HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-10-148 - Provincial Policy Statement Review Response
REPORT
REPORT TO:
Development & Technical Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
August 23rd, 2010
SUBMITTED BY:
Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning
PREPARED BY:
Mat Vaughan, Planner (519-741-3400, ex. 3176)
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
All
DATE OF REPORT: August 16, 2010
REPORT NO.:
DTS-10-148
SUBJECT:
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT REVIEW RESPONSE
RECOMMENDATION:
That report DTS-10-148 entitled Provincial Policy Statement Review Response be received for
information, and further
That staff be directed to submit the comments on the five-year review of the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2005 contained within report DTS-10-148 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing.
BACKGROUND:
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, is undertaking a five-year review of the Provincial
Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) as required under the Planning Act. As part of this review they
have requested the City’s participation in providing feedback and comments.
The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning
and development in Ontario. Planning authorities such as municipal councils must ensure their
decisions affecting planning matters are consistent with the PPS.
The PPS identifies the intricate inter-relationships among environmental, social and economic
factors in planning. It supplies direction on important matters such as: the efficient use and
management of land and resources; long-term protection of the natural environment and water
resources; the conservation of cultural heritage and archaeological resources; and the
protection of public health and safety.
The City of Kitchener has been requested to add input and perspectives on whether changes to
the PPS are needed in order to assist in determining if the provincial policies are providing
appropriate direction and protecting broader provincial interests.
ïî ó ï
It should be noted that the Places to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,
2006, is a different provincial document then the PPS. Although it further refines the policies of
the PPS for our area, it is likely that the Places to Grow Growth Plan will be reviewed in 2011.
In order to provide constructive feedback on the PPS, MMAH presented government agencies
and stakeholders including the City of Kitchener with a list of six questions.
The Province requested the following questions to be considered:
1. What policies of the current PPS are working effectively?
2. Are there policies that need clarification?
3. Are there policies that are no longer needed?
4. Are there new policy areas or issues that the Province needs to provide land use
planning direction on?
5. Is additional support material needed to help implement the PPS?
6. Do you have any other comments about the PPS?
The City’s feedback along with any other additional comments is due on August 31 2010.
REPORT:
The existing Provincial Policy Statement was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and
came into effect on March 1, 2005. The Planning Act requires that the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing begin a review of the PPS every five years. As required under the Planning
Act, in March of 2010, the five-year review of the PPS commenced. Staff held a roundtable
discussion to gain feedback and prepare a joint response. An outline of staff comments are
noted below.
1. What policies of the current PPS are working effectively?
Staff believes that several policies of the present Provincial Policy Statement are generally
working effectively and are inline with many local objectives.
Examples of effective policies include:
Land supply policies
Agriculture policies
Natural heritage policies
Cultural heritage policies (Section 2.6)
Comprehensive review requirements
Employment land protection requirements
Making effective use of existing infrastructure
Intensification policies
Healthy active communities
Comprehensive approach to managing growth
Some clarification and in some situations, additional policies are required to uphold today’s
planning standards and conform to other provincial legislation.
ïî ó î
2. Are there policies that need clarification or refinement?
Staff have identified several policies of the PPS, 2005 that require clarification and/or
refinement.
Heritage conservation
The Cultural Heritage policies of the PPS rely upon a series of definitions such as ‘significant’,
‘built heritage resource’, ‘cultural heritage landscape’, ‘conserved’, ‘development’, ‘site
alteration’, ‘adjacent lands’, ‘protected heritage property’, and ‘heritage attributes’. The City has
experienced difficulty with the interpretation and implementation of these policies based on their
current definitions and requests revisions to help clarify their meanings and purposes. Further
clarification is required on the intent or inconsistency of the term “shall be” in Policy 2.6.1 vs.
“will” in 2.6.3.
The Cultural Heritage policies of the PPS could be supported with further ties to the Ontario
Policy2.6.3
Heritage Act. Kitchener heritage staff request revisions to in regards to
development and site alterations.
Further detail on the definitions and policy clarifications regarding cultural heritage policies and
implementation tools are identified in Appendix A of this report.
Employment policies and the Places to Grow Growth Plan
The Growth Plan contains strong policies regarding Employment Lands. Some clarification is
required that defines ‘Employment Lands’ and ‘Employment Land Conversions’ as well as
further details on employment land uses.
It is presently unclear what land uses make up the broad term “Employment Lands” A consistent
and clear definition is required. The definition of “Employment Lands” should be limited to only
include industrial land uses. The current definition of Employment Lands leaves room for
interpretation that large retail centres and big box stores can qualify as employment lands.
Various OMB decisions have clouded the issue and clarity is required.
Clarity is also required regarding employment land ancillary uses, including but not limited to
places of worship, and retail/commercial use.
Competing Objectives
The competing policies of the PPS need to be made clearer. Additional guidance would be
helpful when there are competing policy objectives. For example intensification and heritage
conservation or increased densities and natural heritage conservation. Also, implementation of
brownfield objectives/policies is more challenging with most recent standards and regulations.
Consistent terminology between provincial documents
Since the time the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was released there have
been some notable inconsistencies between the PPS and the Places to Grow, Growth Plan. In
particular, terminology used in the Growth Plan is not consistent with the PPS. The PPS
requires updates to definitions: “Urban Growth Centre”, “Built-Boundary”, and “Green-field”.
