1) Official Plan Structure…

1) Official Plan Structure and Contents- Staff are not supportive of this change. Official Plans vary in complexity and length because the policy framework details the unique and local context/characteristics possessed by each individual municipality.

Municipalities should be able to continue determining the structure and content in their respective official plans based on the local context (i.e., urban, sub-urban and rural or in Markham's case a mix of them) which ultimately informs the official plan's goals and policy areas.

The Province should consider providing minimum chapter/content requirements municipalities should include in their official plans, but allowing municipalities to determine how the information is organized.

2) Official Plan Structure and Contents- Urban Design is not identified as a critical heading in the proposed contents and must be included as urban design policies typically articulate a municipality’s vision and direction on desirable urban form and public realm objectives for intensifying mixed-use urban centres, corridors, MTSAs, transit supportive/oriented communities, etc. Removing Urban Design as a distinct chapter heading from the proposed standardized contents would dilute a municipality’s emphasis on its design excellence objectives that ultimately promotes distinctiveness, local identity and character. The Province is requested to add Urban Design to the proposed standardized OP structure.

3) Official Plan Structure and Contents- The proposed OP chapter on “Community Design and Complete Communities” does not adequately capture all urban design matters, such as policies on the public realm, built form, transition, etc.

4) Prohibiting the use of Secondary Plans and Site-Specific Policies- Staff are not supportive of removing secondary plans and/or site-specific policies out of OPs as these tools would have limited weight in formal decision-making processes (e.g., the Ontario Land Tribunal).

5) Prohibiting the use of Secondary Plans and Site-Specific Policies- Secondary plans should be retained as a tool to help manage and direct growth responsibly, allowing for distinctiveness and place defining approaches through policy direction, driving principles and objectives. By removing Secondary plans out of OPS, it becomes a challenge to articulate the city pattern, hierarchy of urban/built form, approach to special character areas and differentiation with areas of the City that will remain generally stable.

6) Prohibiting the use of Secondary Plans and Site-Specific Policies- The use of Secondary Plans and Site specific policies enable municipalities to respond to and address public input and concerns. They also help to identify specific requirements (e.g., servicing, transportation, environmental studies or improvements) to be addressed prior to development.

7)Limiting development/zoning standards- Staff are unsupportive of this change as removing or limiting building heights, lot sizes and densities in official plans.

This change would oppose the direction given by the Province for Markham’s ongoing projects such as inclusionary zoning and/or secondary plan initiatives in which the City was directed to prescribe heights and densities.

The Province will need to provide municipalities with clear direction on how to proceed with these initiatives and clarify whether any previous Provincial directives on development standards would be withdrawn.

8) Limiting development/zoning standards- Removing or shifting critical development standards from Official Plans to Zoning By-laws may limit upfront clarity on design direction at the Official Plan stage of a development application. Shifting the timing of design decisions increases reliance on later stage tools (e.g. site plan, subdivision, etc.) and will increase the overall timing of planning approvals. Limiting design direction at the earlier stages of development review would simply move the bottleneck from OPs to future detailed design review stages, which could impact staff resources.

9) Limiting development/zoning standards- There is increased risk that municipal design controls would be weakened by removing these standards out of the Official Plan. For example, design guidelines and manuals can provide detailed design direction; however, they are not policy and therefore have limited weight in formal decision-making processes (e.g., at the Ontario Land Tribunal).

10) Limiting the length of official plans- Staff are not supportive of this change. The length of a municipality’s official plan reflects its role in covering all necessary aspects to ensure clarity, completeness and usability. Removing non-essential content and/or redundancy is already built into the Official plan review process. Imposing a page limit or word limit could lead to misinterpretation and gaps in understanding.

11) Creating Permissive Land Use Designations- Staff would be unsupportive of reducing the number of land use designations as it may negatively impact a municipality’s ability to track growth. For example, data on residential and job growth may be loss once consolidated affecting growth forecasting.

12) Creating Permissive Land Use Designations- The number and type of land use designations in a municipality’s official plan are based on the city’s local context. There may be opportunities to streamline the land use designations through an official plan review, however this should be confirmed through technical analysis instead of applying a standardized approach that does not consider unique or complex local circumstances.

13) Creating Permissive Land Use Designations- the proposed criteria for Mixed Use I and II currently allows too many permitted uses within those designations and are not distinct enough from the Residential I and II designation.

The Province should revisit the proposed standardized designations and consult further with municipalities to further refine the criteria for each designation, if implemented. For example, consider adding parks and small-scale retail to the Residential I and II designations.

14) Creating Permissive Land Use Designations- The Province should provide municipalities with additional tools to secure certain amenities/implement conditional zoning as this is already a challenge in designated mixed-use areas.

15) Creating Permissive Land Use Designations- Will the Province be providing a clear definition for “low/mid/high-rise” as the Province is also proposing to limiting development standards out of OPs and this can be interpreted differently across municipalities?

16) Creating Permissive Land Use Designations- The Province should consult further and work closely with municipalities, as additional tools (e.g. minimum standards, criteria or holds in implementing zoning by-laws for non-residential uses) will be needed to help municipalities acquire/secure and achieve a true mix of residential and non-residential land uses if more permissive land use designations are contemplated. There is no guarantee that certain land uses required to support the growth and creation of complete communities on lands designated for residential or mixed-use development will be achieved in practice.

17) Transitioning to a New Framework/ General -Staff are generally unsupportive of transitioning to a standardized official plan framework as it does not consider the unique and local context of each municipality.

The Province should be providing timely guidance materials to municipalities on the implementation/transition process, if implemented. It would be preferable for this transition process to be clearly established at the provincial level before implementation externally, as introducing new protocols in real time creates challenges and uncertainty both at the Provincial staff level and municipal staff level.

18) Submission of Official Plans through Online Portal- Staff would be supportive of this change to reduce delays caused by manual handling, fax transmission and to by-pass any courier service challenges.