Planning Department

Document Sample
Planning Department Powered By Docstoc
					              The Regional Municipality of Durham
              To:         The Planning Committee
              From:       Commissioner of Planning
              Report No.: 2009-P-43
              Date:       May 19, 2009

(This is an Addendum Report to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42)

SUBJECT:

Growth Plan Implementation “Growing Durham” Study – Adoption of Amendment No.
128 to the Durham Regional Official Plan, File: D12-05

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT Amendment No. 128, as recommended in Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s
Report No. 2009-P-42 be revised, to incorporate the changes detailed in Attachment 1
to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-43, and as so revised be adopted.



REPORT:

1.        PURPOSE

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend a few changes to Amendment No.
          128, as recommended in Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-
          P-42. The changes:

             address submissions received since the early release of Recommended
              Amendment No. 128; and
             incorporate minor housekeeping adjustments.

2.        REVISIONS TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

2.1       Since the early release of Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42, additional
          submissions have been received from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Report No.: 2009-P-43                                                     Page No. 2


        Authority (CLOCA), the City of Oshawa, the collective Councils of the
        Townships of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge, and Goodmans LLP on behalf of
        landowners in Seaton. Attachment 2 to this report summarizes the
        outstanding submissions and details the Regional Staff responses to each.
        As a result, further revisions to Amendment No. 128 are recommended.

2.2     The further revisions detailed in Part A of Attachment 1 would:

            clarify the requirements for the completion and implementation of
             watershed plans as it relates to: existing designated greenfield areas;
             new greenfield areas in area municipal official plans; and urban
             expansion areas;

            clarify that secondary plans are required for development of greenfield
             Living Areas that are greater than 20 hectares, but not necessarily for
             greenfield areas that are less than 20 hectares;

            require area municipal official plans to address the interface between the
             built form and the natural environment when planning for the
             development of Waterfront Places;

            clarify that development on the north side of Taunton Road between
             Goodman and Oshawa Creeks in Oshawa must be in accordance with
             Regional Corridor policies; and

            clarify that the Region intends to initiate comprehensive reviews to
             address Provincial Plan Reviews, including the assessment of
             settlement area expansions in the Townships of Brock, Scugog and
             Uxbridge at the 10-year review of the Greenbelt Plan.
Report No.: 2009-P-43                                                    Page No. 3


2.3       It is recommended that Amendment No. 128 be revised to incorporate the
          revisions detailed in Part A of Attachment 1.

3.        ADDITIONAL REVISIONS TO ADDRESS HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS

3.1       Since the preparation of Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42, a review of
          Amendment No. 128 revealed a number of editorial corrections that should be
          made. Part B of Attachment 1 generally serve to rectify minor oversights in
          text and mapping.

3.2       It is recommended that Amendment No. 128 be revised to incorporate the
          revisions detailed in Part B of Attachment 1.

4.        CONCLUSION

4.1       To implement the revisions outlined herein, it is recommended that
          Amendment No. 128, as recommended in Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s
          Report No. 2009-P-42, be revised to incorporate the policy revisions detailed
          in Attachment 1 to this report, and as so revised be adopted.

4.2       As noted in Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42, a public information
          session was advertised and held on May 11th at Regional Headquarters.
          About 40 individuals attended. Staff provided information on the proposed
          amendment and answered questions.




A.L. Georgieff, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner of Planning
Report No.: 2009-P-43                                                                             Page No. 4


RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE




Garry H. Cubitt, M.S.W.
Chief Administrative Officer


Attachments:               1.       Revisions to Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No.
                                    2009-P-42
                           2.       Summary of Submissions Received Following Release of
                                    Amendment No. 128
                           3.       Letter dated May 12, 2009 from Central Lake Ontario
                                    Conservation Authority
                           4.       City of Oshawa Report No. DS-09-200
                           5.       Letter dated May 12, 2009 from Goodmans LLP, on behalf of
                                    Seaton landowners

H:\1-2\agendas\Planning Committee & Joint Committee\2009\05-19-09\2009-P-43 Addendum Report.doc
                                                                            Attachment 1


                                                                                      1
      Revisions to Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42


Part A – Additional Revisions to Address Submissions

Central Lake Ontario Conservation

1.    Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to add the
      following new Item to Part B, Actual Amendment, Table A, after Item 12, and
      renumber all subsequent Items accordingly:

         Revise Policy 2.3.10, as follows:

          “Add the phrase “for built-up areas or greenfield areas as designated in
          area municipal official plans on June 3, 2009” after the words “has not
          been completed”.

      As amended the policy will read as follows:

      “Where a watershed plan has not been completed for built-up areas or
      greenfield areas designated for development in area municipal official
      plans on June 3, 2009, development may be considered where appropriate
      studies have been submitted to address the relevant components of a watershed
      plan that are necessary to assess the proposal to the satisfaction of the Region,
      in consultation with the area municipality and conservation authority.
      Notwithstanding, an application to amend this Plan to designate a new or
      expanding Aggregate Resource Extraction Area, the policies of Sub-Section 9D,
      other relevant policies of this Plan and the requirements of the Aggregate
      Resources Act shall satisfy this requirement.”


2.    Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to add the
      following new Items to Part B, Actual Amendment, Table A, after Item 68, and
      renumber all subsequent Items accordingly:

         Add a new sub-section 7.3.13 f) to read as follows:

          “takes into consideration the implementation of a watershed plan. The
          area municipality shall consult with the Region and appropriate
          Conservation Authority to determine if any updates are required to an
          existing watershed plan;”

         Add a new sub-section 7.3.13 g) to read as follows:
                                                                                       2

         “ensures that where possible, expansions to urban area boundaries are
         contiguous to an existing urban area.”

3.   Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to add the
     following new Item to Part B, Actual Amendment, Table A, after Item 113, and
     renumber all subsequent Items accordingly:

        Add a new sub-section 8A.2.13 f) to read as follows:

         “assess how new growth will affect the natural environment and where
         possible enhance the function of Coastal Wetlands and other natural
         heritage features.”

4.   Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to incorporate the
     following changes into Part B, Actual Amendment, Table A:

        Item 69 (Policy 7.3.14):

          Revise “Details of Policy Amendment” to read as follows:

          “Development of greenfield Living Areas that are greater than
          approximately 20 hectares, shall only proceed in accordance with an
          approved secondary plan. Development of greenfield Living Areas that
          are less than approximately 20 hectares or in Employment Areas, may
          proceed in the absence of a secondary plan, if the area municipality is
          satisfied that the matters to be considered in Policies 2.3.10 and 7.3.15
          have been adequately addressed.”

        Item 70 (Policy 7.3.15):

          Revise “Details of Policy Amendment” to read as follows:

          “The preparation of a secondary plan by an area municipality shall include
          the following considerations:

          a)    for greenfield areas designated for development in area
                municipal official plans on June 3, 2009, Policy 2.3.10 shall apply;
          b)    for greenfield areas designated for development in area
                municipal official plans after June 3, 2009, the implementation of
                a watershed plan. The area municipality shall consult with the
                Region and appropriate Conservation Authority to determine if
                any updates are required to an existing watershed plan;
          c)    sequential development;
                                                                                        3

     d)       the servicing of the area on full municipal water and sanitary sewerage
              systems, the extension of which shall be in accordance with Policy
              5.3.11;
     e)       an assessment of how new growth will affect the natural, built and
              cultural environments;
     f)       transportation needs for all modes;
     g)       the growth management objectives of Policy 7.3.10;
     h)       an assessment of the area municipal services and facilities required to
              support the development of the area, including whether they are within
              the financial capability of the area municipality; and
     i)       an assessment of the potential for land-use conflicts between existing
              agricultural uses and new Urban System uses, and the potential
              means to alleviate such conflicts.”


   Item 112 (Policy 8A.2.12):

     Revise “Details of Policy Amendment” to read as follows:

     “In the first sentence:

             delete the phrase “, and exhibit” and replace with “having”; and
             delete the phrase “and attract people for a variety of reasons” and
              replace with “, integrated with the Greenlands System”.

     In the second sentence:

             delete the phrase “The predominant”; and
             delete the word “uses” after “community” and replace with “facilities”.

     Delete the third sentence in its entirety.

     Add the following sentences to the end of the sub-section:

     “Where appropriate, Waterfront Places should be planned to support an
     overall, long-term density target of 60 residential units per gross hectare
     and a floor space index of 2.0. The built form should vary, and be
     developed in a manner that is sensitive to the interface with the natural
     environment, as detailed in area municipal official plans.”
                                                                                         4

City of Oshawa

5.    Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to incorporate the
      following changes into Part B, Actual Amendment, Table A:

         Item 156 (Policy 8C.2.14):

          Revise “Details of Policy Amendment” to read as follows:

          “Notwithstanding Policy 8C.2.13, major retail uses may be considered along
          the north side of Taunton Road West between Goodman and Oshawa Creeks
          in the City of Oshawa provided:

          a)     a transportation impact study is prepared and submitted to the Region
                 for its approval; and

          b)     the development is in accordance with Policy 8A.2.9.”

Tri-Council (Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge)

6.    Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to add the
      following new Item to Part B, Actual Amendment, Table A, after Item 215, and
      renumber all subsequent Items accordingly:

         Add new a Policy 14.9.2, to read as follows:

          “A comprehensive review of all or part of this Plan may be initiated at the
          appropriate time to inform the Region’s participation in Provincial Plan
          Reviews, including the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt
          Plan and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. In particular,
          such review will be initiated to assess the implementation of settlement area
          expansions in the Townships of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge at the 10 year
          review of the Greenbelt Plan.”

Part B – Additional Revisions to Address Housekeeping Items


7.    Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to incorporate the
      following changes into Part B, Actual Amendment, Details of the Amendment,
      Item 2) Schedule A – Maps A1 to A5, Regional Structure:

         Add a new bullet to read as follows:

          deleting “Specific Policy Area D”;
                                                                                         5

8.    Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to incorporate the
      following changes into Part B, Actual Amendment, Table A:

         Item 200 (11.3.18 a)

          Revise “Details of Policy Amendment” to read as follows:

          “Add the following phrase at the end of the sub-section, “in accordance with
          Policy 8A.2.2 for Transportation Hubs and Commuter Stations:”

9.    Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to incorporate the
      following changes into Exhibit 4 – Map ‘A4’:

         Delete Specific Policy Area D located south of Dundas Street, north of
          Highway 401 and east of the 401/407 Link in Whitby.

