the corporation of the town of ajax ... -...

The Corporation of the Town of Ajax COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

Monday, January 15, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Town Hall 65 Harwood Avenue South

AGENDA Alternative formats available upon request by contacting:

[email protected] or 905-619-2529 ext. 3347 ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Online Agendas Anything in blue denotes an attachment/link. By clicking the links on the agenda page,

you can jump directly to that section of the agenda.

C. Jordan, Chair

1. Call To Order 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest 3. Adoption of Minutes

3.1 Regular Minutes – December 4, 2017 ............................................................................ 2 4. Public Meeting

4.1 Telecommunication Tower Application TF1/16

Metrolinx Radio Communication Tower 90 Westney Road South (Ajax GO Station Lands), S. Smallwood, Director of Planning & Development Services / A. Dunn, Development Planner ............................................................................................. 10

5. Presentations / Reports

5.1 Bill 139 Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 Transition

Regulations, Proposed Regulations for the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal Act, and

Amendments to Existing Regulations, S. Smallwood, Director of Planning & Development Services / S. McCullough, Senior Planner ......................................................................... 21

6. Adjournment

mailto:[email protected]

Minutes of the Community Affairs & Planning Committee Meeting

Held in the Council Chambers, Ajax Town Hall, At 7:00 p.m. on December 4, 2017

Alternative formats available upon request by contacting:

[email protected] or 905-619-2529 ext. 3347

Present: Chair - Regional Councillor - S. Collier

Regional Councillor - C. Jordan Councillors - M. Crawford

- R. Ashby - J. Dies - P. Brown

Mayor - S. Parish 1. Call to Order

Chair Collier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest. 3. Adoption of Minutes

Moved by: P. Brown Seconded by: J. Dies

That the Minutes of the Community Affairs and Planning Committee Meeting held on November 6, 2017, be adopted.

CARRIED 4. Public Meetings

4.1 Steeple Hill on the Lake & Foremost Financial Corp.

Official Plan Amendment Application OPA11-A1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z1/11 Site Plan Amendment Application SPA4/14 (650 Lake Ridge Road South)

Geoff Romanowski, Supervisor of Planning Development Approvals, provided a presentation reviewing the contents of the report and the recommendations contained therein. G. Romanowski discussed the subject lands and surrounding uses, the proposed development, background information and public consultations to date, planning analysis and conformity with provincial and municipal plans, amendments to the Town’s Zoning

2

mailto:[email protected]

Community Affairs & Planning Committee December 4, 2017

By-law, proposed holding provisions, and environmental impact. G. Romanowski noted that the application has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant, with hearings scheduled to begin on January 22, 2018. Committee members asked questions regarding the proposed holding provisions and associated monitoring programs, comments from partners and environmental agencies, remedial actions to be taken if contamination is detected, and the process for lifting the holding symbol when appropriate. G. Romanowski noted that the holding provisions would prevent the development of the cemetery site until all of the conditions are met, which include the implementation of testing and monitoring programs as outlined in the report. Staff’s recommendations are based on comprehensive reviews performed by provincial and local environmental agencies and partners, as well as peer reviews conducted by the Town. Lifting of the holding provision would return for Council’s approval at the appropriate time. Chair Collier declared the meeting to be a public meeting and invited comments and questions. Mursal Peerzab, 4 Moynahan Crescent, noted her opposition to the proposal and commented on potential water contamination, home value impacts, and the environmental impacts of cemeteries. Hanna Feek, 732 Lake Ridge Road South, commented that she is opposed to the application and noted that her property is adjacent to the proposal and is on well water, which is at risk of being contaminated. Ms. Feek also noted that the proposal would result in loss of enjoyment of her property. Yasmine Peerzab, 4 Moynahan Crescent, noted that the decision to construct a cemetery at this location is permanent and cannot be reversed. She proposed moving the site to a location with less environmental impact and potential consequences for residents. Scott Waddell, 732 Lake Ridge Road South, noted that he is in opposition to the proposal based on environmental concerns and the potential for water contamination. Mr. Waddell inquired about the amount of fill required for the recommended buffers, and whether the holding provisions can be re-instated in the event of contamination. G. Romanowski explained the buffer requirements, and noted that the holding provision will not be removed until the Town is satisfied that all of the required safety and monitoring programs are implemented. Joe Feek, 732 Lake Ridge Road South, commented that the water table in the area is very high, and as a result the soil in the area is not suitable for burials. Mr. Feek noted concerns about depressed property values in the area and the need for more burial space in Ajax. He commented that he believes the applicant intends to propose to develop the remainder of the golf course into residential development, despite the Greenbelt designation on the lands. Ana Marple, 1 Ontoro Boulevard, commented that she does not believe the relevant health agencies will respond adequately in the event of contamination, and the proposed monitoring systems will not stop contamination if it occurs.

3


There being no further questions or comments from the public, Chair Collier closed the public meeting. Committee members discussed the appeal process before the OMB, input from health and regulatory agencies, the control mechanisms proposed in the holding provisions, risk of well water contamination, and the Region of Durham well interference policy for instances of contaminated well water. Members indicated that they empathize with resident concerns about the sufficiency of the control mechanisms and appropriate responses in the event of water contamination. Moved by: S. Parish Seconded by: R. Ashby 1. That the Town’s solicitor be directed to advise the Ontario Municipal Board that the

Town of Ajax does not oppose Official Plan Amendment Application OPA11-A1, submitted by Steeple Hill on the Lake & Foremost Financial Corp., to amend the Town of Ajax Official Plan, as it relates to a portion of the lands municipally known as 650 Lake Ridge Road South, as provided within Attachment 1 to this report;

2. That the Town’s solicitor be directed to advise the Ontario Municipal Board that the

Town of Ajax does not oppose Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z1/11, submitted by Steeple Hill on the Lake & Foremost Financial Corp., to amend the Town of Ajax Zoning By-law, as it relates to a portion of the lands municipally known as 650 Lake Ridge Road South, as provided within Attachment 2 to this report;


Town of Ajax does not oppose Site Plan Amendment Application SPA4/14, submitted by Steeple Hill on the Lake & Foremost Financial Corp., however, Site Plan Amendment Application SPA4/14 should be referred back to the Town of Ajax in order to finalize all drawings and enter into an appropriate development agreement with Steeple Hill on the Lake & Foremost Financial Corp.;


Town of Ajax does not oppose Land Division Application LD005/2011, submitted by Steeple Hill on the Lake & Foremost Financial Corp., to retain an 8.8 hectare parcel of land for the proposed cemetery, while retaining a 53.7 hectare parcel of land or the continuing operation of the Carruther’s Creek Golf and Country Club; and

