The following comments are…

The following comments are provided in order to support the effort being undertaken to update the D-Series Guidelines, which has been long overdue. Generally, we are supportive of the framework which provides improved guidance in order to prevent hazardous and unhealthy conditions between sensitive uses and large industry. However, there does seem to be some faulty understanding/ ambiguity in the guidance provided on how municipalities are to implement the requirements, especially for existing industrial and residential built up areas.

We have had the opportunity to review the comments provided by the City of North Bay and Sault Ste Marie, and are generally in agreement with the concerns they have submitted.

Our key concerns are as follows:

• Table 4 of the guideline suggests that Official Plans should have definitions of sensitive uses, major facilities and adverse effects, however OPs generally do not contain definitions. It may be more appropriate for the guideline to recommend that OPs reference the PPS for definitions.

• Further guidance would be helpful in setting out how the 5 classes would traditionally be applied in zoning. For example is the intent that in the future, Class 1 will be captured as Light Industrial; Classes 2 and 3, Medium Industrial; Classes 4 and 5, Heavy Industrial? Are the former Class 1 and the new Class 1 the same, or is the bar higher now on what qualifies as Class 1?

• Further clarification is needed in providing guidance to Municipalities as to how to ensure that expansions to existing industrial facilities will trigger the need for a Compatibility Assessment. Zoning By-laws are typically organized with 3 industrial categories (light, medium and heavy). For example, if an expansion to a medium industrial use is proposed and the proponent believes the use will still be a medium industrial use, what will trigger the need for a compatibility assessment to determine the AOI, if a rezoning is not required? Are the guidelines truly suggesting that all industrial properties should be zoned with a holding provision?

• Although Site Plan Control can be used to require mitigation measures, a compatibility assessment should be completed first to inform what specific measures are needed. It does not appear that Section 41 of the Planning Act provides for the requirement of a compatibility assessment. Further guidance on a strategy between OPs and ZBLs would be helpful.

• The new guideline is structured with new terminology around “Major Facilities”, and the guideline states that it is only intended to provide guidance for compatibility between sensitive uses and major facilities. It would be helpful to have some examples of industrial uses that are not major facilities and more examples of uses in each of the classes. The former guideline D-6-1 provided an appendix with a list of possible examples of Class 1 facilities that are not listed in the new guideline i.e. Electronics manufacturing and repair, Furniture repair and refinishing, Auto Parts Supply. Have these uses not been recaptured because they are obsolete, or is it because they are not major facilities and believed to be innocuous?

• In the event that a Municipality requires a development proponent to undertake a compatibility assessment, will the MOE assist with the review and evaluation of the assessment?