10.   Revise Attachment 1 to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42 to incorporate the
      following changes into Exhibit 5 – Map ‘A5’:

         Redesignate certain lands bounded on the east by the 401-407 Link; on the
          south by Highway 401; and on the north by the current Urban Area Boundary,
          from “Major Open Space Areas” to “Employment Areas”.
                                                                                                                                              1
                                    Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128
                         Summary of Submissions received following Release of Amendment

 Submission      Comm.
                                                Comment                                                     Response
  No./ Name        No.
Submission       4A.1    Policy 7.3.15 a) - The words “and up-to-date” should       This policy has been revised to address comments
AM-4A                    be deleted as they words are too subjective.               received from CLOCA. Refer to Part A, Attachment 1 of
                                                                                    Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-43.
City of Oshawa
[Development
Services
Committee]
                 4A.2    Policy 8C.2.14 - This policy should more specifically      Policy 8C.2.14 b) has been revised to refer to the Regional
                         identify what “higher density form and function targets”   Corridor policy (8A.2.9). Refer to Part A, Attachment 1 of
                         are intended to apply to development on the north side     Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-43.
                         of Taunton Road West between Goodman and
                         Oshawa Creeks. Any targets must be reasonable
                         given the anticipated form of development for this area.
                 4A.3    Exhibit 4, Map A4 - Should be revised to redesignate       Refer to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42,
                         the lands south of the existing Urban Area boundary        Submission AM-4, Comment No. 4.2 for details.
                         and east of Harmony Road as Living Area, instead of
                         Prime Agricultural Area.
                 4A.4    Exhibit 4, Map A4 - Amendment No. 128 should               Refer to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42,
                         redesignate the nine properties on the south side of       Submission AM-4, Comment No. 4.3 for details.
                         Winchester Road East, from 1225 Winchester Road
                         East to 1345 Winchester Road East, inclusive, from         For the alternative lands suggested, Regional staff did not
                         Prime Agricultural Areas to Employment Areas in the        contemplate removing lands from the proposed urban area
                         2031. Alternatively, if accommodating this request         boundary and replacing with others. The urban area
                         requires an equivalent amount of proposed                  boundary created by the Recommended Growth Scenario
                         Employment Areas lands to be removed elsewhere in          was used as a basis for the Amendment and did not
                         order to balance the overall supply of land in             include these trade-offs.
                         Employment Areas, the Region should undertake this
                         modification and also retain the Prime Agricultural        No revisions are recommended.
                         Areas designation for an equivalent amount of land
                         proposed to be redesignated as Employment Areas




                                                                                                                                                  Attachment 2
                         located north of the future Highway 407, west of Ritson
                         Road and the Oshawa Creek valley.
                                                                                                                                                2

Submission   Comm.
                                            Comment                                                        Response
No./ Name      No.
             4A.5    7.3.16 - This policy should be deleted in full. Consider   Refer to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42,
                     this policy to be inappropriate since it deals with the    Attachment 3, Submission AM-4, Comment No. 4.10 for
                     timing of development approvals rather than the            details.
                     support for an urban area expansion which could occur
                     years before development approvals are granted.

             4A.6    Policies 8A.2.2, 8A.2.9, 8A.2.10 and 8A.2.12 - The         The policies related to FSI provide sufficient flexibility to
                     minimum floor space index (FSI) requirements should        allow area municipalities to determine the appropriate
                     be deleted and replaced with an alternative approach       density of any given area. FSI, as an overall, long-term
                     for measuring intensity of development that is realistic   density targets is recommended to remain in the
                     and allows for flexibility at the area municipal level.    Amendment.
                     Area municipalities should be encouraged to include
                     policies for more intensive development in area            Refer to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42,
                     municipal Ops and zoning by-laws, as appropriate, for      Attachment 3, Submission AM-4, Comment No. 4.14.
                     Regional and Local Corridors, Regional and Local
                     Centres, Urban Growth Centres and Waterfront
                     Places.
             4A.7    Policies 8A.2.2, 8A.2.9, 8A.2.10 and 8A.2.12 - The         The policies related to minimum average densities provide
                     minimum average densities should be reviewed and           sufficient flexibility to allow area municipalities to reflect
                     decreased significantly as they are too high for the       planned built form.
                     market realities in Durham Region.
                                                                                Refer to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42,
                                                                                Attachment 3, Submission AM-4, Comment No. 4.15.
             4A.8    Policies 8A.2.2, 8A.2.9, 8A.2.10 and 8A.2.12 - There       The Amendment is intended to provide sufficient flexibility
                     are no specific policies to allow interim non-             for area municipalities, through their OP’s or other
                     compliance; rather it is left to area municipalities to    implementation tools to determine how development in the
                     determine how development in the short term can            short-term can achieve the long-term targets.
                     achieve the overall long-term density targets.
                                                                                No further revisions Amendment No. 128 are
                                                                                recommended.
                                                                                                                                             3

Submission   Comm.
                                            Comment                                                       Response
No./ Name      No.
             4A.9    Policy 8B.2.4 - This policy should include a provision to   The Amendment is intended to provide sufficient flexibility
                     allow area municipal official plans (including secondary    for area municipalities, through their OP’s or other
                     plans) to permit compatible interim uses, such as           implementation tools to determine how development in the
                     recreational uses or parking, on medium and high            short-term can achieve the long-term targets.
                     density residential sites.
                                                                                 No further revisions Amendment No. 128 are
                                                                                 recommended.
             4A.10   Policy 8C.2.2 - The Amendment should be revised to          Policy 8C.2.2 provides the flexibility for area municipal OP’s
                     discourage sensitive uses in Employment Areas but           to permit such [sensitive] uses as they deem appropriate.
                     allow area municipal official plans and zoning by-laws      This would extend to zoning by-laws.
                     to determine which uses are appropriate in various
                     types of Employment Areas.                                  Refer to Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42,
                                                                                 Attachment 3, Submission AM-4, Comment No. 4.20.

                                                                                 No further revisions Amendment No. 128 are
                                                                                 recommended.
             4A.11   Policy 11.3.21 - The Amendment should be revised to         Policy 11.3.17 of the ROP states that ‘the Plan supports the
                     amend Policy 11.3.21 to reference that Regional             planning, design and operation of an integrated and
                     Council supports the extension of GO rail service           coordinated Transit Priority Network, as designated on
                     through Oshawa to Bowmanville on the CP Rail line.          Schedule ‘C’ – Map ‘C3’.” Maps A4, A5 and C3 all show
                                                                                 “Future GO Rail” on the CP rail line from Oshawa to
                                                                                 Bowmanville.

                                                                                 No further revisions Amendment No. 128 are
                                                                                 recommended.
             4A.12   The Amendment should be revised to include stronger         Policy 5.2.3 identifies that the Region will give priority to
                     policies on how the Region intends to support and           development and redevelopment proposals which produce
                     promote the rejuvenation, redevelopment and renewal         an intensive and compact form of development. The ROP
                     of Regional Centres, regeneration areas and                 includes policies on Community Improvement Plans that
                     brownfield sties and key drivers including                  were adopted in 2008.
                     UOIT/Durham College, and Highways 401 and 407
                     through priority to infrastructure investment and           No further revisions Amendment No. 128 are
                     financial incentives.                                       recommended.
                                                                                                                                               4

 Submission    Comm.
                                              Comment                                                       Response
  No./ Name      No.
Submission     6.1     On May 12, 2009, Planning Department staff attended        The rules of engagement for the Greenbelt review will be
AM-6                   a meeting of the combined Councils of the Townships        established by the Minister in advance of the review and
                       of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge (Tri-Council). A range       the Region will engage accordingly. It is likely that the next
Tri-Council            of issues was discussed including the growth potential     ROP review will be underway at that time providing the
(Brock,                in their communities. In particular, implementation of     necessary justification.
Scugog,                the provisions of the Greenbelt Plan indicating that “at
Uxbridge)              the10-year Greenbelt Plan review period, modest            A new Policy 14.9.2 has been added to reflect this
                       settlement area expansions may be possible for             comment. Refer to Part A, Attachment 1 of
                       Towns/Villages” was raised.                                Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-43.

                       Recognizing that the Growing Durham Study did              This revision will also address Submission P-86 made by
                       identify and recommend reserving growth potential for      Tunney Planning Inc. Refer to Attachment 3 to
                       the northern urban areas, Councillors wanted               Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-42, Submission P-86,
                       assurance that the Region will be in a position, as        P. 137.
                       stated in the Greenbelt Plan, to provide
                       “comprehensive justification or growth management
                       study” to support possible expansions at that time.

Submission     6A.1    Concerned that the redrafting of the policies related to   Policy 7.3.13 has been revised accordingly. Refer to Part
A-6A                   urban boundary expansion and redesignation of new          A, Attachment 1 of Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-43.
                       urban lands does not require the preparation of a
Central Lake           watershed plan and/or secondary plan. Supported the
Ontario                preparation of a watershed plan before bringing future
Conservation           urban lands into the municipal land supply, and before
                       adding lands through an urban boundary expansion.
               6A.2    Concern with requirement to prepare watershed plans        Policy 7.3.14 has been revised to clarify that the policy only
                       for existing Urban Areas to develop parcels greater        applies to greenfield Living Areas. Refer to Part A,
                       than 20 hectares within existing Urban Areas.              Attachment 1 of Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P43.
                       Recommends that the Region add a new policy (f) to
                       Section 7.3.13 requiring preparation of a watershed
                       plan and that Section 7.3.14 be deleted.
               6A.3    Recommend that Policy 7.3.15 a) be revised to require      Policy 7.3.15 has been revised accordingly. Refer to Part A,
                       that the applicable CA be consulted to determine if        Attachment 1 of Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-43.
                       updates are required to a watershed plan.
                                                                                                                                             5

 Submission      Comm.
                                               Comment                                                     Response
 No./ Name         No.
                 6A.4    Requests that appropriate consideration be given to      Policy 8A.2.12 has been revised to remove the reference to
                         locating high-rise buildings in Waterfront Places away   high-rise development and to recognize the importance of
                         from known bird migration stop-overs and that            appropriate interfaces between built form and the natural
                         construction techniques and lighting controls be         environment in Waterfront Places. Refer to Part A,
                         advocated in the design of these buildings.              Attachment 1 of Commissioner’s Report No. 2009-P-43.
Submission       99.1    Believe that Amendment No. 128 should be modified to     ROP Amendment 114 introduced new policies to recognize
P-99                     amend the ROP to recognize the Central Pickering         the Seaton area as “Specific Policy Area A”, which
                         Development Plan (CPDP) since the amendment is           recognizes that conformity amendments to the ROP will be
Goodmans                 intended to complete the Region’s five-year review and   considered at a later date in consultation with the City. All
LLP, on behalf           Growth Plan conformity exercise.                         amendments to the CPDP area will be considered through
of Seaton                                                                         the on-going implementation exercise being led by the City
landowners                                                                        of Pickering.
                                                                             Report
                                                                             Attachment 4

To :       Development Services Committee               Item:         Date of Report:
                                                        DS-09-200     May 11,2009
From:                                                   File:         Date of Meeting:
           Commissioner, Development
           Services Department                          A-2240-0049   May 13,2009
Subject:   Implementation of Final Growing Durham Study               Ward(s): All
           Recommended Amendment No. 128 to the Regional Official
           Plan

                                                    PUBLIC REPORT

1.0     PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to:

(a) Compare the currently Recommended Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128
    (May 19, 2009 ROPA) to implement the Final Growing Durham Study to the
    Previously Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment (February 2009 ROPA);

(b)    Identify changes to various proposed policies;

(c)    Overview outstanding staff concerns with the May 19, 2009 ROPA; and

(d)    Establish a Council position on the May 19, 2009 ROPA.
The May 19, 2009 ROPA, and a Regional Planning staff recommendation to adopt it, will
be considered by the Regional Planning Committee on May 19, 2009.
Due to its length, the Annotated Consolidation of the May 19, 2009 ROPA is not attached
to this report. However, the Annotated Consolidation t\s available for viewing in the
Development Services Department (Planning Services; 8 Floor, Rundle Tower, contact
Tom Goodeve) or through direct download from the Region of Durham website at
www.durham.ca/arowthplan/documents/Attachment2-AnnotatedConsolidationROPAl28.pdf.