5. That the Town’s solicitor be directed to advise the Ontario Municipal Board that

prior to the Town lifting the Holding (H) Provision from any portion of the property that the applicant/owner shall, to the satisfaction of the Town of Ajax, Region of Durham, and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority: i. prepare final versions of all required reports and studies to the satisfaction

of the Town of Ajax, Region of Durham, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority;

4


ii. prepare a groundwater and surface water monitoring program, which includes an outline of the regulatory and/or health-based criteria so that the water quality parameter results can be compared, prior to any construction and continue this program through until the completion of construction, including post-construction monitoring events (in the spring and late summer) in order to document baseline conditions following the completion of site grading, construction, and excavations of each phase of the cemetery;

iii. prepare a monitoring program for microbiological parameters during the

cemetery operation;

iv. prepare a groundwater and surface monitoring program to include ‘continuous’ groundwater level monitoring with the use of a water level pressure transducer in all accessible participating wells prior to construction and continue through to the late summer monitoring event following the completion of construction of each phase of the cemetery;

v. prepare a private water well monitoring program, which includes spring and

late summer post-construction monitoring events in order to document baseline conditions following completion of construction, excavations, and site grading and prior to the operation any portion of the site as a cemetery;

vi. prepare a baseline monitoring program for private water wells located

within 250 metres up-gradient of the groundwater flow;

vii. prepare a well water interference and complaint protocol/program;

viii. prepare a fill monitoring and reporting program;

ix. demonstrate that nitrate loading from the on-site septic beds have been removed; and

x. enter into a site plan agreement with the Town of Ajax, which includes the

finalization of all drawings, reports and studies, submission of securities and insurance certificates, and any other clauses the Town of Ajax, the Region of Durham and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority see appropriate as it relates to the various environmental programs required to operate a cemetery on the subject lands.

CARRIED RECORDED VOTE: In Favour: Councillor Ashby, Councillor Dies, Mayor Parish, Regional Councillor

Collier Opposed: Councillor Crawford, Councillor Brown, Regional Councillor Jordan

5


4.2 Rexell Developments Inc. Official Plan Amendment Application OPA15-A1 Zoning By- law Amendment Application Z3/15 Site Plan Application SP6/15 Block 243, 40M-1677 Southeast corner of Rossland Road West and Harkins Drive

Amanda Dunn, Development Planner, provided a presentation reviewing the contents of the report and the recommendations contained therein. A. Dunn discussed the subject lands, relevant planning policies, amendment to the Town’s Official Plan, the development proposal, landscape design, elevation drawings and floor plans, traffic studies, stormwater management, noise mitigation, environmental assessment, and public consultations. Committee members asked questions regarding the timing of completed traffic impact studies, potential for traffic lights at the intersection of Rossland Road and Harkins Drive, garbage collection, construction noise and hours for permitted construction activity, and restaurant and/or patio uses within the commercial component. A. Dunn noted that the traffic impact study was completed in October of 2015 and did not recommend the installation of traffic lights at the Rossland and Harkins intersection. Garbage collection for both the residential and commercial components of the development will be privately operated through the associated condominium corporation. Derek Hannan, Manager of By-Law Services, explained the Town’s Noise By-law and permitted times for construction activity under the by-law. G. Romanowski noted that restaurants are permitted within the proposed zoning by-law, however patios would not be permitted based on parking and distance limitations within the site. Chair Collier declared the meeting to be a public meeting and invited comments and questions. Terence Day, 42 Isles Street, noted his concern with the design of the proposed development, and commented that the quality of life of neighbouring residents would be impacted during and after construction of the proposed development. Mr. Day commented that the traffic impact study was completed before Rossland Road was opened to Brock Road, which has resulted in a significant increase in traffic. Mr. Day objected to the allowance of restaurant uses on the commercial portion of the development, as well as the proposed three-storey townhouse design. Rob Tyler Morin, 97 Keeble Crescent, inquired about the location of air conditioning units for the proposed townhouses that back onto existing residential properties. G. Romanowski provided clarification on the location of the air conditioning units within each block of the proposed townhouses. Rod Hynes, 44 Isles Street, noted his concern with privacy due to the height of the proposed townhouses, as well as noise from the location of air conditioning units. Mr. Hynes commented that he believes the traffic impact studies are inaccurate after the opening of Rossland Road to Brock Road. G. Romanowski clarified that the height of the proposed townhouses is within the standard 11 metre height for residential properties within Ajax’s zoning by-law. To require a lower maximum height, a further amendment to the zoning by-law amendment would be required.

6


Mayor Parish exited the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Another area resident inquired about stormwater run-off from the property and the traffic impact of the proposed development. G. Romanowski noted that stormwater run-off is to be managed within the site, and that the proposed development does not warrant the installation of a signal at Rossland and Harkins. Lilli Day, 42 Isles Street, commented that the proposed height of the townhouses will have sightline impacts on neighbouring properties and will negatively affect property values.

There being no further questions or comments from the public, Chair Collier closed the public meeting. Chair Collier invited the applicant to address the Committee. Al Ruggero spoke on behalf of the applicant, Rexell Developments, noting that the development would not be viable with two or two and a half storey townhouses, and that significant work has been done on the proposed design. Additional studies have been completed on sightlines and shadow impacts, and the applicant is willing to continue to work with the Town on improving the site plan for the proposed development. Committee members discussed the proposed development and noted concerns with traffic impacts, ingress and egress from the site, impacts to neighbouring properties, and potential improvements to the site plan. Committee members expressed their interest in withdrawing delegated authority for staff to approve the site plan application. Nicole Cooper, Director of Legislative & Information Services / Town Clerk, noted that any individual member of Council may withdraw the delegated approval authority upon request. As such, recommendation 3 of the main motion is stricken, and the site plan application will return to a future meeting for Council’s consideration. Main Motion 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA15-A1, submitted by Rexell

Developments Inc., be approved, to amend the land use designation from “Low Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential” and that staff be authorized to forward the draft official plan amendment to Council for its consideration at a future Council meeting, as provided within Attachment 1 to this report;

2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Z3/15, submitted by Rexell Developments Inc.,

be approved and that staff be authorized to prepare and forward an implementing zoning by-law to Council for its consideration at a future Council meeting, as provided within Attachment 2 to this report; and

3. That Council be advised that staff, in accordance with By-law No. 92-98

(Delegation of Site Plan Approval Authority By-law), intends to approve Site Plan Application SP6/15, submitted by Rexell Developments Inc., to permit the development of a 1-storey commercial building consisting of 7 units and 27, 3-storey, townhouse dwellings within a standard condominium, subject to the applicant finalizing all required drawings and entering into a site plan agreement to the satisfaction of the Town of Ajax.

