools at the local level.
1.5 The proposed changes to the Development Charges Act will be primarily carried out by
regulation. The information currently available is not sufficiently detailed to understand
the potential impacts. The Director of Finance has been asked to participate in the
working group that will be crafting the recommendations to the regulations. The
anticipation is that the working groups will provide feedback to the Province with
Regulations likely to be enacted within the next year.
2. Proposed Changes to the Planning Act
2.1 Bill 73, if passed, would make the following amendments to the Planning Act:
• Expand the potential use of alternative notification and consultation processes for
additional matters;
• Require municipalities to include public consultation policies in their official plans;
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 3
• Require citizen members on planning advisory committees across Ontario, and
require planning advisory committees in single-tier and upper-tier municipalities in
Southern Ontario (except the Township of Pelee);
• Require local planning authorities to provide an explanation of how they considered
citizen input in their notices of decision;
• Enhance the Ontario Municipal Board's obligation to consider citizen input when
making decisions;
• Extend municipal official plan update cycles from 5 to 10 years, after a new
comprehensive official plan comes into effect;
• Provide the Province with documents earlier to review municipal official plans/official
plan amendments, when those documents are not exempt from provincial approval;
• Allow for the suspension of timelines for triggering appeals of official plans/official
plan amendments for up to 90 days to work out issues, including citizen concerns,
where agreeable to approval authority and the initiator (i.e. applicant or adopting
municipality);
• Remove the ability to apply for amendments to an official plan for 2 years after any
part of a new comprehensive official plan comes into effect;
• Remove the ability to apply for amendments to a zoning by-law for 2 years after a
comprehensive zoning by-law update;
• Remove the requirement to revise employment land policies at time of an official plan
update;
• Remove the remaining ability to appeal second unit policies in official plans;
• Remove the ability to appeal official plans/official plan amendments that implement
certain provincially approved matters (e.g. source water protection boundaries);
• Remove the ability for one appellant to appeal the entirety of a new official plan;
• Establish more rigor in the requirements to make an appeal;
• Modify the maximum alternative parkland dedication rate when giving cash-in-lieu;
• Require municipalities to develop parks plans if they wish to establish the alternative
parkland dedication rate and to work with school boards in developing such plans;
• Enable the use of the "Community Planning Permit System" as an alternative name
for the system of land use control, currently known as the Development Permit
System;
• Provide the authority to remove the ability to apply for amendments for 5 years after
the establishment of a Development Permit System;
• Provide the authority for the Minister and upper-tier municipalities to require a local
municipality to establish a Community Planning Permit System for purposes specified
in regulation;
• Allow decision-makers to require a 60 day period for Alternative Dispute Resolution
after an appeal is made;
• Limit minor variance applications for 2 years after a zoning amendment passed in
response to a privately-initiated application; and
• Provide the ability to make a regulation that would clarify what constitutes a minor
variance.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 4
2.2 Stakeholder Working Group
Due to the complex nature of some of the matters being considered, the Provincial
government will be establishing a stakeholder working group to review and provide
advice on:
• The definitions and regulations to guide minor variances;
• The Community Planning Permit System; and
• Local appeal bodies.
3 Comments
This report only addresses the most significant changes. The text highlighted in bold are
Clarington's comments to the Province.
3.1 Review Cycles for Official Plans and Zoning By-laws
Proposed Change - A new Official Plan and a new Zoning By-law (existing by-law
repealed and replaced) will be permitted a 10 year review cycle.
The intent of this change, and several others to follow, is to encourage Municipalities to
completely repeal and replace existing Official Plans and Zoning By-laws to reflect more
current planning. New Official Plans would have a 10 year period prior to review. Existing
Official Plans would continue on a 5 year cycle. Zoning By-laws are rarely updated
although earlier changes o the Planning Act required 5 year reviews.