Exhibit No. 1 is a copy of the proposed Schedule "A" - Map "A4" Regional Structure from
the May 19,2009 ROPA which includes proposed land use designations in Oshawa.
Attachment No. 1 is a chart setting out City comments previously forwarded to the Region
concerning the February 2009 ROPA and the Regional response.
The Region provided the May 19, 2009 ROPA to the City on May 5, 2009 and advised that
the Regional Planning Committee would be considering it on May 19, 2009, hence the
urgency.

2.0     RECOMMENDATION
That the Development Services Committee recommend to City Council:

1. That the comments contained in Report DS-09-200, dated May 11, 2009, including
   Attachment No. 1, be endorsed as the City's comments to the Region of Durham on
Report to the Development                                                  Item: DS-09-200
Services Committee (Continued)              -2-                  Meeting Date: May 13,2009

      the Recommended Amendment No. 128 to the Regional Official Plan to implement the
      Growing Durham Study.

2. That staff be authorized to provide the comments of the Development Services
   Committee to the Region and a subsequent follow-up once City Council has
   considered this matter.

3. That Regional Planning Committee and Regional Council be requested to consider the
   City's comments as contained in Report DS-09-200 dated May 11, 2009 in their
   deliberations on the Recommended Amendment No. 128 to the Regional Official Plan.

3.0      EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In Spring 2007 the Region of Durham initiated a comprehensive Growth Plan
Implementation Study intended to form the basis for bringing the Durham Regional Official
Plan (DROP) into conformity with the Provincial Growth Plan (PGP), which came into
effect on June 16, 2006. The Study is referred to as "Growing Durham".

On February 24, 2009 the Regional Planning Department released a proposed February
2009 ROPA to implement the Growing Durham Study. City comments on the same were
provided in Report DS-09-97 dated March 25, 2009.

Subsequently, the Region released a May 19, 2009 ROPA to be considered for adoption
by Regional Council.               -



This report identifies the changes made to the proposed ROPA between February 2009
and May 2009, highlights outstanding staff concerns and recommends that a Council
position on the May 19, 2009 ROPA be forwarded to the Region through the submission of
comments.

4.0      INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES

4.1      General

P Not applicable.

4.2      Auditor General

P Not applicable.

5.0      ANALYSIS

5.1      Background

>     The Region of Durham initiated the Growing Durham Study in Spring 2007 to plan for
      anticipated growth in Durham Region and to comply with the policy directions of the
      PGP.
Report to the Development                                                  Item: DS-09-200
Services Committee (Continued)                -3-                Meeting Date: May 13, 2009


9 Urban Strategies Inc., in conjunction with Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. and
  Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, was engaged by the Region to prepare the Study,
  which was completed over five phases.

9 City comments were provided on each of the consultant's reports, as they were
  released.

9 On November 25, 2008 the Regional Planning Committee endorsed the Final
  Recommended Growth Scenario and Policy Directions Report, including additions and
  modifications, as the basis for the preparation of a Regional Official Plan Amendment
  to implement the PGP.

9 A February 2009 ROPA was released for review prior to a ~tatutbryPublic Meeting
  held by the Region on March 24, 2009. In addition, the Region held a series of Public
  Information Sessions in area municipalities as well as a Statutory Public Open House.

9 On April 6, 2009 City Council endorsed the comments contained in Report DS-09-97
      dated March 25, 2009 as the City's comments on the February 2009 ROPA. These
      comments were forwarded to the Region.

9 In response to the comments received from a broad spectrum of stakeholders on the
  February 2009 ROPA, the Region prepared a May 19, 2009 ROPA for Regional
  Council consideration and adoption.

9 The May 19, 2009 ROPA will be considered at a statutory public meeting to be held by
  the Regional Planning Committee on May 19, 2009.

P Regional Council is scheduled to consider the May 19, 2009 ROPA on June 3,2009.

9 In the event Regional Council adopts the ROPA, it will be forwarded to the Minister of
      Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval.

5.2      Changes to the May 19,2009 ROPA Affecting Oshawa

>     Report DS-09-97 dated March 25, 2009 outlined the key mapping and policy
      components of the February 2009 ROPA.

9 The May 19, 2009 ROPA embodies the following key changes:

         Includes a Country Residential Subdivision (Symbol 36) for E.L.M. Management
         Ltd. lands at the southwest corner of Ritson and Columbus Roads (shown on
         Schedule A - Map 'A4'), and shows a corresponding addition to Schedule E -
         Table 'E2' which identifies approved Country Residential Subdivisions.

         Includes an Urban Growth Centre symbol centred on the intersection of King Street
         and Simcoe Street, as shown on Schedule A - Map 'A4'.
Report to the Development                                                   Item: DS-09-200
Services Committee (Continued)              -4-                   Meeting Date: May 13,2009

       Includes an open space linkage through the Employment Area located at the
       northwest quadrant of Taunton Road and Stevenson Road, as shown on
       Schedule A - Map 'A4'.

       Shows Taunton Road East between Harmony Road North and Townline Road
       North as a Regional Corridor.

      Changes the proposed designation of certain lands adjacent to Townline Road
      North, south of the future Highway 407 alignment, from Employment Area to Living
      Area, as shown on Schedule A - Map 'A4'.

       Revises Schedule C - Map 'C2' to include a future Townline RoadIHighway 407
       interchange.

       Revises the population, household and employment figures as a result of updated
       information received from the Growing Durham Study consultant (Policies 7.3.3 and
       7.3.4), and indicates that the undercount is included.

      Clarifies that growth management objectives and minimum 10 year housing and
      employment land needs are to be achieved on a Region-wide basis (Policies 7.3.10
      and 7.3.12).

      Modifies the policy dealing with area municipal urban area expansions to indicate
      that they must include a phasing strategy for the urban area through secondary
      plans, and has deleted the requirement for a secondary plan to be prepared in
      concert with an urban area expansion (Policy 7.3.13).

      Specifies that the development of Living Areas in excess of 20 hectares (approx. 50
      ac.) shall only proceed in accordance with an approved secondary plan. The
      development of Living Areas of less than 20 hectares (approx. 50 ac.) and
      Employment Areas of any size, may proceed in the absence of a secondary plan
      provided the area municipality is satisfied that certain matters are addressed (Policy
      7.3.14).

       Requires that municipalities consider the following additional matters as part of the
       preparation of secondary plans:

       - The implementation of a complete and up-to-date watershed plan;
       -   An assessment of how new growth will affect the natural, built and cultural
           environments; and
       -   Transportation needs for all modes (Policy 7.3.15).

      Revises the policy dealing with the phasing of development in new secondary plans
      to indicate that existing secondary plan areas shall be developed to 75% of their
      planned dwelling unit capacity prior to the approval of development in adjacent new
      secondary plan areas (Policy 7.3.16).
Report to the Development                                                          Item: DS-09-200
Services Committee (Continued)                  -5-                      Meeting Date: May 13, 2009

      Adds policies for Urban Growth Centres identifying a range of permitted uses
      (Policy 8A.2.2a)).

       Revises the density and Floor Space lndex (FSI) targets as follows:

                    Overall     long- Overall long- Built Form                     Relevant   Area    in
                    term      density term     Floor                               Oshawa
                    target            Space Index
       Urban        200 persons and        3.0       Mix of predominantly          Downtown Oshawa
       Growth       jobs combined                    high-rise development
       Centres      Per         gross                with some mid-rise, as
                    hectare                          determined by area
                                                     municipalities
       Regional     75 units per           2.5       Mix of high-rise and          Oshawa Main Central
       Centres      gross     hectare                mid-rise development,         Area; Windfields Main
                    (equates to 167                  as determined by area         Central Area
                    units per net ha)                municipalities
       Local Urban 30 units per            2.0       Wide variety, generally       Five    Points  Sub-
       Centres      gross     hectare                mid-rise in height, with      Central AreaIHarmony
                    (equates to 67                   some lower and higher         Shopping Centre
                    units per net ha)                buildings,              as
                                                     determined by area
                                                     municipalities
       Regional     60 units per           2.5       Wide       variety       of   Segments of Simcoe
       Corridors in gross     hectare                building           forms,     St, Taunton Rd, King
       Living Areas (equates to 133                  generally mid-rise in         St, Harmony Rd, Bloor
                    units per net ha)                height, with some             St
                                                     higher buildings, as
                                                     detailed     in      area
                                                     municipal official plans
       Local        30 units per           2.0       Wide       variety       of   To be determined by
       Corridors in gross     hectare                building forms with           area municipality
       Living Areas (equates to 67                   mid-rise
                    units per net ha)                predominating,          as
                                                     detailed     in      area
                                                     municipal official plans
       Waterfront   60 units per           2.0       Variety, with high-rise       Oshawa Harbour Area
       Places       gross     hectare                predominating,          as
                    (equates to 133                  detailed     in      area
                    units per net ha)                municipal          official
                                                     plans.

      Modifies the policies for Centres, Corridors and Waterfront Places to: express the
      density and FSI targets as overall long term targets, rather than minimums; delete
      minimum1maximum unit typeldensity requirements; and add a built form description
      for these structural elements. Further, the density targets for these areas are now
      expressed in gross, rather than net, density terms (Policies 8A.2.2, 8A.2.9, 8A.2.10,
      8A.2.12).

      Modifies the policies dealing with corridors to clarify that density and FSI targets
      apply only to those portions of RegionallLocal Corridors which are identified as
      being appropriate for higher density mixed-use development in area municipal
      official plans (Policies 8A.2.9 and 8A.2.10).
Report to the Development                                                       Item: DS-09-200
Services Committee (Continued)                 -6-                    Meeting Date: May 13,2009

         Deletes density and unit mix targets for Greenfield Living Areas.

         Deletes employment density targets for segments of Regional Corridors associated
         with Employment Areas.

         Adds policies requiring that area municipal official plans include:

         - Policies for the phasing of development in Centres, Corridors and Waterfront
           Places to ensure the implementation of the higher density form and function
           targets;
         - Policies that encourage higher density uses along Regional Corridors with an
           underlying Employment Areas designation; and,
         - Policies for Regional" and Local Centres that protect the integrity of historic
           downtowns where applicable (Policy 8A.2.14).