7


Motion as Amended Moved by: P. Brown Seconded by: C. Jordan 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA15-A1, submitted by Rexell

Developments Inc., be approved, to amend the land use designation from “Low Density Residential” to “Medium Density Residential” and that staff be authorized to forward the draft official plan amendment to Council for its consideration at a future Council meeting, as provided within Attachment 1 to this report; and

2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Z3/15, submitted by Rexell Developments Inc.,

be approved and that staff be authorized to prepare and forward an implementing zoning by-law to Council for its consideration at a future Council meeting, as provided within Attachment 2 to this report.

CARRIED 4.3 2017 Election Sign By-law Derek Hannan, Manager of By-law Services, provided a presentation reviewing the contents of the report and the recommendations contained therein. D. Hannan discussed new definitions and provisions within the by-law, proposed changes to permitted signage size and locations, proposed restrictions on the use of rebar to install election signage due to safety concerns, and reductions to fees for the return of impounded election signs. Committee members asked questions regarding the use of rebar for sign installation and new provisions for registered third party advertisers. D. Hannan noted that the Town has previously encountered safety concerns with rebar lodged in Town owned boulevards. The new provisions pertaining to registered third party advertisers respond to amendments to the Municipal Elections Act approved by the provincial legislature in 2016.

Chair Collier declared the meeting to be a public meeting and invited comments and questions. Irv Murphy, 40 Millington Crescent, noted his objection to the proposed restriction on rebar for election signs, and sought clarification on the installation of election signs on industrial properties. D. Hannan noted that election signs are permitted in the industrial area, so long as they are located on private property if the abutting road allowance is not permitted for election sign installation under the by-law.

There being no further questions or comments from the public, Chair Collier closed the public meeting.

Moved by: J. Dies Seconded by: P. Brown That the proposed Election Sign By-law (ATT-1) be brought forward to the Council meeting of December 11, 2017 for approval.

CARRIED

8

Community Affairs & Planning Committee December 4, 2017 5. Presentations / Reports

None 6. Adjournment

Moved by: C. Jordan Seconded by: R. Ashby That the December 4, 2017 meeting of the Community Affairs and Planning Committee be adjourned. (9:49 p.m.)

CARRIED

_____________________________ Chair

_____________________________ D-Clerk

9

TOWN OF AJAX REPORT REPORT TO: Community Affairs and Planning Committee SUBMITTED BY: Susan Smallwood, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning and Development Services PREPARED BY: Amanda Dunn, MCIP, RPP Development Planner SUBJECT: Telecommunication Tower Application TF1/16 Metrolinx Radio Communication Tower 90 Westney Road South (Ajax GO Station Lands) WARD: 3 DATE OF MEETING: January 15, 2018

RECOMMENDATION: That Telecommunication Tower Application TF1/16, submitted by Metrolinx, proposing to erect a 60 metre tall tri-pole lattice radio communication tower and associated equipment compound, be supported, subject to the proponent finalizing all required drawings to the satisfaction of the Town of Ajax.

1.0 SUMMARY: Metrolinx has submitted Telecommunication Tower Application TF1/16, to permit a 60 metre tall tri-pole lattice radio communication tower and associated equipment compound on lands owned by Metrolix at the Ajax GO Station. 2.0 BACKGROUND: On October 7, 2016, Metrolinx submitted Telecommunication Tower Application TF1/16 located at the southwest corner of Westney Road South and Highway 401. Metrolinx owns two parcels of lands adjacent to Westney Road South (100 Westney Road South and 90 Westney Road South). The Ajax GO Station, associated parking structure, and affiliated commercial uses are situated on these lands. The submitted telecommunication tower application is to seek the Town’s concurrence for a radio communication tower on the subject lands. 2.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s concurrence regarding the proposed installation of a radio communication tower submitted by Metrolinx for a 60 metre tall tri-pole tower with an associated equipment compound. The radio tower is to provide enhanced radio communication coverage in the Ajax area for the safety and security of both GO Transit users and Durham Region Transit passengers and employees. Further, the proposed tower will provide the necessary

10

Subject: Telecommunication Tower Application TF1/16 Metrolinx Radio Communication Tower 90 Westney Road South

Page 2

network connections required for the collocated Durham Transit’s Westney Dispatch Centre located at 110 Westney Road South. The approval of siting and design for a telecommunication tower is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and is therefore not subject to the requirements of the Planning Act. Town of Ajax Council adopted a Policy for Establishing Telecommunication Towers and Antenna Facilities on March 25, 2013. The Policy establishes parameters around site selection, submission details and consultation requirements. As part of this process, the local land-use authority (i.e. Council) is requested to provide concurrence for proposed installations at subject sites. However, in the event that the local land-use authority does not concur with the proposal, the proponent will request a decision from Industry Canada on the matter. The proponent can only commence installation of an antenna system after the consultation process has been completed by the land-use authority, or Industry Canada confirms concurrence with the Default Consultation Process. 2.2 Proposal The proposed telecommunication Tower consists of a 60 metre tall tripole lattice structure and an associated prefabricated steel galvanized equipment shelter approximately 15.5m2 in size, which is proposed to be installed on a concrete pad, and located approximately 241 metres from Westney Road South (See Figure 2 – Proposed Tower Site Plan). The compound will be approximately 170m2 at the base of the tower and will house radio equipment, backup battery power, maintenance tools and a first aid kit. The compound will be enclosed by a 2.4 metre tall black vinyl chain link fence. No additional landscaping is proposed as part of this tower installation as the compound is completely screened from public view from Westney Road South and by the GO Station parking structure. No existing trees will be removed or impacted as a result of the proposed development. No lights are proposed on the tower as Transport Canada’s assessment was that no lighting or marking will be required. Access to the tower is proposed from Westney Road South and will be connected to an existing paved asphalt path by a gravel access and will be used for construction and maintenance purposes only, and will be blocked by a chain link gate. There are no existing structures suitable for co-location in close proximity to the proposed installation that could provide the necessary radio coverage and microwave linking capabilities for Metrolinx. 2.3 Subject Lands and Surrounding Area The subject lands encompass an area of approximately 4.29 hectares (10.6 acres) and are located on the south side of Highway 401 and the CN Rail/GO Transit Line and west of Westney Road South. The subject lands currently house the Ajax GO Station and the associated parking structure and surface parking lot. (See Figure 1 – Subject Lands) as well as several commercial buildings. The subject lands are surrounded by the following land uses: North: Immediately north of the subject lands is the GO Transit line and the Canadian

National Railway Line and Highway 401. Further north across the 401 are residential lands comprised of single detached dwellings.