Given that Provincial Plan are reviewed at 10 year intervals, and that most
municipalities are not able to review Official Plans any sooner than 10 years, it is
recommended that all reviews and updates of Official Plans and Zoning By-laws be
done on a 10 year review cycle. When there are circumstance such as a Provincial
Plan or the Provincial Policy Statement, those plans usually prescribe a time
period for Official Plans to be updated.
3.2 Two Year Moratorium on Amendment Applications for New Official Plans and Zoning By-
laws
Proposed Change— No amendments for two years after the passage of a new Official
Plan and/or comprehensive Zoning By-law.
The intent of this change is to provide stability in the planning system and an incentive to
undertake comprehensive reviews. While the principle is good, the manner in which the
change is currently proposed will remove Council's flexibility to pass amendments to
accommodate development opportunities which may not have been foreseen by a new
policy. This may lead to delays in responding to an opportunity unforeseen at the time of
preparation.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 5
However, this change could be effective if it were implemented in the following manner.
Within the first two years after the passage of a new Official Plan and/or
comprehensive Zoning By-law a municipality has the ability to deny any
amendment application without the possibility of appeal of that decision to the
Ontario Municipal Board.
3.3 Moratorium on Minor Variances for Two Years after New Zoning By-law
Proposed Change — Within two years of the passage of a new Zoning By-law no Minor
Variances will be permitted without the approval of Council to proceed to a hearing.
The intent of this change is to prevent modifications of new Zoning By-laws unless
sanctioned by Council. Minor variances are expressly for the purpose of providing relief
from zoning regulations in circumstances where the unique characteristics of a property
or development render it unable to comply with the precise application of one or more
Zoning regulations. A new Zoning By-law would be prepared in a generalized context
and sometimes it is only after a site design has been completed that the site specific
circumstances can be considered. Bill 73 provides a relief valve. Council can consider
declaring by resolution that a minor variance application can be submitted. This would
seem to undermine the ability of the Committee of Adjustment to objectively review minor
variance applications.
It is recommended that this change not be made.
3.4 Public Engagement Policies
Proposed Change — The Official Plan must include a description of measures and
procedures for informing and obtaining public input.
The intent is to modernize and reflect local circumstances with respect to public
consultation. At the present time, the notice requirements are prescribed by Regulation.
This change provides the opportunity for non-traditional methods of communication which
includes websites and social media.
At the present time, the Clarington Official Plan has very limited policies regarding notice.
Over the years, Council and staff have enhanced the public consultation process
including the following:
• Notice on the Municipality's website
• Notice on the Planning E-Update and various social media
• Plain language notices (within the constraints of the prescribed elements)
• Introduction of public information centres in advance of the statutory public meeting
for applications which are possibly "controversial" and subsequent public information
centres for revised proposals
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 6
• Posting applications and background studies online for public viewing
• Staff presentations at statutory public meetings to provide background information
and status of the application
The changes to modernize the public engagement process with incorporation of
measures and procedures to obtain the views of the public is supported. It is
important that the measures be defined in a general sense so that an Official Plan
amendment is not requirement to refine or improve the process. Regulations need
to be changed to provide for notices by other means than ordinary mail or fax.
3.5 Consideration of Public Comments
Proposed change— When decision-makers, such as Council, make a decision on an
application they must include an explanation of how public comments have been taken
into account.
The intent of this change is to provide greater transparency to the public planning process
as well as offer better recognition of public comments. There is a concern that the public
feels that their input is not being considered when planning decisions are made.
However, the details of"how" public comments would be more clearly addressed in a
planning decision, from what is currently provided, have not yet been explained by the
Province.
Currently, Clarington Staff reports provide a description of all public comments that are
received and a discussion of how they are addressed in leading to a recommendation.
One of the potential benefits of the proposed change is that all local municipalities will be
required to comply with the same standard when providing their decision on a planning
matter.
As of yet, the Province has not provided information about how this proposed change is
expected to be implemented. It is unclear how Council or the Committee of Adjustment
decisions will need to be revised to incorporate an explanation on how public comments
have been "taken into account". Further it does not mean that the decision making would
be any different.