         Deletes the limit of 10% of aggregate gross floor area for limited personal service
         and retail uses in Employment Areas; instead, such uses may be a minor
         component subject to the inclusion of provisions in the area municipal official plans
         and/or zoning by-laws and shall not exceed 500 sq. m. in size (Policy 8C.2.11).

         Adds a new site specific policy which allows major retail uses along the north side
         of Taunton Road West between Goodman and Oshawa Creeks provided that a                   .
         transportation impact study is prepared and submitted to the Region for its approval
         and the development addresses the higher density form and function targets of the
         Durham Regional Official Plan (DROP) (Policy 8C.2.14).

         Expands the policies relating to development adjacent to a Transportation Hub or
         Commuter Station to indicate that it relates to an area within an approximate 500
         metre radius of the station (representing a 10 minute walk) and that the extent and
         delineation of the boundaries and designations to implement the intended form of
         development around transit stations shall be detailed in area municipal official plans
         (Policy 11.3.18).

5.3      Comments on the May 19,2009 ROPA

P Although the May 19, 2009 ROPA has addressed several of the City's previous
      comments, it still has some shortcomings which should be addressed prior to Regional
      Council approval.

P In this regard, the May 19, 2009 ROPA must be altered to address those items bolded
      in Attachment No. 1.

9 Attachment No. 1 represents an ongoing record of City comments and Regional
  responses related to the Growing Durham Study and proposed ROPAs to implement
  the study.

P Although the density targets have been "softened" and there is a shift to "overall, long-
      term'' targets, the achievement of the density and FSI targets remains very challenging.
Report to the Development                                                      Item: DS-09-200
Services Committee (Continued)                 -7-                   Meeting Date: May 13,2009

5.4      Other Recommendations of Regional Staff

P The report dated May 19, 2009 from the Regional Commissioner of Planning to be
      considered at the May 19, 2009 Regional Planning Committee meeting also includes a
      number of recommended requests to the Province to assist municipalities with the
      challenge of implementing the PGP. These include:

         The provision of fiscal incentives to shift marketkonsumer preferences to more
         compact/dense forms of housing;

         An examination of the regulatory barriers that may be inherent in the Building Code,
         the Planning Act, and the role of the OMB in considering NIMBY responses to
         desired forms of development;

         An examination of other barriers inherent in the development industry such as the
         financing policies of lending institutions;

         Means of assisting area municipalities in preparing detailed local plans through
         financial incentives and regulatory relief;

         Sufficient funding to municipalities to provide and maintain the infrastructure
         needed to sustain the type of growth contemplated, and an effective range of tools
         including improved cost recovery under the Development Charges Act and a
         streamlined environmental assessment process; and

         A commitment to ensuring that Durham Region receives its share of jobs and
         economic opportunities by assisting the Region with its marketing efforts and
         supporting initiatives to make its Employment Lands shovel ready for development.

P The City should support these recommended requests by the Region.

5.5      Next Steps

>     The recommendation of the Regional Planning Committee on the May 19, 2009 ROPA
      is scheduled to be considered by Regional Council on June 3, 2009, at which time it is
      anticipated that a ROPA will be adopted.

>     The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing must then approve the ROPA before it
      comes into effect. In addition, there may be appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board
      that must be considered.

P The Places to Grow Act, 2005 requires that municipalities (including lower tier
      municipalities like Oshawa) amend their official plans to bring them into conformity with
      the PGP by June 16, 2009.

P On February 2, 2009 City Council requested an extension from the Province for
      bringing the Oshawa Official Plan into conformity with the Provincial Growth Plan.
Report to the Development                                                   Item: DS-09-200
Services Committee (Continued)              -8-                   Meeting Date: May 13,2009


9 On May 4, 2009 the City's Development Services Committee considered
  correspondence from the Honourable George Smitherman, Minister of Energy and
  Infrastructure, regarding the steps required to request a one year extension to the
  June 16, 2009 deadline to bring the Oshawa Official Plan into conformity with the
  Growth Plan. The Committee has recommended to City Council that staff be
  authorized to respond directly to the Minister with the information required to support
  such a request.

6.0    FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9 No financial implications of the Growing Durham ROPA on the City or Region have
  been identified; however, servicing, amenities and other features (e.g., fire halls, etc.)
  associated with the proposed new growth areas will have significant financial
  implications.

9 Although the Region is currently undertaking an Infrastructure and Fiscal Impact
  Analysis with respect to the recommended approach to implementing the PGP, it will
  only address Regional infrastructure costs.          Information on area municipal
  infrastructure costs resulting from the implementation of the Recommended ROPA will
  not be provided. The Region's fiscal impact analysis is expected to be complete in
  2010.

7.0    RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN
9 Report DS-09-200 on the May 19, 2009 ROPA is intended to advance Goal A (A
  Vibrant, Strong and Progressive Community) and Goal B (A Green and Sustainable
  Community) of the City's Community Strategic Plan by revitalizing the downtown,
  realizing the waterfront's potential, developing new job opportunities and by managing
  growth and using land wisely.




Paul Ralph, B.E.S., RPP, Director
Planning Services




Development Services Department

SMIc
Attachments
 EXHIBIT 4 TO REGIONAL                                                          DS-09-200
 OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT                                                        Exhibit No.
 N0.128



 H
                     OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE
                     REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY
                     OF DURHAM

                             SCHEDULE 'A' MAP 'A4               -
                             REGIONAL STRUCTURE


                                 LEGEND

 -.- .
 URBAN SYSTEM
                  URBAN AREA BOUNDARY           ,, DEFERRED
                                                , , URBANAREA BOUNDARY
              I   REGIONAL CENTRE                            REGIDNALCORRIWR


                  LIVING AREAS                               EMPLOYMENTAREAS


&@
                  AREAS DEVELOPABLE ON
                  FULLIPARTIAL MUNICIPAL
                                                v///         AREASDEMLOPABLEON
                                                             MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS
                  SERVICES                               I
                                                             --- -
                                                             8 S T F L I WASTE DISPOSAL
                                                             N PRIVATE


 =
                  AREAS DEVE.0PAB.E

                  SEVER SYSTEMS
                                    ON
                  PR.VATE WELLS8 MJh CIPAL      11 11 I      AREAS DEVEL0PAB.E O h
                                                             PRIVATE W l S 8 P R I V A T E
                                                             WASTE DSPOSA. SYSTEMS
          S       MUNICIPALSERVICE

 RURAL SYSTEM
 0                PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREAS

RURALSETTLEMENTS:
                                   HAMLET


                        0          RURAL EMPLOYMENTAREA
                                   (SEE TABLE E3 FOR DESCRIPTION)
                                   COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
                         @         (SEE TABLE E2 FOR DESCRIPTION)

                                   SHORELINE RESIDENTIAL


                  REGIONAL NODE     (SEE SECTION 8C FOR DESCRIPTION)

                  AGGREGATE RESOURCE EXTRACTION
     @            AREA (SEE TABLE E l FOR DESCRIPTION)
 GREENLANDS SYSTEM
                  MAJOR OPEN                          OAK RlffiES
                  SPACEAREAS                          MORAINEAREAS

                  WATERFRONTAREAS

-                 OAKRIDGESMoRAINE
                  BOUNDARY
                                            yyyyyl GREENBELTBOUNDARY

                  RECREATIONAL!TOURIST


 -                ACTIVITY NODE                       WATERFRONT PLACE

      ''          OPEN SPACE UNKAGE             II    WATERFRONTLINKS

 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
SEE SCHEDULE C FOR DESIGNATIONS

THE FOLLOMNG IS S H O W SELECTIVELY, FOR EASE OF INTERPRETATION



-                                                     ---
OFOTHER DESIGNATIONS ONLY.



-   ExEms
                            ARTERIAL ROAD

                                 FREEWAY
                                  GO RAIL
                                                          EmuE
                                                      - - -m , s
                                                     ----
                                                      m m
                                                           .m

                             W STATION

SPECIAL AREAS

:--?--I
L-----l
                  SPECIAL STUDY AREA          L-
                                               a             SPECIFIC POLICY AREA

                  DEFERRED BY MINISTER
                  OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
                                              0                To OM.''
                                                             IPPEAL
                                                                                                                                                 DS-09-200
                                                                                                                                           Attachment No. 1

                     City Comments with Respect to the May 19, 2009 ROPA to Implement the Final Growing Durham Study

                                                      City Comment
    I. Secondary Plan Requirements:

1   Proposed Policy 7.3.15 requires that the implementation of a complete and up-to-date watershed plan be a
    consideration in preparing secondary plans. The words "up-to-date" are too subjective. The policy should be
    revised to be more flexible and allow the Region and Conservation Authority to determine whether a watershed
    plan update is required, on a case-by-case basis, prior to the preparation of a new secondary plan. Staff is
    particularly concerned as to how this policy change could affect the progress of the ongoing Kedron Part II Plan
    study.

    The words "and up-to-date" should be deleted from Policy 7.3.15.

    2 Major Retail Uses:

    The site specific policy permitting major retail uses along the north side of Taunton Road West between the
    Goodman and Oshawa Creeks addresses Council's previous request for such permissibility. However, it is
    unclear what the relevant "higher density form and function targets" are since none appear to be specified for
    Employment Areas (unlike targets for Corridors which have been identified where there is an underlying Living
    Area designation).

    Policy 86.2.14 should more specifically identify what "higher density form and function targets" are
    intended to apply to development on the north side of Taunton Road West between Goodman and Oshawa
    Creeks. Any targets must be reasonable given the anticipated form of development for this area.


    3. Columbus Living Area:

    Staff supports the proposed designation of the Columbus Deferral 12 to Living Area and the proposed
    redesignation of the Employment Area lands between the Columbus Living Area and the Highway 407 alignment.
    The designation of the Columbus Deferral 12 to Living Area implements the Region's previous designation of
    these lands to Living Area and would resolve the outstanding deferral by the Province.


1   4. Kedron Study Area:
                                                                                                                       I                                             I
    Staff supports the proposed redesignation of some Employment Area lands on both sides of Harmony Road south            The City's comments have been
    of Winchester Road. (It is noted that the Highway 407 property requirements will result in most of the lands           partially addressed in the May 19, 2009
    between Winchester Road and Highway 407, particularly on the west side of Harmony Road, being used for                 ROPA.
    highway facilities.)
                                                                                                                           The May 19,2009 ROPA has changed
                                                  City Comment                                                               Regional Response
Staff supports the proposed redesignation of Employment Area lands to Living Area in the Kedron Study Area         the proposed designation of the lands
consistent with the northerly shift of Employment Area lands to the south edge of the current Highway 407          west of Townline Road North to Living
alignment. However, in this regard, some refinements are required:                                                 Area. No change was made in the May
                                                                                                                   19, 2009 ROPA to the redesignation of
    >   The proposed amendment to Schedule 'A' shows a redesignation from Prime Agricultural Area to               the small area east of Harmony Road
        Employment Area immediately west of Townline Road. This area appears to have been intended to be           North.
        part of the Kedron Living Area in the Final Growing Durham Study and should therefore be redesignated
        to Living Area.                                                                                            The Regional Response is that the
                                                                                                                   change in the preferred alignment for
    >   A small area east of Harmony Road is proposed to be redesignated from Employment Areas to Prime            Highway 407 removes a defined edge
        Agricultural Areas. These lands are included on the proposed Schedule 'F' as Potential Future Growth       for establishing a boundary. The intent
        Areas for Employment. However, it would be more appropriate for the Region to simply redesignate all of    is to exchange certain lands inside and
        the Kedron lands that are currently within the Urban Area boundary as Living Area and allow the Kedron     outside the urban boundary to make a
        Part II Plan process and related Oshawa Official Plan amendment to determine a suitable location for the   more consistent urban boundary edge
        boundary between residential and employment uses. The proposed amendment to Schedule 'A' suggests          to replace the former Highway 407
        a higher degree of specificity in the Regional Official Plan than is appropriate.                          alignment as a boundary.