East: To the east is 100 Westney Road South, also owned by Metrolinx. These lands

include the Ajax GO Station as well as commercial uses associated with the GO Station. Further east, is Westney Road South, and along the east side of Westney

11


Page 3

Road South is a commercial/industrial plaza consisting of uses such as a Kitchen Showroom, Daycare Tower and a Welcome Centre for Immigrant Services.

12


Page 4

Application File No.: TF1/16 Applicant: Metrolinx Date: January 8, 2018

Figure 1 Subject Property

Town of Ajax Planning and Development Services

Proposed location of Radio Communication

Tower.

13


Page 5


Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan


South: To the south are lands owned by the Region of Durham where the Durham Region

Transit Depot is located. West: To the west of the subject lands are valley lands associated with the Duffins Creek

and regulated by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and beyond the valley is Annandale Golf & Curling Club.

2.4 Review Process The applications were submitted on October 7, 2016 and deemed complete on October 20, 2016. The application was circulated to internal departments and external agencies including the Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Transportation, GO Transit Operations – Railway Corridors, CN Business Development & Real Estate, The Corporation of the City of Pickering and Durham Region Transit. Comments received to-date have been included within the review of the telecommunication application. 2.5 Communications In accordance with Industry Canada Default Consultation Process and with the Town’s Policy for Establishing Telecommunication Towers and Antenna Facilities, the applicant prepared and circulated a Notice of Public Open House to assessed property owners within three times the height of the tower (180 metres) of the subject lands. The notice included an invitation to attend the Public Open House meeting held at Ajax Town Hall in the River Plate Room on September 28th, 2017. The Public Open House on September 28, 2017, was attended by Councillor Joanne Dies. No members of the public were in attendance, nor were there any written responses received. 3.0 PLANNING AND POLICY CONTEXT: 3.1 Industry Canada Protocol Industry Canada regulates the installation of telecommunication towers and antennae by wireless service providers (e.g. Rogers Wireless, Bell Mobility, Telus Mobility, Wind Mobile, and Public Mobile). Under the legislative authority of the Radiocommunication Act, the Minister of Industry Canada may, taking into account all matters that the Minister considers relevant for ensuring the orderly development and efficient operation of radiocommunication in Canada, issue radio authorizations and approve each site on which radio apparatus, including antenna systems may

14


Page 6

be located. The Minster may also approve all masts, towers and other antenna supporting structures. In addition to roles and responsibilities related to co-location and consultation with the land use authority as well as the public, proponents must also fulfill other important obligations including compliance with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 Guideline for the protection of the general public; compliance with radio frequency immunity criteria; notification of nearby broadcasting stations; environmental considerations; and Transport Canada/NAV Canada aeronautical safety responsibilities. 3.2 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject lands are currently designated ‘Employment Areas’ and ‘Regional Corridors’ within the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP). The predominant use of lands within the Employment Area are for manufacturing, assembly and processing of goods, service industries, research and development facilities, warehousing, offices and business parks, hotels, storage of goods and materials, freight transfer and transportation facilities. In the development of Employment Areas, provisions shall be made for transit and active transportation, and the development of transit-supportive, compact built form. 3.3 Town of Ajax Official Plan The Town of Ajax Official Plan designates the subject lands ‘GO Transit Station Mixed Use Area’. The GO Transit Station Mixed Use Area permits a broad variety of prestige employment and commercial activity as well as utilities. Public uses and utilities are permitted within all land use designations, with the exception of the Environmental Protection designation. Section 2.5.4.5 of the Official Plan addresses the siting and design of telecommunication facilities as follows:

encourage towers and antenna systems to be located in a manner such that visual impacts are minimized, including:

o co-locating new facilities on existing towers, structures, or buildings; o locating antenna systems on hydro transmission towers; o locating towers within or adjacent to hydro transmission corridors; o using alternative tower structures or masking the tower so that it blends with the

surrounding development; and o locating towers in areas zoned General Employment and Heavy Employment.

encourage towers and antenna systems to be designed to minimize visual impacts using fencing and tree and shrub plantings around the perimeter;

encourage the design of the equipment shelter adjacent to residential areas to reflect the architecture of the adjacent residential area; and

require proponents of new wireless telecommunication towers and antenna systems that meet the criteria in the Town’s Policy for Establishing Telecommunication Tower and Antenna Facilities to undertake public consultation in accordance with the abovementioned polices.

3.4 Town of Ajax Zoning By-law

15


Page 7

The subject lands are zoned General Commercial (GC) Zone under Zoning By-law 95-2003, as amended. Section 4.1.2 Public Uses of Zoning By-law 95-2003 states: The provisions of this By-law shall not apply to prevent the use of any land, building or structure by any public authority (the Government of Canada, Province of Ontario, Regional Municipality of Durham, or Town of Ajax), except in an Environmental Protection (EP) Zone provided that:

i) such use, building or structure complies with all applicable regulations, parking and loading requirements of the zone in which it is located;

ii) such use shall not adversely affect the character or amenity area of the area in which it is located; and,

iii) so outdoor storage is permitted unless such outdoor storage is specifically permitted in the zone in which the use is located.

3.5 Town of Ajax - Policy for Establishing Telecommunication Towers and Antenna

Facilities A Policy for Establishing Telecommunication Tower and Antenna Facilities was adopted by Town of Ajax Council on March 25, 2013. This policy establishes the consultation process for selecting the preferred location and design of towers according to the area context. The policy also includes the requirement for pre-consultation, submission details regarding the location, siting and site design, and public consultation through a public open house or information session. Under this policy, the proposal is subject to a public consultation process, including holding of a Public Open House and by mailing out information notices to local residents.