In principle, this change is recommended with the following conditions:
• That the Province provide a clear example of how public comments should be
incorporated into planning decisions; and
• That no appeals of planning decisions be allowed based on the description of
how public comments were considered.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 7
3.6 Restrictions on Appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board
Proposed change — The Province is proposing to place the following restrictions on
appeals of an Official Plan.
• No universal appeals of new Official Plans. Instead, appeals must identify the
specific policies being appealed;
• No appeal of an Official Plan which identifies:
• an area as being a vulnerable area as defined by the Clean Water Act (i.e.
significant groundwater recharge area and a highly vulnerable aquifer);
• an area as being within the Provincial Greenbelt or the Oak Ridges Moraine;
• forecasted population and employment growth which are set out in the Growth
Plan; and
• settlement area boundary limits that are already included in the upper tier
(Region of Durham's) Official Plan.
The restriction on global appeals to a new Official Plan is not that helpful to most
Municipalities. Municipalities tend to undertake comprehensive reviews of existing
Official Plan, in part to avoid exposure to appeals. However, comprehensive reviews can
be very extensive. A global appeal has the impact of freezing all lands in the existing
policy regime unless the appellant is willing to narrow down their appeal.
Secondly, it doesn't apply to a new Secondary Plan. This is where much of the detailed
planning takes place. For the Courtice Main Street, we had a global appeal and it took
several months for the appellant to agree to narrow their appeal to the specific issue that
they were concerned with.
The restriction on appeals of an entire Official Plan is supported but should be
extended to, at the very least, comprehensive official plan amendments and new
Secondary Plans.
The intent of the second part of the change is to prevent Municipalities from defending
appeals to policies which have already been approved through a higher Planning
authority such as the Region or the Province. There would still remain the opportunity for
the public to appeal these items when they are considered through a Regional Official
Plan amendment process. This change will save Municipal time and resources by
avoiding appeals on matters that have not been decided locally.
These proposed changes are supported. It is recommended that the restriction on
appeals include provincially significant wetlands. It is the Province that identifies
provincially significant wetlands and the Provincial Policy Statement that compels
municipalities not to permit development and site alteration of those wetlands in
ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E, which includes southern Ontario.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 8
3.7 Additional Time to Make a Decision
Proposed change — There will be more time for the Municipality to make a decision on
Official Plan amendments. Currently decisions must be made within 180 days. An
optional 90 day extension period is proposed.
The intent of the proposed changes is to allow local Municipalities and/or applicants the
opportunity to request additional time before a decision must be made.
For the Municipality, this could provide the opportunity to consider further public input
before reaching a decision. This will also accommodate for circumstances when Council
is physically unavailable to make a decision such as during the summer recess period or
during a Municipal election.
For the applicant, this could provide additional time to prepare background materials to
address and satisfy unanticipated impacts that are raised through the Public Meeting
process.
The proposal to extend the amount of time granted for the Municipality to make a
decision on a development application is supported.
3.8 Options for Dispute Resolution
Proposed change —Alternate dispute resolution prior to appeal going to the Ontario
Municipal Board.
The Municipality will be given the option to recommend to appellant's the use of
alternative dispute resolution processes, such as mediation and conciliation, to resolve
Official Plan, Zoning By-law and plan of subdivision and consent appeals. An appellant's
participation in an alternative dispute resolution process will be voluntary. If alternative
dispute resolution is agreed to by both the Municipality and the appellant then the time for
submitting the appeal information to the Ontario Municipal Board would be extended from
15 days to 75 days.
There is an existing Ontario Municipal Board process for mediation, which is rarely used
and rarely successful in our experience. However, many hearings are scheduled and
settlement discussions take place between the pre-hearing date and the hearing. If there
is an opportunity to settle, parties do so and submit it to the Board for approval.