The Proposed ROPA should be revised to redesignate the lands immediately north of the existing Urban Area
Boundary and west of Townline Road as Living Area instead of Employment Area.

The Proposed ROPA should be revised to redesignate the lands south of the existing Urban Area
boundary and east of Harmony Road as Living Area instead of Prime Agricultural Area.
5. 1345 Winchester Road East:

City Council previously requested that the Region include in its 'New Employment Lands Required to 2031' those     No change was made to the May 19,
lands south of Highway 407 eastward to Grandview Street North, municipally known as 1345 Winchester Road           2009 ROPA to include the lands at
East. This change is not shown in the Proposed ROPA.                                                               1345 Winchester Road East as
                                                                                                                   Employment Area.
To be consistent with previous Council direction, the Proposed ROPA should be revised to include
additional Employment Area lands at 1345 Winchester Road East, except for the small portion south of the           The Regional Response is that to
existing Urban Area Boundary which should be designated as Living Area.                                            include additional lands without
                                                                                                                   removing lands from another location in
                                                                                                                   Oshawa as a trade-off would not be
                                                                                                                   justified.

                                                                                                                   Staff note that the Biglieri Group made
                                                                                                                   a submission to the Region in response
                                                                                                                   to the February 2009 ROPA wherein
                                                                                                                   alternative Employment Area sites were
                                                                                                                   proposed to be exchanged for the
                                                                                                                   redesignation of 1345 Winchester Road
                                                                                                                   to Employment Area. These sites were:

                                                                                                                                                  Page 2
                                                   City Comment                                                                    Regional Response
7. Waterfront Place:

The symbol for the Waterfront Place associated with the Oshawa Harbour should be relocated, at least to the              The City's comments have been
north side of the Oshawa Creek, outside of the floodplain, given the type of development that is expected to be          addressed in the May 19, 2009 ROPA.
achieved.
                                                                                                                         The May 19,2009 ROPA has shifted
The Proposed ROPA should be revised to relocate the Waterfront Place symbol to the north side of the Oshawa              the Waterfront Place symbol northward.
Creek.                                                                                                                   The Regional Response notes that
                                                                                                                         detailed planning at the area municipal
                                                                                                                         level will provide more exact location
                                                                                                                         and boundaries for Waterfront Places.
8. E.L.M. Management Ltd. Lands - Southwest Corner of Ritson and Columbus Roads:

The proposed Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' does not depict a Country Residential Subdivision for the E.L.M.                    The City's comments have been
Management Ltd. lands located on the southwest corner of Ritson Road North and Columbus Road East.                       addressed in the May 19,2009 ROPA.

The subject property was redesignated as Estate Residential in the DROP in 1984 to permit up to 15 estate                The May 19,2009 ROPA includes a
residential lots. The property was also designated as Estate Residential in the Oshawa Official Plan and zoned           Country Residential Subdivision symbol
R1-G (Residential).                                                                                                      for the lands on the southwest corner of
                                                                                                                         Ritson and Columbus Roads. Schedule
On June 23, 2008, City Council considered a new subdivision application by the owner and passed the following            'E' -Table 'E2' has also been amended
resolution:                                                                                                              to reflect the inclusion of this site as a
                                                                                                                         Country Residential Subdivision.
"That the City continue to recognize the existing Estate Residential Official Plan designation and zoning and direct
staff to further process the subject application and request the Region of Durham to modify the current Durham
Region Official Plan (DROP) to recognize the existing Estate Residential designation that is in effect, as outlined in
Report DS-08-206 dated June 4, 2008 from the Commissioner of Development Services."

Section 9B.2.17 of the DROP indicates that Country Residential Subdivisions (the current designation for Estate
Res~dential subdivisions) that have been approved are designated on Schedule 'A' and described in Schedule 'E'
- Table 'E2".

The Proposed ROPA, however, does not include an indication of "Country Residential Subdivision" for the E.L.M.
Management Ltd. site.

The Proposed ROPA needs to be revised to recognize the E.L.M. Management Ltd. site as a Country Residential
Subdivision.




                                                                                                                                                         Page 4
                                                      City Comment                                                                 Regional Response
     9. Taunton Road East as Regional Corridor:

     The City previously requested that Taunton Road East between S~mcoe   Street North and Townline Road North be       The City's comments have been
     identified as a Regional Corridor. The Proposed ROPA identifies Taunton Road East as a Regional Corridor only       addressed in the May 19, 2009 ROPA.
     between Simcoe Street North and Harmony Road North.
                                                                                                                         The May 19,2009 ROPA shows
     The Proposed ROPA should be revised to include Taunton Road East between Harmony Road North and                     Taunton Road East between Harmony
     Townline Road North as a Regional Corridor.                                                                         Road North and Townline Road North
         ,                                                                                                               as a Regional Corridor.
     10. Proposed Amendments to Schedule 'C'        - Map 'C2' Road Network:
                                                                                                                         No changes have been made. The
     Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2" designates future arterial roads in the new Living and Employment Areas in Oshawa in        Regional Response is that an update to
     the vicinity of the future Highway 407. Some of these future arterial roads appear to cross Highway 407 but are     the Regional Transportation Master
     not being included as arterial road crossings in the Highway 407 Environmental Assessment.                          Plan and a comprehensive
                                                                                                                         transportation amendment will be
     The Proposed ROPA should reflect arterial road crossings of Highway 407 consistent with the Highway                 undertaken at a later date to address all
     407 Environmental Assessment.                                                                                       outstanding transportation issues,
                                                                                                                         including further implementation of the
                                                                                                                         407 EA and policy recommendations
                                                                                                                         from the Metrolinx Regional
                                                                                                                         Transportation plan. The
I.
                                                                                                                         Recommended ROPA should not
i
.
                                                                                                                         designated new roads in the new Living
                                                                                                                         Areas north of Highway 407 until the
                                                                                                                         Transportation Master Plan is updated.
     11. Area Municipal Urban Area Expansions:

     Policy 7.3.13 identifies the policy requirements to expand area municipal urban area boundaries, including that     The City's comments have been
     they be undertaken as part of a comprehensive review, that they demonstrate the achievement of the growth           addressed in the revised Policy 7.3.13
     management objectives, that they be supported by an analysis of the achievement of forecasts and that a             in the May 19,2009 ROPA.
     secondary plan be prepared for the affected lands. The policy also requires that a secondary plan be prepared for
     any lands proposed to be added to the urban area before an urban area expansion can be approved.                    The May 19,2009 ROPA has revised
                                                                                                                         Policy 7.3.13 to delete the requirement
     Staff have a number of concerns with this proposed policy as follows:                                               for a secondary plan in conjunction with
                                                                                                                         an urban area expansion.
         9 A comprehensive review undertaken by the area municipality would be required to justify the proposed
           area municipal urban area expansion in accordance with sections b), c) and d) of Policy 7.3.13. A             The May 19, 2009 ROPA has been
           secondary plan (i.e. Part II Plan) is an implementation tool and shouldn't be required to be submitted to     revised to only require the preparation
           support the urban area expansion. If this policy were in place, a secondary plan would need to be             of secondary plans for development of
           prepared for the Columbus Living Area prior to an Official Plan Amendment to include these lands in the       Living Areas that are greater than
           Oshawa Urban Area Boundary.                                                                                   approximately 20 hectares in a new
                                                                                                                         Policy 7.3.14. Development of Living

                                                                                                                                                         Page 5
    I                                                 City Comment                                                                    Regional Response
        P   Some level of certainty regarding the approval of an urban area expansion should be provided prior to          Areas that are less than approximately
            preparing a secondary plan. Given the time and cost (usually paid for by landowners) involved in               20 hectares or in Employment Areas
            preparing secondary plans, it is unreasonable to require this expenditure in advance of the lands being        may proceed in the absence of a
            brought into the urban area boundary since there would be no certainty that the urban area expansion           secondary plan if the area municipality
            would ultimately be approved, or that the entire area addressed by the secondary plan would be included        is satisfied that the matters to be
            in the urban area expansion. The policy should be revised to indicate that a secondary plan is required to     considered in the preparation of a
            be prepared prior to the development of any Living Area approved as part of an urban area expansion.           secondary plan are adequately
                                                                                                                           addressed. The requirements for the
        P This proposed policy is not limited to Living Area expansions but would also apply to lands designated as        preparation of a secondary plan are
            Employment Area in the DROP. The City of Oshawa does not typically prepare secondary (Part II) plans           now outlined in a new Policy 7.3.15.
            for industrial areas. In staff's view, this limits the City's flexibility in responding to the industrial
            marketplace and the need for Part II Plan amendments may be counterproductive to economic                      While the policy requirement under
            development. It is recommended that the requirement for a secondary plan only apply to lands within            17.3.13f to have a certain level of
            Living Areas and that it not be mandatory for Employment Areas. The Region could consider instead, a           development in adjacent secondary
            policy to encourage, but not require, the preparation of a secondary plan or a concept plan for                plan areas has also been deleted as a
            Employment Areas.                                                                                              requirement for an urban area
                                                                                                                           expansion, it has been retained in new
        P The proposed policy also requires that secondary plan areas be developed to 75% of their planned                 Policy 7.3.16 to regulate development
            dwelling unit capacity, with a minimum of 25% of the medium and high density units, prior to the approval      in new secondary plan areas. The
            of development in adjacent secondary plan areas. If this policy were in place, an urban area expansion for     revised policy also deletes the
            the Columbus Living Area could not be considered until such time as 75% of the planned units and 25% of        requirement for a minimum 25% of
            the medium and high density units are built in the Kedron, Windfields and Taunton Part II Plan areas.          medium and high density units to be
-
/

            Staff considers this proposed policy to be inappropriate since it deals with the timing of development
                                                                                                                           developed prior to the approval of
                                                                                                                           development in adjacent secondary
            approvals rather than the support for an urban area expansion which could occur years before                   plan areas. The resulting Policy 7.3.16
            development approvals are granted. Given the time involved in undertaking the comprehensive review,            requires that secondary plan areas shall
            with the associated analysis, and the preparation of a secondary plan, and then the subsequent approvals,      be developed to 75% of their planned
            this process would need to start well before existing secondary plans are developed to 75% of the planned      dwelling unit capacity prior to the
            dwelling unit capacity and 25% of the medium and high density units. Furthermore, as noted above, the          approval of development in adjacent
            comprehensive review would address the justification for the urban area expansion, including matters of        secondary plan areas that are prepared
            timing and an assessment of the available residential land supply. The urban area expansion should not         in accordance with Policy 7.3.15.
            be tied to a specific level of build-out in existing secondary plan areas.