4.0 PLANNING ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY: 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The proposed radio communication tower is consistent with the applicable policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan as the proposed tower is providing for development that is transit supportive and provides a use that encourages transportation facilities of Metrolinx and Durham Region Transit. 4.2 Town of Ajax Official Plan The proposed telecommunication Tower addresses the policies set out in the Official Plan in the following manner:

the proposed tower would provide an opportunity to accommodate future technology services as well as potential co-location with other licensed carriers helping to reduce the number of future structures in the area. The proposed tower was not able to co-locate with existing towers due to the lack of existing infrastructure in the immediate area that could accommodate capacity requirement. There is one sole communication site operated by Bell at 230 Westney Road South, however it was deemed to be inadequate in terms of

16


Page 8

providing the necessary network radio coverage or microwave linking capabilities. No other tower exists within a 1.5 km radius of the proposed site;

there are no hydro transmission towers, or corridors in the vicinity; visual impact of the tower and equipment cabinets is minimized due to the location of the

tower on the subject lands, which is setback approximately 241 metres from Westney Road, is located to the west of the existing GO Transit parking structure and is setback 180 metres from the closest residential property;

the proposed tower will not require NAV Canada or Transport Canada markings or lighting features, and will be painted white, which will help reduce the visibility of the tower; and

the equipment shelter will be fenced with a 2.4 metre black vinyl chain link fence surrounding the compound and will be screened from views from the east by the existing GO Transit parking structure, and views from the west by existing mature trees along the western property line.

17


Page 9


Figure 3 Photo Stimulations


View looking Southwest View looking North

18


Page 10

Official Plan policies related to telecommunication facilities have been taken into account through the review of this application and staff find the proposal to be appropriate. 4.3 Town of Ajax Zoning By-law There are no zoning non-compliances associated with this proposal. The proposed use complies with all applicable regulations and in accordance with Section 4.1.2. It does not adversely affect the character or amenity of the area in which it is located and no outdoor storage is proposed beyond the required compound associated with the tower which meets the zoning provisions. 4.4 Town of Ajax - Policy for Establishing Telecommunication Towers and Antenna

Facilities The proponent of this application adhered to the requirements of the Town of Ajax Policy for Establishing Telecommunication Towers and Antenna Facilities. The policy document provides preferred locations when determining the site selection of a proposed tower. The proposal is not within the most preferred locations as it is in closer proximity to residential use than preferred. The policy stipulates a tower location is preferred to be six times the height of the proposed tower (360 m) away from residential; whereas, the proposed tower is located three times the height of the tower from residential (180 m). Although the tower is located in a less than preferred location staff feel that there will be no significant impacts from the presence of the tower to surrounding uses, especially since it is separated from the residential use by Highway 401 and the rail lines. 4.5 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) The subject property is located within the TRCA Regulated Area of the Duffins Creek watershed under Ontario Regulation 166/06. The regulation is designed to ensure that projects will not be affected by, or cause, impacts to flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or conservation of land. As such, the applicant was required to submit studies for review to the satisfaction of the TRCA. The proposed tower and compound location was identified to be in close proximity to the top of bank. Due to the proximity to the top of bank the TRCA requested that a Geotechnical Study be submitted which demonstrates that the surrounding area would not be adversely impacted and/or contribute to slope stability issues. A Geotechnical Investigation Report was submitted on May 18, 2016 by Lawrence, Flemming and Associates Limited Consulting Engineers and a Slope Stability Assessment was also submitted on February 13, 2017 by Lawrence, Flemming & Associates Limited in conjunction with their sub consultant Terraprobe Inc. The studies concluded that the top of the stable long term slope coincides with the present top of slope. The proposed tower and associated foundation loadings would not adversely affect the stability of the slope. Following the review of the submitted studies and drawings TRCA had no concerns as all comments were addressed to the satisfaction of TRCA staff. 5.0 SITE DESIGN:

19


Page 11

Planning staff have reviewed the proposal and are satisfied with the siting and design of this Tower. The site maintains adequate separation from residential properties, as the closest residential property is 180 metres away from the base of the tower. The equipment shelter will not be visible from Westney Road as it will be screened by proposed fencing surrounding the compound, an existing GO Transit parking structure associated with the GO Station, and existing mature trees. No vegetation will be impacted by the proposed Tower (See Figure 3 – Photo Simulation). 6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications as a result of approving the recommendations of this report. 7.0 CONCLUSION: The approval of siting and design for a telecommunication tower is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Canada through Industry Canada. At the same time, the Town’s Policy for Establishing Telecommunication Tower and Antenna (March 25, 2013), establishes policies and procedures for the public consultation process and provides guidance on preferred locations and design for telecommunication facilities within the Town of Ajax. Also, Official Plan policies related to telecommunication facilities have been taken into account through the review of this application. There are no co-location opportunities or lands zoned for employment uses in the vicinity. Staff recommend that Council support the proposed telecommunication Tower located at 90 Westney Road South, subject to the proponent submitting final drawings to the satisfaction of the Town. ______________________________________ Amanda Dunn, MCIP, RPP Development Planner

______________________________________ Geoff Romanowski, MCIP, RPP Supervisor of Development Approvals and Planning ______________________________________ Susan Smallwood, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services

20

TOWN OF AJAX REPORT

REPORT TO: Community Affairs and Planning Committee SUBMITTED BY: Susan Smallwood, MCIP, RPP

Director of Planning and Development Services PREPARED BY: Sean McCullough, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner SUBJECT: Bill 139 Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds

Act, 2017 Transition Regulations, Proposed Regulations for the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal Act, and Amendments to Existing Regulations

WARD: All DATE OF MEETING: January 15, 2018 REFERENCE: December 5, 2016 Community Affairs and Planning Committee Report –

Provincial Consultation on the Role on the Ontario Municipal Board in the Provincial Land Use Planning System;

October 2, 2017 Community Affairs and Planning Committee Report -

Ontario Municipal Board Review: Bill 139 Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 (Environmental Registry No. 013-0590)

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That the report to the Community Affairs and Planning Committee dated January 15, 2018 entitled “Bill 139 Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 Transition Regulations, Proposed Regulations for the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal Act, and Amendments to Existing Regulations” be endorsed and submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the Attorney General as the Town’s comments on the Environmental Registry and the Regulation Registry Postings.

2. That the Province consider the following comments in response to proposed regulations under the Planning Act as outlined in EBR Registry Postings No. 013-1788 and No. 013-1790:

a. That the new rules with respect to the appeals under the new Act also apply to

any appeals of applications deemed complete prior to December 12, 2017 (date of Royal Assent) but appealed after that date;

b. That the regulations under the Planning Act require statements in the notices of decision include:

An outline of the applicable appeal rights of interested parties; and

21

Subject: Bill 139 Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, P a g e | 2 Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 (Environmental Registry Numbers 013-1788 and 013-1790; and Regulation Registry No. 17-MAG011)

Advises interested parties of the availability of the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal Support Centre.

c. Additional information should be provided outlining when a Minister’s Zoning

order would be referred to the Tribunal.