Nevertheless this can still be a long and expensive process.
The concern with now providing this mediation opportunity earlier is that appellants may
see this as an opportunity to advance their interests with very little risk. Instead of
resolving disputes earlier without the expense of an Ontario Municipal Board process, it
may actually lead to more appeals and a mediation process at the expense of the
Municipality. There are much broader considerations that should be given to the role of
the Ontario Municipal Board before first downloading the alternative dispute resolution
process.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 9
The proposed change is not supported.
3.9 Parkland
Proposed change — Municipalities will be required to give an annual accounting of funds
raised from payment in lieu (formerly cash in lieu) of parkland and how they are spent.
The Municipality is fully transparent in its use of payment-in-lieu funds. The Finance
Department tracks payment-in-lieu of parkland funds that are received in the budget and
they are held in a reserve account and identified as a funding source when used.
Complying with this change will require only minor modifications to the current accounting
practice and then the generation of a report to Council on this matter.
This proposed change is supported.
Proposed change— When municipalities introduce the use of the alternate parkland
standard (1 hectare per 300 dwelling units) they shall first prepare a Parks Plan in
consultation with the School Boards and other stakeholders that examines the need for
parkland in their jurisdiction.
Clarington introduced the alternative parkland dedication standard with the 1996 Official
Plan. Technically, it would appear that a Parks Plan is not required. However, in our
current Official Plan review, we considered parkland service standards and a revised
hierarchy. Planning for parks has always been on a per capita basis but the dedication of
land has traditionally been on the basis of 5% of the land area. With denser community
development, the 5 % is not adequate to meet our service level standards. With
intensification, the built-up area is largely frozen with the parkland that was first secured
yet accommodates more people.
Although the Parks Plan is part of overall community planning, it should not be a
condition of using the alternative parkland standard. Moreover, the requirement to
consult with the school board indicates the intent to maximize school property for
parks use. This change is not supported.
Proposed change — The rate used to calculate the payment in lieu of parkland that
Municipalities can collect from developers will be reduced to the equivalent value of 1
hectare per 500 dwelling units.
The Planning Act permits Municipalities to acquire parkland as a condition of
development approvals. For residential developments, the maximum amount of land that
can be collected is 5% of the total land area or 1 hectare for every 300 dwelling units
proposed. In circumstances where it is not viable for the Municipality to take land the
Municipality may instead request a payment.
No changes are proposed to the amount of parkland that the Municipality may request as
part of a development application. However, the rate for calculating the payment is
proposed to be reduced to 1 hectare for every 500 dwelling units. This would mean that
the Municipality would receive proportionately less money for future park acquisition than
it has historically in areas of higher density development.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 10
Neighbourhood parks are commonly acquired through the approval of new subdivisions
and are not expected to be broadly impacted by this change. However, district parks and
community parks are acquired through land purchases. Even at the current rate, district
and community parks are largely funded through the tax levy. The Municipality's ability to
acquire and/or expand these parks in the future will be curtailed by the proposed change.
This proposed change is not supported.
3.10 Community Planning Permits (formerly Development Permit System)
Proposed change— The Province and/or upper-tier municipalities will have the authority
to require lower-tier municipalities to adopt a Community Planning Permit system in
specific instances.
Community Planning Permits are a hybrid of the planning approvals process which
merges Zoning, Site Plan approval and Minor Variance approval into a single review and
approval. The timeline for a Community Planning Permit review and approval is 45 days.
Community Planning Permits have been in existence for several years already but have
not been widely embraced by municipalities in Ontario.
While Clarington may choose to adopt a Community Planning Permit system in the
future, it should not be prescribed by upper tier municipalities or the Province. This
change is not supported.
3.11 More Clarity on the Definition of a Minor Variance
Proposed change - Committees of Adjustment would be required to apply additional
prescribed criteria.
