Please find attached the…

Please find attached the Region of Waterloo's report as it relates to the Amendments to the Planning Act proposed by Bill 66. The recommendations were approved by Regional Council on January 16, 2019.

Recommendation:
That The Regional Municipality of Waterloo not support the Proposed Amendments to the Planning Act as set out in Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018 as it fails to adequately protect human health and safety and in particular the safety of the Region of Waterloo’s drinking water resources;
And That if amendments to the Planning Act proceed through Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018 that Section 39 of the Clean Water Act, 2006 continue to apply to any proposed by-law;
And That Report PDL-CPL-19-01/PDL-LEG-19/03, dated January 8, 2019, be submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as The Regional Municipality of Waterloo’s response to the proposed amendments to the Planning Act included in Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018.

Regional staff have concerns with: the lack of prescribed consultation; potential risks to health, safety and the environment including groundwater protection; the ability to impose conditions and the lack of detail on the nature of the conditions; lack of detail regarding the type and scale of what is considered a major employment use; non-applicability of Provincial and Municipal plans and policies; and how servicing and infrastructure needs will be addressed.
This position being clear, should the Province decide to move forward with Bill 66, the tool should be modified to continue to protect critical matters of Provincial and Regional interest and public health and safety.

Source Water Protection
It is recommended that the proposed non-application of the Clean Water Act, 2006 and any other policy set out in a drinking water source protection plan prepared under the Clean Water Act, 2006 be removed from the Bill. The Clean Water Act, 2006 should always apply.
The Region is the largest urban municipality in Ontario to rely almost exclusively on groundwater supplies for its drinking water. Approximately three-quarters of the Region’s drinking water is provided from more than one hundred municipal wells. Protecting this valuable resource from contamination is essential to maintaining public health and safety and economic prosperity. Regional staff have substantial concerns about the potential risks to health and safety by exempting a By-law from the provisions of the Clean Water Act (2006). These provisions require decisions under the Planning Act to conform with significant threat policies of the Grand River Source Protection Plan given the Region of Waterloo’s reliance on groundwater for its municipal water supply. For example, policies in the Grand River Source Protection Plan prohibit the storage of fuel and hazard chemicals within 100 metres of the Region’s 130 municipal supply wells. As a result, a company that needed fuel or chemicals as part of its manufacturing operation could be located adjacent to a supply well increasing the risk that the well could be impacted by a spill. In addition, the exemption would prevent salt including salt application mitigation measures as part of site plan approvals which is essential to stabilizing the increasing chloride levels detected in most of the Region’s supply wells. As a result, the Region would have to attempt to address these matters after the site has been approved and constructed which is more difficult and costly.

Proposed Prescribed Criteria
While the Region is very clear on its position that the Clean Water Act (2006) should still be applied to a proposed By-law, Regional staff acknowledge the proposed merits of this form of planning tool from an economic development perspective. However, in the absence of any detail related to a draft regulation to implement such a By-law, the Region has significant concerns with the trade-offs on matters of Provincial and Regional interest that would no longer apply if Bill 66 as drafted moves forward. As a result, the Region is recommending a series of prescribed criteria that should be incorporated into any future regulation to provide direction to municipalities to ensure that matters such as protection of natural heritage features and hazard lands, protection of agricultural resources, appropriate servicing and land use compatibility are addressed. In addition, changes to the definition of a major employment use are recommended to be better aligned with the weight of this significant proposed planning tool.

Natural Heritage Features and Hazard Lands
It is recommended that the prescribed criteria that must be met in order to receive Ministerial approval include a requirement that no development shall occur within or adjacent to lands that are designated as a Natural Heritage Features or Area of Hazard Land and that development be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive groundwater features.
Regional staff have concerns about the protection of natural heritage features and areas and hazard lands and hazardous sites such as floodplains, unstable soils and slopes and erosion hazards given the broad exemption from Provincial policy, the Growth Plan and the Regional Official Plan. Under the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan, Natural Heritage Features and Areas include significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, fish habitat, significant woodlands, significant valleylands, habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest. These areas should continue to be protected from development. Development should continue to be restricted in surface water features and ground water features which include headwaters, rivers, stream channels, inland lakes, seepage areas, recharge/discharge areas, springs, wetlands, and associated riparian lands, water tables, aquifers and related unsaturated zones. These features are of provincial interest and should continue to be protected from development. The protection of hazard lands is a matter of public health and safety and development should not be permitted on hazard lands. At a minimum, all of these features and lands should be protected through prescribed criteria.

Location of Major Employment Uses/ Protection of Agricultural Resources
It is recommend that major employment use should be located within Settlement Areas. Where this cannot be accommodated, uses should avoid Prime Agricultural Lands and be located adjacent to Settlement Areas.
With the amendments to the Planning Act as proposed, a major employment use could be located outside of the urban area and potentially compromise prime agricultural areas and the agricultural system. Prime Agricultural areas are an important resource that should continue to be protected. In addition, the Agricultural Sector is a significant employer in the Region and both the agricultural industry and the agricultural resources land base should be protected from non-agricultural uses and potential land use conflicts.