3. That the Province consider the following comments in response to proposed regulations under the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal Act as outlined in Ontario Regulatory Registry Posting No. 017-MAG011:

a. Further information on the operations of the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal

should be provided, including: Parameters that establish when an oral hearing would be held by the

Tribunal; and

Notification issued to all interested parties by the Tribunal once an appeal has been validated.

b. Further details on adequate funding resources for the Local Planning Appeals

Tribunal Support Centre should be provided.

4. That the timelines for a municipality to make a decision on complex applications (e.g. Amendments of Official Plans and Zoning By-laws) be further extended to allow municipalities sufficient time to thoroughly review the information and materials submitted in support of the applications.

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In October 2016, the province initiated public consultation on the role of the Ontario Municipal Board in Ontario’s land use planning system and the Town responded to the request for comments in December 2016. On May 30, 2017, as a next step in the review of the Ontario Municipal Board’s role in the land use planning system, the province released Bill 139 (Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017) for first reading which proposed changes to the land use planning appeals process by amending the Planning Act, replacing the Ontario Municipal Board Act with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 and by introducing the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre Act, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the Attorney General released proposed content for regulations on the Environmental Registry and the Regulatory Registry for comments, including:

EBR Registry No. 013-1788

“Proposed new regulation under the Planning Act to prescribe transitional provisions for the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017”1

EBR Registry No. 013-1790

“Proposed amendments to matters included in existing regulations under the Planning Act related to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017”2

1 Link to EBR Posting No. 013-1788: https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-

External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMzODk5&statusId=MjAzNjY4&language=en 2 Link to EBR Posting No. 013-1790: https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-

External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMzOTAx&statusId=MjAzNjcw&language=en

22

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMzODk5&statusId=MjAzNjY4&language=en

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMzODk5&statusId=MjAzNjY4&language=en

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMzOTAx&statusId=MjAzNjcw&language=en

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMzOTAx&statusId=MjAzNjcw&language=en

Subject: Bill 139 Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, P a g e | 3 Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 (Environmental Registry Numbers 013-1788 and 013-1790; and Regulation Registry No. 17-MAG011) Regulatory Registry Posting No. 17-MAG011

“Proposed Regulations under the Proposed Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017”3

On December 12, 2017 Bill 139 received Royal Assent4, changing Ontario’s land use planning appeals system by giving municipal planning decisions greater deference; changing the practices and procedures of how a hearing will be conducted; and providing the public with help in navigating the appeals process. A proclamation date (date at which the act comes into force) has not been determined; however is estimated to occur in the spring of 2018. The purpose of this Report is to advise Committee and Council of the proposed regulations; and make recommendations regarding Environmental Registry Posting Numbers 013-1788 and 013-1790, and Ontario Regulatory Registry Number 17-MAG011. 2.0 DISCUSSION: The Town commends the Province on the work completed to date on Bill 139 which will give municipalities more power to implement provincial and municipal plans and policies. The Minister has issued postings on the Environmental Registry and the Regulation Registry and requested comments by January 21, 2018. The proposed regulations outline transition provisions, procedural timelines, time limits for submissions at oral hearings, practices and procedures at hearings, and amendments to the existing regulations. The following is an overview of the proposed regulations and associated staff comments. 2.1 EBR Registry No. 013-1788 “Proposed new regulation under the Planning Act to

prescribe transitional provisions for the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017”

2.1.1 Transition Rules The Province has issued proposed content for a regulation that establishes a transition framework that provides direction identifying what applications will continue to be processed by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) versus what applications will be processed by the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT). Table 1 below outlines the proposed transition framework:

3 Link to Ontario Regulation Registry Posting No. 17-MAG011:

http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=25796&language=en 4 Link to Bill 139 http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/41_Parliament/Session2/b139ra_e.pdf

Table 1: Proposed Transition Framework

Application Details Appeal Tribunal

Appeals made before Royal Assent (December 12, 2017) OMB

Appeals submitted after Royal Assent

(December 12, 2017) but before

proclamation (Date TBD)

Appeal of an application that was deemed complete before Royal Assent

Appeal of an application that was deemed complete after Royal Assent

LPAT Appeal of municipally initiated Official Plan Amendments

adopted after Royal Assent

Appeal of a municipally initiated Zoning By-law Amendments adopted after Royal Assent

All appeals made after proclamation (date TBD)

23

http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=25796&language=en

http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/41_Parliament/Session2/b139ra_e.pdf


These transitional timelines have also been included in Proposed Regulations under the Proposed Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 posted on the Regulatory Registry Posting (Posting No. 17-MAG011). Comments: The introduction of Bill 139 for first reading on May 30, 2017 followed extensive consultation that began in October 2016. Since the introduction of the Bill for first reading municipalities across the province have received a number of pre-emptive appeals by developers that are strategic in nature in order to have their applications fall under the OMB’s jurisdiction. To date, the Town of Ajax has received one such appeal. The Town also has a number of applications currently being processed that were deemed complete prior to Royal Assent where the decision timelines have either lapsed or are approaching the end. As a result of transition rules outlined above, the Town may receive additional appeals before the proclamation date, which is currently unknown. In order to give municipalities a stronger voice in implementing provincial and municipal plans and policies the Town requests that the Province reconsider the transition timelines, such that appeals of applications filed after December 12, 2017 that were deemed complete prior to Royal Assent be processed under the new rules by the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal. 2.1.2 Additional Planning Act Amendments Bill 139 includes a number of amendments to the Planning Act and in order to provide clarity the regulations identify that the following items will come into force following proclamation:

Remove the ability to appeal provincial approvals of official plans and official plan amendments, including conformity exercises;

Remove the ability to appeal interim control by-laws during the first year (an extension following the first year can be appealed);

Restrict the ability to amend secondary plans during the first two (2) years, unless allowed by Council; and

Provide the Minister with the option to refer a request to amend or revoke all or part of a Minister’s Order to the Tribunal; whereas, the Minister currently has a mandatory obligation to refer requests to review a Minister’s Order to the Ontario Municipal Board.

