Ministry of Municipal…

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Provincial Land Use Plans Branch
13th Floor, 777 Bay St
Toronto, ON M7A 2J3 Canada

RE: File No: 019-6813
Review of Proposed Policies Adapted from A Place to Grow and Provincial Policy Statement to Form a New Provincial Planning Policy Instrument
______________________________________________________________________

On behalf of the Upper West Side Landowners Group (UWSLG) (formerly Twenty Road West Landowners Group), Corbett Land Strategies Inc. (CLS) wishes to submit this letter in response to Province’s new draft Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) document. These comments are in respect to lands located within the block of Twenty Road West, Upper James Street, Dickenson Road and Glancaster Road, in the City of Hamilton (Subject Lands). It is understood that the Province is reviewing and amending policies to replace the existing Provincial Policy Statement, and a Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. On the UWSLG behalf, CLS has conducted a review of the proposed Provincial Planning Statement, and offer the following over-arching comments for the Province’s consideration:

1. The Province should consider maintaining provincially established density and intensification
targets (despite MCR removal);
2. The Province should remove Provincially Significant Employment Zones (PSEZ) overlay (as
proposed);
3. The Province should allow first-party appeal rights on Employment Area conversions, subject to
the satisfaction of ‘tests’ outlined in proposed policy 2.8.2.4.
4. The Province should incorporate additional policy on clarifying “transition” within employment
areas. Policies establishing metrics to identify areas of transition, adjacent to employment areas,
may open up areas for additional housing and which do not detract from the operation of the
employment area.
5. The Province should build upon existing noise and airport policies to require Official Plans
compliance as well as the requirement for scheduled improvements to noise related
mapping/policies; and,
6. The Province should incorporate language explicitly permitting privately initiated Secondary Plan.

In support of the above, the following provides further clarification to the above recommendations:

1. Municipal Comprehensive Review: The in-effect Growth Plan requires municipalities conduct Municipal Comprehensive Reviews (MCRs) to implement population and employment forecasts, undertake integrated planning, and establish minimum intensification and density targets (amongst other requirements). Under the proposed PPS policies, municipalities will no longer be required to conduct municipal comprehensive review’s but rather continue to apply 2051 targets at a minimum and carry out individual forecasting on an as needed basis. While this is intended to provide municipalities more independence in land use planning as well as alleviate delays associated with the administration of land use policies (i.e. appeals). The sudden departure from this style of planning, may inadvertently challenge the ability to achieve provincial targets as well as result in other unintended consequences. Instead, the Province may which to maintain some level of reporting timelines to ensure achievement of provincial interests.

In addition, with the removal of MCRs, applications for new settlement areas should have the ability to appeal or include policies in the PPS permitting first party appeal rights.

2. Provincially Significant Employment Areas: The Province is proposing to remove policies pertaining to Provincially Significant Employment Zones (PSEZs), as put forth in 2019 under the Growth Plan. The UWSLG is supportive of the removal of the classification of PSEZs, as the added layer of planning policy contributes little to the protection of areas of employment as well as prohibits the ability to achieve a complete community in proximity to places of employment.

3. Employment Areas – Appeal Right: Considerable changes are proposed to employment policies including the implementation of a new definition of ‘employment areas’, which is to be updated both within the Planning Act and within the New PPS. The definition emphasizes how employment areas are perceived in terms of compatibility, economic value and the importance of maintaining heavy industry, manufacturing and large scale warehousing. Within the proposed policy of ‘employment areas’, conversions are no longer required, but rather municipalities can remove employment lands if there is a need for the removal, the removal does not negatively impact the viability of the employment area, existing or planned infrastructure are available (Section 2.8.2.4). This is a positive direction that is supported by the UWSLG. With having said this, it is recommended that employment conversion application requests should have the ability to be appealable.

Despite the removal of the PSEZs and refinement of ‘Employment Area’, Section 22 (7.3) of the Planning Act continues to prohibit appeals to employment area removals. It is recommended that policy be incorporated within the Planning Act to broaden appeal rights on employment area removals. It is proposed that policy be crafted which allows select first-party appeals if certain tests, such as the achievement of draft PPS Sec. 2.8, have been demonstrated. This would ensure the protection of employment lands while still allowing the broadening of the uses in an appropriate fashion.