The Province announced that it intends to establish a stakeholder working group to,
among other matters, define the term "minor variance", which potentially will be put into
regulation. There is a range of application of"minor variances" so this clarity will be
helpful. The proposed clarification is supported.
4. Concurrence
No applicable
5. Conclusion
The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the applicable
changes to the Planning Act that have been proposed by Bill 73. Staff are seeking
Council endorsement to provide the Province with Clarington's response to the proposed
changes.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD-030-15 Page 11
6. Strategic Plan Application
Not applicable.
Submitted by- � Reviewed by:
Davi /Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu,
Direc r of Planning Services 4d Chief Administrative Officer
Staff Contact: Paul Wirch, Planner Il, 905-623-3379 ext. 2418 or pwirch @clarington.net
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
COS/PW/df/jp
Memo
Planning Services Department
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: David J. Crome, Director of Planning Services
Date:May 25, 2015
Re: STAFF REPORT PSD-030-15
SMART GROWTH FOR OUR COMMUNITIES ACT 2015
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING ACT
FILE NO.: PLN 1.1.20
Over the weekend, a further thought occurred to me on a change that we should request to
the Planning Act. If you are agreeable, I would ask that you add a fourth section to Section
3.9, as follows:
Proposed Change – To require the gratuitous dedication of valleylands and other
environmentally sensitive lands through the subdivision and consent process.
Under the Planning Act, parkland dedication is a requirement. There is no requirement for
the dedication of environmentally sensitive lands. In most cases, developers are readily
agreeable to dedicate these lands as they are a liability for them. Public ownership of these
lands may be important to implement the PPS to protect the natural environmental features
and potentially for active transportation networks.
In the past, we have had developers who have retained valleylands or other environmentally
sensitive lands for future negotiation purposes. As an example, the Graham Creek valley
and a portion of the Wilmot Creek wetland in Newcastle Village was retained by two different
developers. Some of this land has been subsequently dedicated. The lands are not
dedicated as the application for plan of subdivision specifically excludes these lands.
It is recommended that where the Municipality or another public agency (e.g.
Conservation Authority) has identified environmentally sensitive lands for future
public ownership, and these lands are within a property that is subject to an
application for a plan of subdivision or consent, the Act require that these lands be
dedicated to the public authority.
I apologize for this late addition. If you have any questions, I would be available to address
them.
David
DJC:sn
cc: Department Heads
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
Leading the Way
Memo
Planning Services Department
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: David J. Crome, Director of Planning Services
Date: May 25, 2015
Re: STAFF REPORT PSD-030-15
SMART GROWTH FOR OUR COMMUNITIES ACT 2015
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING ACT
FILE NO.: PLN 1.1.20
Over the weekend, a further thought occurred to me on a change that we should request to
the Planning Act. If you are agreeable, I would ask that you add a fourth section to Section
3.9, as follows:
Proposed Change — To require the gratuitous dedication of valleylands and other
environmentally sensitive lands through the subdivision and consent process.
Under the Planning Act, parkland dedication is a requirement. There is no requirement for
the dedication of environmentally sensitive lands. In most cases, developers are readily
agreeable to dedicate these lands as they are a liability for them. Public ownership of these
lands may be important to implement the PPS to protect the natural environmental features
and potentially for active transportation networks.
In the past, we have had developers who have retained valleylands or other environmentally
sensitive lands for future negotiation purposes. As an example, the Graham Creek valley
and a portion of the Wilmot Creek wetland in Newcastle Village was retained by two different
developers. Some of this land has been subsequently dedicated. The lands are not
dedicated as the application for plan of subdivision specifically excludes these lands.
It is recommended that where the Municipality or another public agency (e.g.
Conservation Authority) has identified environmentally sensitive lands for future
public ownership, and these lands are within a property that is subject to an
application for a plan of subdivision or consent, the Act require that these lands be
dedicated to the public authority.
I apologize for this late addition. If you have any questions, I would be available to address
them.
David
DJC:sn
cc: Department Heads
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830