These transitional timelines have also been included in Proposed Regulations under the Proposed Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 posted on the Regulatory Registry Posting (Posting No. 17-MAG011). Comments: The Town supports the amendments to the Planning Act as outlined above as it will help municipalities implement the policies of provincial plans and municipal plans that have undergone extensive consultation throughout their development. Additional information should be provided outlining when a Minister’s Zoning Order should be referred to the Tribunal by the Minister, including types of disputes that should be referred and criteria to be satisfied when submitting a request to have a Minister’s decision referred to the Tribunal. 2.1.3 Extension of Municipal Decision Timelines Once the Bill comes into force after proclamation, the following timelines that municipalities have to make a decision on an application deemed complete will come into force:

Official Plan Amendments have been extended to 210 days (formerly 180 days); Zoning By-law Amendment have been extended to 150 days (formerly 120 days); Combined Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments have been extended

to 210 days (formerly 180 days). 24


Comments: Staff previously commented that while the proposed amendments to the Planning Act includes the extension of timelines for municipalities to make decisions on official plan amendments and zoning by-law amendments, that these timelines may not be sufficient to review and make decisions on more complex applications. The Town supports the extension of the timelines; however, greater consideration should be given to further extending these timelines. Municipalities should be afforded the time to conduct a thorough review of all information and materials submitted in support of an application, which often require the review by specialized disciplines (e.g. Engineers, etc.). Lengthening the time municipalities have to review an application and make a decision would reduce the number of non-decision appeals and the need for oral hearings. The Town recommends that the Province consider amending the Planning Act to provide municipalities with 12 months to review information and materials and make a decision.

2.2 EBR Registry No. 013-1790 “Proposed amendments to matters included in existing

regulations under the Planning Act related to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017”

Regulations under the Planning Act include minimum requirements with respect to information that must be submitted with each land use planning application, statutory notice requirements and what information must be included in the record of materials submitted to the Ontario Municipal Board. Environmental Registry posting No. 013-1790 proposes to make amendments to O. Reg. 543/06 “Official Plans and Plan Amendments”, O. Reg. 545/06 “Zoning By-Laws, Holding By-Laws and Interim Control By-Laws”, O. Reg. 544/06 “Plans of Subdivision”, O. Reg. 197/96 “Consent Applications”, O. Reg. 200/96 “Minor Variance Applications”, O. Reg. 549/06 “Prescribed Time Period – Subsections 17 (44.4), 34 (24.4) and 51 (52.4) of the Act”, O. Reg. 551/06 “Local Appeal Bodies”, O. Reg. 173/16 “Community Planning Permits” by:

revising what information is to be included in the giving of notice [of decision] (e.g. some decisions would be final and not subject to appeal);

revising what information and material is to be included in a complete application (e.g. to include how an application conforms with the relevant official plan(s));

revising what is required to be forwarded to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal on an appeal (e.g. the municipal statement would need to indicate whether the decision conforms with the relevant official plan(s));

replacing references to Ontario Municipal Board with Local Planning Appeal Tribunal; and/or

updating relevant legislative cross-references.

Comments: Although little information has been provided outlining details of the proposed amendments to the regulations, the Town supports amending the abovementioned Ontario Regulations to provide greater direction to municipalities when receiving complete applications and issuing notices of decision. The Town provides the following general comments:

Information to be included when giving notice:

1. That all Regulations be amended such that a statement be included in the notice of decision that clearly identifies what the appeal rights are for the application identified in the notice of decision, especially for decisions that are final.

2. That all Regulations that have appeal rights to the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal be amended to include a statement in the notice of decision that advises of the availability of

25

Subject: Bill 139 Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, P a g e | 6 Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 (Environmental Registry Numbers 013-1788 and 013-1790; and Regulation Registry No. 17-MAG011) the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal Support Centre to interested parties prior to filing an appeal.

Information to be included in a complete application:

1. Currently, only applications to amend the zoning by-law are required to provide an

explanation of how the application conforms to the applicable Official Plans. An explanation of how a draft plan of subdivision application, consent application, or a minor variance application conform to and/or maintain the general intent of an Official Plan should also be required to be provided.

Revising materials to be forwarded to LPAT:

1. The Town supports the inclusion of a municipal statement indicating whether the decision

conforms with the relevant Official Plans provided that LPAT uses the municipal statement to dismiss appeals that conform to the policy framework as early as possible.

1.3 Ontario Regulatory Posting No. 17-MAG011 – Proposed Regulations under the

Proposed Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act. The Ministry of the Attorney General have issued proposed regulations for the proposed Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act that includes transition framework, tribunal procedural timelines, and hearing procedures. 2.3.1 Tribunal Procedural Timelines The proposed regulation includes timelines in which various applications will proceed through the Tribunal process, which will help provide certainty in the overall appeals process. The proposed timelines are as follows: Table 2: Tribunal Proceeding Timelines

Application Type Decision Appeal Process

Timeline

Official Plans and Amendments

Approval of an Official Plan 10 months Approval of a Town initiated Official Plan

Amendment (OPA) Approval Authority’s failure to make a decision on an OPA 12 months

Municipality’s or Approval Authority’s decision on an OPA 10 months

Zoning By-laws and Amendments

Approval of a Zoning By-law 10 months Municipality’s failure to make a decision Draft Plan of Subdivision

Municipality’s failure to make a decision 12 months

All other applications under the Tribunals Authority (e.g. minor variances) 6 months

In situations where the Tribunal has determined that a municipality’s or approval authority’s original decision was inconsistent with Provincial, Regional and Local policy, the application will be referred back to the municipality or approval authority for the opportunity to make a new decision. If the municipality’s or approval authority’s new decision is appealed a second time to

26


the Tribunal, the Tribunal will have 6 months to conduct the proceedings and render a final decision. All of the timelines outlined in Table 2 would begin from the date the proceeding is validated by the Tribunal. Time will be excluded from the above noted timelines in situations where the Tribunal has granted an adjournment where two or more parties have agreed for the purposes of mediation, or in situations where the Tribunal has determined that an adjournment is required to secure a fair and just determination of the appeal. Any period of time during a stay of an appeal is granted by the Divisional Court would also be excluded. Comments: The Town supports the implementation of timelines to render a fair and timely resolution to the proceedings. It is requested that the Tribunal issue notification to all parties once an appeal has been validated by the Tribunal, thereby initiating the appeal process timelines. It is also unclear whether or not the abovementioned timelines include time associated with scheduling and holding the mandatory case management conference. Further details are requested to be provided. 2.3.2 Tribunal Hearing Procedures It is proposed that evidence provided to the Tribunal would primarily be submitted in a written format; however, the Tribunal has been granted the authority to hold oral hearings for certain appeals of Official Plans and Amendments, Zoning By-laws and Amendments, and non-decisions of draft plans of subdivision. The Ministry is proposing a maximum time limit of 75 minutes for each party to make an oral submission. Persons who the Tribunal have granted participant status to would also be granted a maximum of 25 minutes to make an oral submission to the Tribunal. The Town supports the implementation of maximum time limits as this would significantly reduce the length of time associated with long and costly hearings. Section 42(3)(b) of the LPAT Act identifies that no cross examination of a party or any other person, other than by the Tribunal, will be permitted for appeals outlined in Sections 38(1) and (2) of the LPAT Act which includes the approval of Official Plans and Amendments, Zoning By-laws and Amendments, and a municipality’s failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendments or Draft Plans of Subdivision. Comments: Currently the OMB relies heavily on expert oral evidence and cross examinations. The LPAT Act aims at moving away from lengthy oral hearings and limiting evidence to written materials in the majority of cases. This is generally supported as it avoids unnecessary costs and gives greater weight to original staff recommendation reports. It is unclear whether all appeals identified in Sections 38(1) and (2) of the Act would be granted an oral hearing, or if parameters will be established in the regulations outlining when an oral hearing would be granted. Further, it is unclear whether written materials would be considered for appeals of a non-decision, or if evidence in appeals of a non-decision would rely entirely on oral hearings. It is requested that additional information be provided outlining the detailed process and/or criteria that would be used to establish when an oral hearing would be held; and details regarding the process for appeals of a non-decision. 2.4 Previous Town of Ajax Comments on Bill 139 Bill 139 received royal assent on December 12, 2017. The Town of Ajax submitted comments to the Province on December 5, 2016 following the release of a discussion paper on OMB reform and later reiterated outstanding comments on August 31, 2017 (October 2, 2017 CAP Report) regarding the first reading of Bill 139. Attachment 1 provides a summary of how the Town’s