            The requirement to have a minimum of 25% of the medium and high density units being constructed in a
            secondary plan area before granting approval to a new secondary plan may be detrimental to the
            achievement of other objectives to achieve intensification and UGC densities with the same forms of
            residential development, in a climate of limited market for these densities. The priority should be given to
            achieving these housing forms in the built-up area and the UGC prior to secondary plan areas which tend
            to be outside of the built boundary. Other issues with this policy are that it refers to "adjacent secondary
            plan areas", whereas some secondary plan areas are separated by Employment Areas and/or major
            highways, and it should not be applied to urban area expansions for employment areas. Policy 7.3.13f
            (now 7.3.16) should be deleted.


                                                                                                                                                          Page 6
                                                City Comment                                                                     Regional Response
Policy 7.3.13 in the Proposed ROPA should be revised to allow urban boundary expansions to be approved
        a
w~thout corresponding secondary plan (i.e. Part II Plan), with a secondary plan for Living Areas being required
through a separate amendment process after the urban area expansion is approved. In addition, area
municipalities should only be encouraged, but not required, to prepare secondary plans or concept plans to guide
the development of Employment Areas.

Policy 7.3.13f (now 7.3.16) should be deleted in full.

12. Density Targets - Policy Clarification:

Minimum average densities, minimum/maximum percentages for certain density types and minimum floor space               The changes made in the May 19, 2009
index (FSI) for non-residential uses are specified for Centres (Regional Centres, UGCs, Local Urban Centres),          ROPA have addressed the City's
Corridors (Regional and Local), Waterfront Places, Greenfields and Employment Areas.                                   concerns regarding policy clarification.

Regional staff have indicated that the indication of a maximum amount of low density residential and minimum           The May 19,2009 ROPA has deleted
amount of high density residential applies to number of units, as opposed to amount of land area, however this         policies related to minimum and
should be clarified in the policies.                                                                                   maximum percentages for certain
                                                                                                                       density types and housing forms.
Clarification needs to be provided as to how the FSI minimums are to be applied, i.e. on a site basis or area-wide
basis, and whether area municipal planning documents can allow for intensity of development at these levels so         The minimum FSI and minimum
that it may be attained if and when the market warrants but does not preclude less intense forms of development        average density figures are replaced
in the interim.                                                                                                        with overall, long-term targets, and in
                                                                                                                       the case of corridors, refer to portions of
Clarification needs to be provided as to whether the minimum average density applies to new development or to all      corridors which are identified as
development in the affected area (e.g. Centre or Corridor). This should recognize that it may be extremely difficult   appropriate for mixed-use development
for some areas such as Corridors to achieve a minimum average density across their entire length due to the            in area municipal official plans.
characteristics of existing development. For example, many Corridors, such as Harmony Road North between
Adelaide Avenue East and Taunton Road East, have long stretches of low density reverse lot frontage residential        The Regional Response is that the
development. It is highly unlikely that these areas will redevelop to higher densities to any large extent in the      proposed policy changes would not
foreseeable future, thus bringing down the average density for the entire corridor. Minimum average density            affect existing draft approved plans.
targets should apply only to areas with redevelopment potential.
                                                                                                                       The May 19,2009 ROPA has deleted
Clarification needs to be provided that the proposed density targets would not be applied to existing draft approved   Policy 8A.2.12 a)iv) and modified the
plans.                                                                                                                 approach related to density and unit mix
                                                                                                                       such that they are identified as overall
The wording of Policy 8A.2.12 a) iv) is unclear. A more appropriate wording would be "ultimate build-out, by           long-term targets.
requiring proponents of development to demonstrate that higher density targets would not be precluded by
proposed developments at lower density levels"

The Proposed ROPA should be revised to specify that the minimum and maximum percentages specified for
certain density types applies to the number of residential units and that the minimum average density is to be
applied to areas that are planned for development and redevelopment in the respective area.

                                                                                                                                                        Page 7
                                                         City Comment                                                                   Regional Res~onse
        Furthermore, the Region should confirm that the proposed policy changes would not affect existing draft approved
        plans.

        Policy 8A.2.12 a)iv) should also be revised to clarify the intent to have proponents of development demonstrate the
        ability to achieve higher density targets on their sites.

        13. Floor,Space Index (FSI) Targets for Non-Residential Uses:

        The FSI targets proposed in the Proposed ROPA for non-residential uses in Centres (FSI of 2.0 to 3.0), Waterfront     The City's comments have been
        Places (FSI of 2.0) and Corridors within Living Areas (FSI of 2.0 to 2.5) are not achievable without structured or    partially addressed in the May 19, 2009
        underground parking. Based on existing standards for parking, aisle and driveway widths, loading spaces and           ROPA.
        landscaping, a typical commercial building with surface parking can achieve an FSI of approximately 0.23. This
        can be increased, perhaps to an FSI of approximately 0.50, if a multi-storey building is constructed, taking into     The FSI targets have remained the
        consideration that the area required for parking increases as the floor area increases. For comparison purposes,      same for each of the various Centres,
        the Airport medical clinic building has an FSI of 0.43, the North Oshawa Medical Centre has an FSI of 0.39 and the    Corridors and Waterfront Places,
        Seventh Day Adventist office building has an FSI of 0.47. The Seventh Day Adventist building, for example, is         however, the policies related to FSl's
        located on a Regional Corridor (King Street East) that would require an FSI of 2.5 under the proposed policy.         have been revised to identify them as
                                                                                                                              overall, long-term targets to achieve a
        The current FSI for the Harmony Shopping CentreIHome Depot site is approximately 0.22 whereas the proposed            planned built form. In addition, the FSI
        required FSI of 2.0 would require the entire site to be developed lot line to lot line with a two storey structure.
                                                                                                                          '
                                                                                                                              targets do not apply only to non-
    L   .                                                                                                                     residential uses but rather to all uses.
     It                       - 3.0 as proposed in the ROPA is only possible for major developments that include
    ; is clear that an FSI of 2.0

-
8
-

 '
  structured or underground parking or downtown developments in the parking exempt area. The economics to
  support structured parking are not generally present in Oshawa at the present time. Also, a minimum FSI
* requirement does not recognize that many sites may be able to achieve modest intensification but still fall short of
   3
                                                                                                                              A description of built-form has been
                                                                                                                              added for each of the respective
                                                                                                                              Centres, Corridors and Waterfront
  the minimum requirement. These developments should not be prevented by the policy requirements.                             Places.
  Furthermore, the use of FSI to measure the density of non-residential development is not an effective or easily
  understood approach and is usually more of a zoning tool rather than a Regional Official Plan policy. It is also not        The Regional Response is that flexibility
  clear how the FSI would be applied to mixed use buildings.                                                                  is provided to allow area municipalities
                                                                                                                              to determine the appropriate density of
        The minimum FSI requirements should be deleted and replaced with an alternative approach for                          any given area.
        measuring intensity of development that is realistic and allows for flexibility at the area municipal level.
        Area municipalities should be encouraged to include policies for more intensive development in area
        municipal official plans and zoning by-laws, as appropriate, for Regional and Local Corridors, Regional
        and Local Centres, Urban Growth Centres and Waterfront Places.




                                                                                                                                                              Page 8
                                                      City Comment                                                                  Regional Response
    14. Residential Densities:

    Requiring lands to be developed in the Greenfields areas for higher density units will detract from the ability to    The City's comments have been
    achieve the higher density development that is desired in the Urban Growth Centre, and thereby achieve the target     partially addressed in the May 19, 2009
    of 200 people and jobs per hectare by 2031. Requiring such densities will also result in large tracts of land along   ROPA.
    major Greenfield Corridors remaining vacant pending the emergence of market demand. This is not consistent
    with the achievement of transit-supportive, active corridors or the creation of complete communities.                 The policy directions related to density
                                                                                                                          and unit mix in Greenfield Living Area
    In Greenfields areas outside of Centres and Corridors, it will be difficult to achieve a minimum average density of   have been removed from the May 19,
    50 units per net hectare, which is near the upper end of the Medium Density I density range in the Oshawa Official    2009 ROPA.
    Plan. No recent draft plan of subdivision in Oshawa comes close to this density level. Furthermore, draft plans of
    subdivision typically have density blocks located at the periphery of neighbourhoods along arterial roads, in         The minimum average density policies
    accordance with the Oshawa Official Plan locational criteria and good planning principles. Where these density        for Centres, Corridors and Waterfront
    blocks occur along Regional Corridors, such as Harmony Road North, the density is not "counted" towards the           Places have been replaced with long
    achievement of the 50 uph density level required for Greenfields, rather it is counted towards the achievement of     term density targets in the May 19,
    the Regional Corridor density level under the Proposed ROPA. Thus, the internal areas of subdivisions must            2009 ROPA. The targets are now
    achieve a level of density typically found along the periphery and the periphery must be significantly higher than    expressed in units per gross hectare as
    experienced in Oshawa to date, in order to comply with the proposed density targets. Some typical subdivision         opposed to units per net hectare, but
    densities, excluding any portions along Regional Corridors, are as follows:                                           are essentially the same density levels.
L


"   Great Gulf (Springridge) - 21 units per net hectare                                                                   A description of built-form has been
' Great Gulf (Dusty Dawn) - 23 units per net hectare                                                                      added for each of the respective
    Silwell (Park Ridge - north of Coldstream) - 20 units per net hectare                                                 Centres, Corridors and Waterfront
                                                                                                                          Places.
    As noted above, the higher density blocks in plans of subdivisions generally occur along corridors and wouldn't
    contribute to achieving the 50 units per net hectare for Greenfields. Nevertheless, for comparison purposes, the      The Regional Response indicates that
    townhouse components of recent subdivisions, as approved to date, generally fall in the range of 30-45 units per      flexibility is provided to allow area
    net hectare, still below the minimum 50 units per net hectare required for Greenfield Areas outside of Corridors      municipalities to determine the
    and Centres. Therefore, even if the entire Greenfield residential area (outside of Centres and Corridors) was         appropriate density of any given area.
    developed with townhouses, the proposed Regional target would still not be met.

    The minimum average density of 140 units per net hectare proposed for Regional Corridors is also too high. This
    translates to the upper end of the High Density I density level in the Oshawa Official Plan. Under this proposed
    policy, the stacked townhouses previously proposed by Great Gulf on the west side of Harmony Road (a Regional
    Corridor) which had a density of 61.3 units per hectare would be less than half the required density. The four and
    six storey Dundurn student housing proposal on Simcoe Street North has a density of 108 units per net hectare
    which is still below the minimum 140 units per net hectare average density proposed by the Region for a Regional
    Corridor.