4. Employment Areas – Transitional Uses: Within the proposed PPS policies on Employment Areas, transitional policies (Section 2.8.1.3 and Section 2.8.2.2) have been introduced. However, the intent of these policies would benefit from further delineation. Improvements could occur by way of an explicit definition or metrics outlining the specific locations of “transition areas”. Defining this and outlining the key differences and planning objectives for these distinct areas (as opposed to Employment Areas) would be helpful in clarifying locations for non-employment uses and broadening locations to potentially achieve housing. The benefits would be particularly useful for employment areas that are evolving in land use (i.e., manufacturing to office), those which are in proximity to existing, stable residential areas or could facilitate the creation of land use buffers between sensitive land uses and employment areas.

5. Noise: Under current PPS policy new infill residential development and other sensitive land uses are permitted up to the 30 NEF. Further, the PPS advises that redevelopment or infilling of residential land uses and other sensitive land uses may occur in areas above NEF 30 but must demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the long-term function of the airport. In addition, and as stated, “Transport Canada recommends that where the NEF exceeds 30, new residential development should not proceed. If it does, regardless of this caution, a detailed noise analysis should be conducted and noise reduction practices should be implemented” (Ministry of Transportation).

Although these policies are not proposed to change, it is recommended that the language of the overall policy be strengthened through explicit direction that municipalities “must” be in compliance. Further, to ensure the capturing of the most current forecasting, municipalities should be directed to adopt the latest NEF forecasts (as available) and adopt minimum timeline windows to ensure regular and consistent updates. It is believed that these recommendations protect both the operation and viability of the airport as well as broaden the ability to deliver housing.

To support the above rationale and other policies within documentation provided by Transport Canada , the following policy update is suggested below:

Section 3.4 Airports, Rail and Marine Facilities

2. Airports shall be protected from incompatible land uses and development by:

a) Regulating new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas near airports above
30 NEF/NEP;

b) considering redevelopment of existing residential uses and other sensitive land uses or infilling of
residential and other sensitive land uses in areas above 30 NEF/NEP only if it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the long-term function of the airport;

c) discouraging land uses which may cause a potential aviation safety hazard; and,

d) that where the NEF exceeds 30, new residential may be considered if the responsible authority is
satisfied that:
i) appropriate acoustic insultation features have been considered in the building and,
ii) a noise impact assessment study has been completed and shows that this construction or development is not incompatible with aircraft noise,
iii) notwithstanding point ii), the developer will be required to inform all prospective tenants or purchasers of residential units that speech interference and annoyance caused by aircraft noise are, on average, established and growing at NEF 30 and are very significant by NEF 35.

6. Privately Initiated Secondary Plans: Absent from the proposed policies are direction on the administration of secondary planning. Although this is a process that is best resolved at the local level, municipalities vary in the method of secondary planning. While some seek to manage the process internally, others allow for involvement and direct participation by the private sector. It is recommended that the proposed PPS be updated to acknowledge the importance of secondary planning as well as establish that secondary plans can be advanced by private landowners, subject to the participation of the municipalities and achievement of certain process requirements (public consultation). It is believed that privately initiated secondary planning could assist the Province in achieving provincial interests in an accelerated manner, by speeding up the administration of the process. In addition, inserting policy that dictates which types of areas can better support a privately initiated Secondary Plan such as guiding categories like infill development, areas adjacent to existing built areas that are already serviced, and brownfield etc. This allows for the municipality to better allocate which areas to focus on growth and the resources that need to be allocated appropriately.

CONCLUSION
This submission is intended to provide further information to the Ministry in consideration of the new proposed PPS planning document. It is the hope of the UWSLG that the above comments will assist in the Province’s changes and implementation to the new PPS planning document. Should there be any questions or a need for further information, feel free to reach out to the below.

Sincerely,

John Corbett
__________________________________
John B. Corbett, MCIP, RPP
President
Corbett Land Strategies Inc.
john@corbettlandstrategies.ca
416-806-5164