27


comments have been addressed in the Royal Assent version of Bill 139. The Town continues to reiterate the following comments on Bill 139 prior to proclamation:

There would be no Council decision to be considered by the Tribunal for appeals of a non-decision, unless a Council was ordered to make a decision. In order to fully move away from de novo hearings additional time is required by municipalities to make a decision on complex applications.

The proposed regulations do not make amendments that would require land use planning decisions to be based on municipal policies in places at the time of the decision.

The LPAT Support Centre would deliver general information on land use planning; offer guidance to citizens on the tribunal appeal and hearing process; and provide legal and planning advice at different stages of the tribunal process, including representation in certain cases at case conferences and hearings. However, Bill 139 does not propose any associated funding with this support. Powers for the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre should also include the provision of intervenor funding to further support citizen participation in the appeals process.

3.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with the approval of the recommendations of this report. 4.0 CONCLUSION: The proposed regulations will establish a transition framework prior to Bill 139 coming into force, will help provide municipalities with much needed guidance by amending the existing regulations, and begin to outline the practices and procedures of the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal. Although minimal information has been provided by both the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the Attorney General, staff are generally supportive of information and direction that has been provided to date. However additional amendments, as captured in Planning staff’s comments, can be made to provide greater direction and appropriate transition provisions moving forward. ATT 1: Comparison Chart of Outstanding Bill 139 Comments. ________________________________ Sean McCullough, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner

______________________________ Susan Smallwood, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services

28

Attachment 1: Comparison Chart of Outstanding Bill 139 Comments

Staff Comments on OMB Reform Discussion Paper – December 5, 2016

Staff comments on Bill 139 (EBR Posting No. 010-0590) on October 2, 2017 (outstanding comments bolded)

Staff Comments on Proposed Regulations – January 15, 2018

a. That greater deference to municipal planning decisions be taken by: i. limiting appeals on municipal plans that implement provincial legislation and policy; ii. requiring land use planning decisions to be based on municipal policies in place at the time of decision, and, iii. limiting de novo hearings.

Comment has been partially addressed. Bill 139 proposes amendments to the Planning Act that only allow appeals of the adoption/approval of official plans, official plan amendments, zoning by-laws and zoning by-law amendments that implement provincial policy (e.g. Growth Plan implementation) if they are inconsistent with provincial policy or do not conform to provincial plans. Bill 139 does not propose amendments that would require land use planning decisions to be based on municipal policies in places at the time of the decision. Bill 139 proposes amendments to the Planning Act that would limit de novo hearings by only allowing the Tribunal to overturn municipal decisions that are not consistent with provincial policy or do not conform to provincial plans. In these cases, the Tribunal is required to return the matter to the municipality with written reasons when it overturns a decision to allow the municipality to make a new decision within 90 days.

The proposed regulations do not make amendments that would require land use planning decisions to be based on municipal policies in places at the time of the decision.

29





b. That appeals without merit be dismissed at the earliest possible stage in the appeals process;

Comment has not been addressed. Bill 139 does not propose amendments that would scope the appeal submission process. Staff recommended that it be incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate that the approval authority did not adhere to statutory processes, or that the decision did not demonstrably conform with the planning policies in effect. The content that would need to be specified within the OMB appeal form would need to specify: Which section of provincial planning

legislation (or regulation) to which the decision did not conform;

Which policy (be it provincial, regional or local), to which the decision did not conform; and,

The provisions in the legislation to which the application review process did not follow.

Staff are pleased to see that the Town’s comments have been addressed by amending Clause 17 sub-clauses (25)(b) and (37)(b) of the Act which has been repealed and substituted with: “17(25)(b) explain how the part of the decision to which the notice of appeal relates is inconsistent with a policy statement issued under subsection 3 (1), fails to conform with or conflicts with a provincial plan or, in the case of the Official Plan of a lower-tier municipality, fails to conform with the upper-tier municipality’s Official Plan; and”

c. That the province provide support through funding or additional resources to enable meaningful public participation in the hearing process by residents, neighbourhood associations or other affected persons; and,

Comment has been partially addressed. The province proposes to create the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre as a new provincial agency mandated to provide free and independent advice and representation to Ontarians on land use planning appeals to the OMB. Bill 139 proposes to enact the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre Act, 2017 to implement this direction.

The regulations are intended to provide further direction and not address funding requirements for the LPAT Support Centre. However, Bill 139 still does not propose any associated funding with this support. Powers for the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre should also include the provision of intervenor funding to further

30





The centre would deliver general information on land use planning; offer guidance to citizens on the tribunal appeal and hearing process; and provide legal and planning advice at different stages of the tribunal process, including representation in certain cases at case conferences and hearings. This addresses staff’s comment in that it will provide free support to the public in participating and navigating OMB hearings. However, Bill 139 does not propose any associated funding with this support. Powers for the Local Planning Appeal Support Centre should also include the provision of intervenor funding to further support citizen participation in the appeals process.

support citizen participation in the appeals process. Additionally, the regulations should be clear and include statements in Notices of Decisions issued by municipalities that clearly outline the appeal rights of the applications and direct appellants to the LPAT Support Centre for additional information prior to submitting an appeal.

31

the corporation of the town of ajax ... -...

Documents