    In addition, the PGP requires a minimum density of 50 persons and jobs per hectare for Greenfield areas outside
    of the Built Boundary. However, this would also include Regional and Local Corridors, and Regional and Local
    Centres in Greenfield areas. The Proposed ROPA does not count units in Corridors and Centres in Greenfield
    areas towards the achievement of the PGP target. The Proposed ROPA should be revised to include Corridors

                                                                                                                                                          Page 9
                                                City Comment                                                                    Regional Response
and Centres beyond the Built Boundary in the Greenfield density calculation.

The minimum average densities should be reviewed and decreased significantly as they are too high for
the market realities in Durham Region.

The Proposed ROPA should also count units in Corridors and Centres beyond the Built Boundary towards the
achievement of Greenfield density targets.

15. Interim Non-Compliance:

Policy 8A.2.12 a) iv) appears to enable densities below the targets along Regional Corridors if the ability to        The City's comments have been
increase densities at ultimate build-out can be demonstrated. The Proposed ROPA should go beyond this and the         partially addressed in the May 19, 2009
policies which contain minimum average densities should indicate that, when plann~ngto accommodate the                ROPA.
required minimum average density, area municipalities can also allow for compatible interim uses, such as
recreational uses or parking lots, on medium and high density residential sites until such time as the sites are      Policy 8A.2.12 has been deleted in its
developed with their intended use. This would allow for flexibility in the short term and preserve the longer term    entirety and replaced with a policy to
more intensive use when market conditions and other factors allow for the ultimate development of the site.           require area municipal official plans to
                                                                                                                      provide for the phasing of development
Policy 8A.2.12 should be revised to more clearly permit lower residential densities along Regional Corridors if the   in a manner that implements the targets
ability to increase such densities over time can be demonstrated.                                                     of the DROP. The policies related to
                                                                                                                      minimum average densities have been
The various sections specifying minimum average density in the Proposed ROPA should be revised to                     replaced with overall long-term density
indicate that, where planning to accommodate the required minimum average density, area municipalities                targets.
can also allow for compatible interim uses, such as recreational uses or parking, on medium and high
density sites until such time as the sites are developed with their intended use. Policy 8B.2.5 should also           There are no specific policies to allow
include a provision to allow area municipal official plans (including secondary plans) to permit compatible           interim non-compliance, rather it is left
interim uses, such as recreational uses or parking, on medium and high density residential sites.                     to area municipalities to determine how
                                                                                                                      development in the short term can
                                                                                                                      achieve the overall long term density
                                                                                                                      targets.


16. Urban Growth Centres:

The DROP presently recognizes the Regional Centres in downtown Oshawa and downtown Pickering as Urban                 The City's comments have been
Growth Centres (Policy 8A.2.2b). Other than a different density and FSI target, and a statement that the UGCs         addressed in the May 19,2009 ROPA.
are the dominant Centres in the Region, no particular significance is applied to UGCs in the Proposed ROPA. The
policies for UGCs should provide for a higher order of significance than is currently proposed.                       The May 19,2009 ROPA includes
                                                                                                                      additional policies for the Urban Growth
As noted above, UGC's should be delineated on Schedule 'A' - Map 'A4' and the Proposed ROPA should be                 Centres, identifying that they shall be
revised to add policies which strengthen the role of UGC's as priority locations for senior level government          planned as focal areas for institutional,
investment and higher order uses.                                                                                     region-wide public services, major

                                                                                                                                                     Page 10
                                                  City Comment                                                              Regional Res~onse
                                                                                                                 office, commercial, recreational,
                                                                                                                 cultural, entertainment and residential
                                                                                                                 uses, serving as major employment
                                                                                                                 centres supporting higher order transit
                                                                                                                 services.
17. Waterfront Places:

Staff understand that the Harbour Road Land Use Study and the background work that served as the basis of        The Regional Response is that the
Oshawa Official Plan Amendment No. 125 for the Harbour Road area satisfies the requirements of a plan for a      City's conformity exercise will further
Waterfront Place.                                                                                                implement the results of the Harbour
                                                                                                                 Road Land Use Study and the broader
The Region should confirm that the Harbour Road Land Use Study and Oshawa Official Plan Amendment No. 125        vision for the area by introducing a
for the Harbour Road area that was adopted by City Council on April 10, 2007 satisfy the requirements for the    boundary for the Waterfront Place that
preparation of plans for Waterfront Places (Policy 8.3.5) for the Harbour Road lands.                            may include additional lands around the
                                                                                                                 harbour that were not part of the land
                                                                                                                 use study.

                                                                                                                 Regional Planning staff has further
                                                                                                                 advised that development within the
                                                                                                                 Harbour Road Land Use Study Area
                                                                                                                 can proceed based on the Harbour
                                                                                                                 Road Land Use Study and Oshawa
                                                                                                                 Official Plan Amendment No. 125.
18. Sensitive Uses in Employment Areas:

Policy 8C.2.2 indicates that sensitive uses, other than residential uses, may be permitted as an exception in    The City's comments were not
Employment Areas subject to applicable policies in area municipal official plans.                                specifically addressed in the May 19,
                                                                                                                 2009 ROPA.
The use of the term "as an exception" implies that a rezoning, at a minimum, would be required at the area
municipal level. This may be too onerous for some uses which are included in the definition of sensitive uses,   The Regional Response is that
such as places of worship.                                                                                       community facilities are generally
                                                                                                                 discouraged from locating in
The Proposed ROPA should be revised to discourage sensitive uses in Employment Areas but allow area              Employment Areas, subject to Policy
municipal official plans and zoning by-laws to determine which uses are appropriate in various types of          8C.2.2. Policy 8C.2.2 provides the
Employment Areas.                                                                                                flexibility for area municipal official
                                                                                                                 plans to permit such uses as they deem
                                                                                                                 a~~ro~riate.
19. Personal Service and Retail Uses in Employment Areas:

Policy 8C.2.14 allows limited personal service and retail uses serving the immediate Employment Area to be       The City's comments have been
permitted as a minor component, provided that such uses do not exceed 10% of the aggregate gross floor area      addressed in the May 19,2009 ROPA.
and a single use does not exceed 500 sq. m. This policy requires some clarification.

                                                                                                                                               Page 1I
                                                     City Comment                                                                  Regional Response
                                                                                                                         The May 19,2009 ROPA has been
The Proposed ROPA should be revised to clarify that the aggregate gross floor area is measured over the entire           amended to clarify that the policy
Employment Area. There should also be clarification regarding how this is measured for Employment Areas                  applies to "the aggregate gross floor
which, in some cases, also cross municipal boundaries.                                                                   area of the uses in the designated
                                                                                                                         Employment Area."
Policy 8C.2.15 allows for retail sales as an ancillary component of an industrial operation of 10% or less of the
gross floor area of the main building. In staffs experience, this figure is too low and should be left to the area       The May 19,2009 ROPA has been
municipalities to specify appropriate levels. It is noted that the Oshawa Zoning By-law No. 60-94 allows sales           amended to delete the restriction of
outlets on the same lot that are up to 25% of the gross floor area, to a maximum of 45% of the gross floor area for      ancillary sales to 10% of the gross floor
an individual tenant where there are multiple tenants. The proposed policy would not allow, for example, the             area in Employment Areas. The
Harley Davidson dealership on Champlain Avenue which has considerably more than 10% of the gross floor area              Regional Response indicates that the
devoted to sales.                                                                                                        area municipal official plans must
                                                                                                                         provide specific direction on what
In addition, it should be clear that the ancillary sales floor area is not included as part of the limited personal      "minor" is for the purposes of the policy.
service and retail uses floor area referenced in Policy 86.2.14.

The Proposed ROPA should be revised to delete the reference to 10% or less of the gross floor area for ancillary
sales and to indicate that the floor area used for ancillary sales is not included in the limited personal service and
retail sales limits identified in Policy 86.2.14.

20. Major Retail Uses in Employment Areas:

Policy 8C.2.16 indicates that major retail uses shall not be permitted in Employment Areas, except where currently       The City's comments have been
designated as a permitted use in an area municipal official plan.                                                        addressed in the May 19,2009 ROPA

This is inconsistent with the recommendation of the consultant in the Final Recommended Growth Scenario and              The May 19,2009 ROPA includes a
Policy Directions report that retail and major retail uses be permitted along Employment Corridors should the site       site specific policy to allow major retail
provide an appropriate transition to a Living Area or be strategically located to serve both Employment and Living       uses along the north side of Taunton
Area uses and comply with density targets and compact form parameters.                                                   Road West between Goodman and
                                                                                                                         Oshawa Creeks in the City of Oshawa
The City is on record as requesting that the ROPA allow commercial uses along the north side of Taunton Road             provided a transportation impact study
West between Goodman and Oshawa Creeks to take advantage of the exposure along Taunton Road West and to                  is prepared and submitted to the
create a prestige gateway into the City. While the Growing Durham Study recommended a policy for major retail            Region for its approval; and the
uses in Employment Areas that would achieve this objective, the Proposed ROPA does not. At a minimum, the                development addresses the higher
Proposed ROPA should be revised to include a site specific policy for the Taunton Road West lands in Oshawa.             density form and function targets of the
                                                                                                                         DROP. The Regional Response notes
It is noted that applications have been submitted to amend the DROP and the Oshawa Official Plan by Valiant              that this is considered to be a minor
Property Management for retail warehouse uses on Thornton Road South abutting the Consumers Drive                        adjustment to the permissions in this
extension. If these applications are not approved prior to the adoption of the Proposed ROPA, this proposed              area.
policy framework would not allow the approval of the applications.
                                                                                                                         The definition of Major Retail Use has
The Proposed ROPA should be revised to include a site specific policy to allow for commercial uses in an                 been revised to delete the reference to
Employment Area for the Taunton Road West lands in Oshawa.                                                               supermarkets and department stores
                                                                                                                                                         Page 12
                                                      City Comment                                                                 Regional Response
                                                                                                                          not being allowed in Major Retail Uses.
    The definition for Major Retail Use IS derived from the definition of Retail Warehouses in Employment Areas
    presently in the DROP and excludes supermarkets and department stores. This definition of Major Retall Use
    should be further reviewed to reflect the current proposed policy approach which also permits Major Retail Uses in
    Centres.

