1. The proposed guideline…

1. The proposed guideline will be useful for many greenfield situations; however, it will not be practicable for most situations in Southern Ontario.

2. Good source of reference material to other guidelines and documents.

3. Will make applications for new developments too onerous as most compatibility studies will revert to mitigation and compliance with numerical limit guidelines as maintaining minimum setbacks is not feasible due to land costs and intensification requirements.

4. Needs Studies - not realistic in most situations as involves assessing land not owned by applicant. These studies should take place at the OP/Zoning stages to allow for buffers and intervening uses. At the time of the draft plan or site plan stage, the proponent should have reasonable expectation that the "need" for the development has already been established at earlier stages of development and approvals.

5. The "needs" and "compatibility" studies may be too expensive for a small developer.

6. As the AOIs are very large, not many applications will escape the need for the studies; therefore, the Ministry's comment that costs can be avoided if located outside the AOI is not realistic as most developments cannot be located outside the AOI.

7. Demonstration of Need - indicates that only the "proponents of sensitive land uses" need a "demonstration of need". Additional explanations are needed here as to why employment uses don't need to demonstrate need.

8. Section 2.1 and Section 2.1.3 - "Proposals should not result in a sensitive land use being located in the MSD." This is not realistic. In many cases there are already sensitive land uses in the MSD.

9. Section 2.1.1 - "The separation distance should be sufficient to permit the functioning of the two potentially incompatible land uses without any adverse effect to the sensitive land use or potential impacts to major facilities". This is not true in all cases. Need to include that meeting the numerical limits of the guidelines, such as NPC-300, is required regardless of the separation distance.

10. Proving that the numerical limits of the guidelines, such as NPC-300, is more important than meeting the MSD for many sources. Including reasonable mitigation as outlined in the guidelines to meet the numerical limits, should permit that the MSD be reduced for many sources.

11. Section 2.1.1 - page 21 - "Other compatible, transitional uses may be able to be developed in the intervening lands." This makes sense in greenfield applications and on large sites and should be used; however, it is generally not feasible to include intervening uses in urban settings or small sites. Meeting the numerical limits of other guidelines should be the focus for many sources.

12. Table 1 - Need to add railway yards explicitly. They are not always understood to be a major facility (stationary source) and in many cases are treated as transportation sources and not stationary sources as defined by NPC-300.

14. Section 3. Mitigation - If mitigation is feasible, why is the Needs Study required?

15. Section 3.3 - At-Receptor Mitigation - the use of upgraded architectural elements such as upgraded windows (triple glazed windows should be removed in this section as not usually used), are not permitted adjacent to stationary sources of noise (as per NPC-300). This should be made clear in this section to avoid confusion as to what is permitted as at-receptor mitigation.

16. Section 3.3 - "fixed/inoperable windows" - are not permitted as at-receptor mitigation for noise sensitive spaces in residential uses. This type of mitigation is only permitted for commercial/institutional sensitive receptors (see definitions in NPC-300). This should be clarified in this section to avoid confusion.

17. Section 3.3 - "However, at-receptor mitigation is recognized by the Ministry as mitigation for noise only in the ECA application review process if the area is designated as "Class 4" under NPC-300." This is not entirely correct. Vibration mitigation at the receptor is acceptable. Reference should be made here to direct the reader to NPC-300 for complete definitions of permitted "at-receptor" mitigation.

18. Given the potential impact of the this guideline on developments, we request that an updated DRAFT be provided to the public for additional comments once the Ministry has had a chance to digest, respond and hopefully, incorporate the comments received.