The Region of Waterloo…

The Region of Waterloo provides advice to the City of Kitchener on matters of land use compatibility. Accordingly, City of Kitchener staff cannot provide detailed technical comments on the proposed guideline nor how it compares to the D series. These comments focus on high level and potentially unanticipated consequences of the proposed guideline on land use planning in the City of Kitchener.

Growth Implications
The proposed areas of influence (AOI) and minimum separation distance (MSD) have increased as compared to the D-series guidelines - dramatically in some cases. This will necessarily negatively impact residential growth opportunities, especially through intensification. The Province directs Waterloo Region to achieve at least 50% of residential growth through intensification, and directs the majority of this to strategic growth areas including Urban Growth Centres (UGCs) and Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs). The City does not have data available to map existing and proposed major facilities, their AOIs and MSDs and their impact on strategic growth areas. Considering Kitchener’s history of industrial growth in relative proximity to residential uses, we suspect application of the proposed guideline will severely curtail the ability to achieve density and intensification targets for strategic growth areas. We encourage the MECP to conduct GIS analysis and engage in more detailed discussion with the Region, City and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the implications of the proposed guideline on the provincial planning framework for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The proposal’s larger AOIs and MSDs, increased study requirements, and a less flexible guideline will drive increasing separation of residential and industrial growth. The planned function of industrial lands with long standing planning permissions and economic investment could be compromised. More new industries and growing ones will be forced to move to the periphery when their businesses outgrow their current footprint. This will negatively impact the development of complete and compact communities and decrease the Region’s ability to leverage its investment in light rail transit and address its climate change objectives. MECP should analyze the implications introducing additional flexibility and reduced MSDs and AOIs.

Overall, the City has significant concerns with the implications of larger AOIs and MSDs on our ability to deliver on vital planning objectives that are of City, Regional and Provincial interest.

The proposal requires planning authorities to assume the largest AOIs and MSD for facilities permitted in the zoning by-law. Most of Kitchener’s industrial zones would permit industrial classes that conflict with permitted residential uses. It is unclear how to plan to implement the proposed guideline through comprehensive planning. MECP should introduce transition provision to the Guideline to assist in this regard.

Demonstration of Need
Compatibility studies would require a demonstration of need, including an analysis of alternate sites. Adding the requirement to consider alternate sites, and potentially those that are not on the real estate market and have no reasonable prospect for development, will not add value to the studies. The question of need is better addressed through existing official plan and zoning frameworks and should be removed from the proposed guideline.

Study requirements
The proposal would dramatically increase the number and complexity of studies required for development applications. Staff are concerned about the cost and time implications for both residential and industrial developments. These costs and time requirements could curtail residential development required to address the housing crisis and industrial growth needed to spur economic recovery. MECP should analyze the implications introducing additional flexibility and reduced MSDs and AOIs.

Summary
City staff acknowledge and appreciate the importance of addressing land use compatibility in planning decisions, but the proposal does not sufficiently address competing objectives and nuance in the planning process. Although important, noise, vibration, dust and odour are appropriately regulated differently than pollutants that present more immediate and acute health risks. The proposal should be supported by more spatial analysis and refined to enable the intensification, economic vibrancy and complete communities objective central to Ontario’s Planning Framework.