    21. Employment Corridors:

    Policy 8A.2.13 encourages uses with the greatest potential for high employment densities to locate along              The City's comments have been
    Employment Corridors. This approach could conflict with efforts to locate such uses in the Urban Growth Centre        addressed in the May 19, 2009 ROPA.
    which should be similarly encouraged.
                                                                                                                          The May 19,2009 ROPA includes new
    The Proposed ROPA should also encourage uses with the greatest potential for high employment densities to be          policies for Urban Growth Centres,
    located in Urban Growth Centres. The Proposed ROPA should also specifically identify that this policy applies to      including that they be planned as focal
    office uses with the greatest potential for high employment densities.                                                areas for major office uses and serve
                                                                                                                          as major employment centres.
    22. Employment Conversions:

    Policy 8C.2.17 indicates that the conversion of Employment Areas lands in downtown or regeneration areas shall        NO change was made to the May 19,
    be considered through a comprehensive review pursuant to the provisions of the PPS. Definitions are provided for      2009 ROPA in response to the City's
    downtown areas (designated Centre characterized by its historical significance, as a focal point for the broader      comments regarding regeneration
-' community) and regeneration areas (an area designated in an area municipal official plan through a municipal
- '
 -                                                                                                                        areas.
    comprehensive review, with vacant lands andlor buildings that are in need of revitalization that will foster growth
'S' and physical change and bring new life to the area. These areas may include brownfield or greyfield sites).
                                                                                                                          The Regional Response is that the
    Clarification is required on the expected process for employment conversions in regeneration areas. The definition    policy (now 8C,2. 5) does not preclude
    implies that regeneration areas must first be designated as such in an area municipal official plan prior to          the identification and redesignation of a
    considering an amendment to redesignate them to a different use. These processes should be able to occur              regeneration area in a single process,
    through a single comprehensive review and amendment process and the policyldefinition should ensure that this         therefore it is not necessary to amend
    can happen.                                                                                                           the policy further.
    The Growing Durham Study specifically recommended the conversion of the Harbour Road and ACSYS lands.                 The Regional Response with respect to
    Staff understands that the Growing Durham Study would satisfy the comprehensive review requirements to                the Harbour Road and ACSYS lands is
    support the conversion of the Harbour Road area and the ACSYS lands as regeneration andlor downtown areas in          that the Growing Durham Study has
    the City's Official Plan.                                                                                             supported the previous decisions of
                                                                                                                          Regional Council related to the
    The Proposed ROPA should be revised to clarify that a comprehensive review and area municipal official plan           redesignation of certain lands in
    amendment can identify a regeneration area and redesignate the lands in a single process.                             downtown Oshawa and in the Oshawa
                                                                                                                          Harbour area from "Employment Areas"
    The Region should confirm that the Growing Durham Study satisfies the requirements for an area municipal official     to .living Areas. and that it will be
    plan amendment to implement the conversion of the Harbour Road and ACSYS lands and proceed to approve                 necessary for the related OMB
    OPA 125 for the Harbour Road area upon resolution of the related MMAH appeal of ROPA 114.                             proceedings to determine if the
                                                                                                                          redesignation is approved and likewise

                                                                                                                                                         Page 13
                                                      Citv Comment                                                                         Reaional R ~ S D O ~ S ~
I                                                                                                                          I   if the City's OPA 125 can be approved.       I
    23. Phasing Plans for Employment Areas:

    Policy 8C.2.19e requires area municipal official plans to ensure the inclusion of detailed plans to demonstrate how        The City's comments have been
    density targets will be achieved at ultimate build-out. The Growing Durham Study had recommended that                      addressed in the May 19,2009 ROPA.
    development applications for large sites be required to include a phasing plan which demonstrates compliance
    with density targets at final build-out. Policy 8C.2.19e should be amended to specify that area municipalities shall       The May 19, 2009 ROPA has revised
    ensure the inclusion of policies to require detailed plans to demonstrate how density targets will be achieved at          the policy to require area municipal
    ultimate build-out. As worded, the policy implies that the municipality should prepare and include phasing plans in        official plans to include policies for the
    the official plan as opposed to requiring applicants to prepare phasing plans on a site specific basis.                    phasing of development on large
                                                                                                                               parcels in Employment Areas.
    The Proposed ROPA should be revised to clarify that area municipal official plans shall include policies to require
    detailed plans to demonstrate how density targets will be achieved at ultimate build-out as opposed to the present
    wording which implies that the municipality must prepare such plans.

    24. Townline Road Interchange:
    The City had previously requested that the Recommended Growth Scenario include a possible future Highway 407               The City's comments have been
    interchange at Townline Road North. The Final Recommended Growth Scenario included a symbol for a future                   addressed in the May 19,2009 ROPA
    Highway 407 interchange at Townline Road but the Proposed ROPA does not. The ongoing Environmental                         through a map change rather than a
    Assessment process does not provide for a future Townline Road interchange, however, staff are advised that the            policy change.
    Environmental Assessment study does not preclude an interchange if it can be justified at a later date. In lieu of a
    symbol on the schedule, it is suggested that a policy be included which indicates an intent to consider this               Schedule 'C' - Map 'C2" has been
    interchange in the future.                                                                                                 revised to include a Future Interchange
                                                                                                                               symbol at the intersection of Highway
    The Proposed ROPA should be revised to include a policy indicating that the Region and the City of Oshawa will             407 and Townline Road therefore a
    investigate the potential for a future Highway 407 interchange at Townline Road.                                           policy is not needed.

    25. GO Train Stations:

    In Oshawa, it is critical that GO Transit and Metrolinx commit to an extension of GO Train service to Clarington on        The City's comment with respect to a
    the CP Rail line with new stations on the CP Rail line in Oshawa that can materially impact the realization of the         policy supporting the extension of GO
    Transportation Hub and Urban Growth Centre.                                                                                rail service through Oshawa on the CP
                                                                                                                               rail line was not addressed.
    The Proposed ROPA should be revised to amend Policy 11.3.21 to reference that Regional Council
    supports the extension of GO rail service through Oshawa to Bowmanville on the CP rail line.

    Policy 11.3.18 indicates that development adjacent to Transportation Hubs, Commuter Stations and Transit Spines            The City's comment with respect to
    shall provide for complementary higher density and mixed uses.                                                             Policy 11.3.18 has been addressed in
                                                                                                                               the May 19,2009 ROPA.
    Policy 11.3.18 in the Proposed ROPA has merit for a number of GO Train Stations but should recognize that some
    GO Train Stations, such as the existing Oshawa GO Train Station, are located in Employment Areas, and are not              Policy 11.3.18 has been amended to
    suitable for residential or mixed use developments.                                                                        require the area municipal official plans

                                                                                                                                                                Page 14
                                                  City Comment                                                         I             Regional Response
                                                                                                                           to delineate the boundaries and land
                                                                                                                           use designations of commuter stations
                                                                                                                           and transportation hubs and determine
                                                                                                                           the appropriate land uses in the vicinity
                                                                                                                           of the stations.
26. Regional Support for Key Economic Drivers, Regional Centres and Regeneration Areas:

Policy 3.3.8 indicates support and promotion of the rejuvenation, redevelopment and renewal of Regional Centres,           No change to the May 19, 2009 ROPA
regeneration areas and brownfield sites and Policy 3.3.10 recognizes the importance of key economic drivers that           was made in response to the City's
will influence the future growth and development of the Region, including UOITIDurham College, and Highways                comment.
401 and 407. There is a need for clearer and stronger policies on how the Region will support these areas and
key drivers such as priority to infrastructure investment and financial incentives. The Region's recent lack of            The Regional Response is that Policy
financial support for brownfield remediation in relation to Dundurn's student housing development demonstrates             5.2.3 identifies that the Region will give
the need for such policies.                                                                                                priority to development and
                                                                                                                           redevelopment proposals which
The Proposed ROPA should be revised to include stronger policies on how the Region intends to support                      produce an intensive and compact form
and promote the rejuvenation, redevelopment and renewal of Regional Centres, regeneration areas and                        of development and that no further
brownfield sites and key drivers including UOlTlDurham College, and Highways 401 and 407 through                           revisions are recommended.
priority to infrastructure investment and financial incentives.

27. Definitions:

The definitions for low density and high density development are defined by building form rather than density
                                                                                                                       I   The City's comments have been
ranges. The building form should be described as a representative building form typically associated with the              addressed through other changes made
density level but recognition should be given to the fact that other housing forms may achieve the same level of           to the May 19,2009 ROPA.
density. Also, a definition of medium density development is not provided. A suitable definition should be
provided to recognize this intermediate level of density and reference should be provided in appropriate policies to       Definitions for low and high density
medium density development.                                                                                                residential development have been
                                                                                                                           deleted since the references to them in
The Proposed ROPA should be revised to indicate that the building forms identified for low density and high                policy have been removed. On this
density residential development in the definitions are representative building forms and that other building forms         basis, there is no need to include a
may achieve the same densities. The Proposed ROPA should also be revised to include a definition of medium                 definition for medium density residential
density development.                                                                                                       development.

28. Additional Comments:

The Proposed ROPA should be revised to amend Policies 4.2.6 and 7.3.12g to indicate that the minimum 10 year
                                                                                                                       I   The City's comments have been
housing and employment land needs are to be assessed on a Region-wide basis.                                               addressed in the May 19,2009 ROPA.
The Proposed ROPA should be revised to amend Policy 8A.2.2a to more clearly specify that institutional uses                The May 19,2009 ROPA has been
(such as colleges and universities) are permitted in Regional Centres.                                                     revised to clarify that matters
                                                                                                                           referenced in Policies 4.2.6 and 7.3.12g
                                                                                                                                                           Page 15
                                                 City Comment                                                                   Regional Response
The Proposed ROPA should be revised to amend Pollcy 5.2.1 to indicate that "Cultural and health facilities that are   are to be assessed on a Region-wide
deemed to be sensitive uses shall generally be discouraged from locating in the Employment Areas designation,         basis.
subject to Policy 8C.2.2" similar to the wording that is used for Policy 5.2.2 for community facilities.
                                                                                                                      The May 19,2009 ROPA has been
The Proposed ROPA should be revised to amend Policy 8C.2.14, to clarify that restaurants are also permitted           revised to include institutional uses in
uses, along with limited personal service and retail uses, as a minor component in Employment Areas.                  Regional Centres.

                                                                                                                      The May 19,2009 ROPA has been
                                                                                                                      amended to add the words "that are
                                                                                                                      deemed to be sensitive uses" as
                                                                                                                      requested.

                                                                                                                      The Regional Response indicates that
                                                                                                                      limited personal service and retail uses
                                                                                                                      are intended to include restaurants.




                                                                                                                                                      Page 16
                  City of Oshawa Resolution - May 13, 2009



The recommendation in Report DS-09-200 was approved by the Development
Services Committee along with a further recommendation that the Region be
requested to:

   a)   modify Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128 to redesignate the nine
        properties on the south side of Winchester Road East, from 1225
        Winchester Road East to 1345 Winchester Road East, inclusive, from
        Prime Agricultural Areas to Employment Areas in the 2031 timeframe; or

   b)   alternatively, if accommodating this request requires an equivalent amount
        of proposed Employment Areas lands to be removed elsewhere in order to
        balance the overall supply of land in Employment Areas, that the Region
        undertake the modification outlined in a) and also modify Regional Official
        Plan Amendment No. 128 to retain the Prime Agricultural Areas
        designation for an equivalent amount of land proposed to be redesignated
        as Employment Areas located north of the future Highway 407, west of
        Ritson Road and the Oshawa Creek valley.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:7/27/2011
language:English
pages:45