Adequate Servicing
It is recommended that a municipality should not be able to pass a By-law unless the following prescribed criteria are met:
• Adequate water and wastewater servicing must be available and environmentally appropriate, and
• Development of the site does not obligate any municipality to provide water and / or wastewater servicing or any infrastructure required for the development of the site.
Regional staff have concerns about the ability to locate a major employment use where adequate water and/ or wastewater servicing is limited or unavailable, such as outside settlement areas. Under the proposed Bill, a major employment use could locate outside of a settlement area potentially compromising the Prime Agricultural area and/ or locate where municipal water or wastewater services do not exist or where it would be very expensive to extend and provide municipal services. The potential impact should be minimized and the provision of adequate, feasible and environmentally appropriate service must be a requirement.

Definition of Major Employment Use/ Major Employer
It is recommended that where an upper tier municipality exists, the threshold should be based on the upper tier population given the Region’s responsibility for Employment Land under the Growth Plan. A minimum threshold of 200 employees for populations over 250,000 is recommended.
Major employment use should be defined and the definition should not include any residential or commercial (including retail) component. Major office should be excluded from the definition where it is locating outside of the Urban Area, particularly in a municipality where higher order transit is planned or exists. Where ancillary or secondary uses are contemplated there must be specific detail to ensure these uses remain ancillary or secondary to the major employer.
Any By-law should be tied to the specific major employment use/ major employer contemplated for the site and contain a lapsing provision should that use not locate on the lands within a specified reasonable period of time. The tool should not be available to be used where there is not an imminent and likely major employment use/ major employer looking to locate.
Regional staff are of the opinion that the minimum number of employee thresholds provided as examples in the description of the Regulation are too low. This is based on the threshold the Region considers a large employer when conducting the workplace count surveys. Examples of employers with 200-499 employees are Google (Kitchener), NCR (Waterloo) and Honeywell Aerospace (Cambridge). At a minimum a major employment use should generate a significant quality and/or quantity of jobs to justify by-passing the regular planning process.
Compatibility with Sensitive Land Uses
It is recommended that new employment uses be located with like uses and that compatibility with sensitive land uses be added as a prescribed criteria.
With respect to public health and safety, a new employment use should be evaluated in terms of potential impact on sensitive land uses such as residential uses. The employment use should be located with like uses and should be required tominimize adverse effects from noise, vibration, odour and other contaminants on sensitive land uses. This will serve to protect public health as well as provide for the long-term viability of the employer. At a minimum, a new major employment use should be required to assess and mitigate appropriately. It is anticipated that issues related to compatibility can be addressed through design and conditions of approval associated with the By-law.

Public Consultation
It is recommended that public consultation on a proposed By-law be mandatory and in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act prior to a municipality passing a resolution requesting the Minister approve the passing of a By-law.
Public consultation is a fundamental and important part of land use planning in Ontario. Consultation with the public on a proposed employment use can assist a municipality with identifying both positive and negative impacts associated with a proposal. It will serve to inform proposed conditions that the municipality may want to implement through the By-law.
Required Notification
It is recommended that:
• Where the lands proposed for a By-law are within an upper tier municipality, notification to and consultation with the upper tier municipality be mandatory at all points in the process to request, pass and seek Minister’s approval of a By-law; and,

• Any conditions or criteria provided by an upper tier municipality must be included in the By-law and the upper tier municipality have authority to entire into an agreement with the land owner to implement upper tier conditions.

As proposed, Bill 66 does not require notification to the upper tier municipality, adjacent municipalities and agencies. However, the proposed amendments still provide the opportunity to include matters of Regional interest as set out in section 41 of the Planning Act. It is inconsistent to provide this opportunity, but not require the local municipality to circulate the upper tier municipality. In addition, other matters of Regional interest such as source water protection and servicing should be considered when developing potential conditions to be imposed through the By-law.
As Bill 66 is currently drafted, the type and degree to which conditions would be utilized is at the discretion of the area municipality. While the use of the By-law is voluntary, the proposed By-law would be the strongest planning tool available under the Planning Act. It is the Region’s position that Bill 66 is not appropriate. However, if the Province considers it appropriate to move forward with the amendments, the tool should be modified to continue to protect critical matters of Provincial and Regional interest outlined in this Report while still streamlining the development approvals process and providing opportunities for economic development.

Further Exemptions from Applicable Statutes, Plans or Policies
It is recommended that any further exemptions for a proposed By-law be considered by way of further legislative amendment to the Planning Act and not through prescription by regulation.
It is noted in Bill 66 that further exemptions may be prescribed by regulations, for example exemptions from other Planning Act requirements or any other Provincial Legislation or Plans. It is recommended that any further exemptions for a proposed By-law be considered by way of further legislative amendment to the Planning Act and not through prescription by regulation.

Other Recommendations
Other methods of streamlining the planning approvals process should be considered. One matter that should be considered by the Province in order to facilitate development is the creation of implementing regulations that would operationalize the zoning with conditions provisions of the Planning Act. Zoning with conditions combines zoning by-law with site plan approval and would serve to streamline the development approvals process.