ïî ó í
Comprehensive Review
There are different criteria to consider in the Growth Plan vs. the PPS. There should be more
consistency. Staff prefers the Growth Plan’s comprehensive review requirement wording, which
requires a comprehensive review to be initiated by the municipality at the time of a five-year
review of the Official Plan.
3. Are there policies that are no longer needed?
No policies were identified which are no longer needed.
4. Are there new policy areas or issues that the Province needs to provide land use
planning direction on?
Green Energy policies
The PPS should have stronger linkages with the Green Energy Act (GEA). Policies contained in
Section 1.8 of the PPS should be reviewed and updated to include new policy directions flowing
from the 2009 GEA.
Urban Design Direction
It may be advantageous to enhance policies in the PPS to provide greater support to
municipalities with respect to urban design and active transportation (i.e. talking, cycling, etc).
Source Water Protection
There are presently no policies related to source water protection. In the review and update of
the PPS, various source water protection general policies should be included in Section 2.2.
5. Is additional support material needed to help implement the PPS?
Yes. One of the key challenges to updating the PPS is to ensure direct connections and
references are established with other provincial documents and legislation. It is vital that in
doing so, these policies are consistent as opposed to being in conflict with each other.
Furthermore, once the review of the PPS is complete, it would be helpful to have a performance
indicator policy in place to make certain policies are functioning the way they were intended to.
Policy 4.11
It may be possible to include additional wording to this end under the existing .
To better implement heritage conservation policies under the PPS, Section 41 of the Planning
Act may have to be expanded to better authorize certain site-plan conditions.
Reconsideration of a best practices digital handbook for how other municipalities are supporting
the PPS should be initiated. In the past, this was a helpful resource and should be utilized
again.
6. Do you have any other comments about the PPS?
Greater support would be appreciated from the Province when municipalities are trying uphold
the provincial policies and interests, such as through provincial representation at tribunals, and
funding for infrastructure and studies.
ïî ó ì
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no direct financial implications as part of this report.
COMMUNICATIONS:
No advertisement of this report was required. An internal review session was held and staff
have contacted other area municipalities.
CONCLUSION:
The comments on the 5 year review of the PPS should be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing.
REVIEWED BY
: Brandon Sloan, Interim Manager of Policy Planning
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager
Development and Technical Services Department
List of Attachments
1. Appendix A: Requested changes to Cultural Heritage Policies
2. Letter from MMAH, June 4 2010, RE: Five Year Review of the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2005.
ïî ó ë
Appendix A
Requested changes to Cultural Heritage Policies
The Cultural Heritage policies of the PPS rely upon a series of definitions: ‘significant’, ‘built
heritage resource’, ‘cultural heritage landscape’, ‘conserved’, ‘development’, ‘site alteration’,
‘adjacent lands’, ‘protected heritage property’, and ‘heritage attributes’. The City has
experienced difficulty with the interpretation and implementation of these policies based on their
current definitions. Heritage staff suggest that cultural heritage policies, and associated
definitions of the PPS should align with Ontario Regulation 9/06 and the Ontario Heritage Act.
Refinement of the definitions to align with Ontario Regulation 9/06 and the Ontario Heritage Act
would provide clarity and result in consistent interpretation and implementation of the policies.
The definition of ‘built heritage resource’ includes the term significant even though a separate
definition is provided for the term significant. The inclusion of the term significant is redundant
since the current text of the policy requires that significant built heritage resources be
conserved. The definition of built heritage resource also indicates that these resources may be
listed by local, provincial or federal jurisdictions. The definition does not elaborate on the term
listed. It is understood that some municipalities have interpreted the term listed to refer to
property that has been included as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or
interest on the Municipal Heritage Register as per section 27.(1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The definition of built heritage resource also does not reference the full definition of a protected
heritage property as it relates to “property that is the subject of a covenant or agreement
between the owner of a property and a conservation body or level of government, registered on
title and executed with the primary purpose of preserving, conserving and maintaining a cultural
heritage feature or resource, or preventing it destruction, demolition or loss.” This portion of the
definition of a protected heritage property should also be included in the definition of a built
2.6.1
heritage resource. This will ensure that Policy will require protected heritage property that
is the subject of a covenant or agreement to be conserved.
The definition of “conserved” should require the identification, protection, use and
management of cultural heritage resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes
and integrity are retained. The current definition includes an “and/or” clause that should be
removed. The notion that heritage values, attributes and integrity can be retained by
identification alone is false. The definition of ‘conserved’ references the term “cultural heritage
resource” which is not defined. Rather, built heritage resource and cultural heritage landscapes
are defined. It would be appropriate to define cultural heritage resource and this definition
should include both built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. The definition of
conserved references the term conservation plan or heritage impact assessment which are not
defined. It would be appropriate to define conservation plan and heritage impact assessment. It
would also be appropriate to reference the responsible authority for providing guidance on
conservation plans and heritage impact assessments. The most appropriate authority is likely
the Ministry of Culture (see Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural
Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005).
The definition of ‘heritage attributes’ within the present PPS and the definition within the
Ontario Heritage Act are not consistent. It would be appropriate for the definitions to be
consistent. Also, the definition of “heritage attributes” makes reference to cultural heritage
significance, which is not defined in the PPS.
ïî ó ê
The PPS does not include a meaning for ‘negative impacts’ in regards to cultural heritage
resources. This should be included. Reference to negative impacts to cultural heritage
resources is made in theMinistry of Culture’s heritage tool kit series publication entitled
“Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
Policies of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005” (see side notes in margin of Info
Sheet No. 5 on page 3).
g)“significant”
Currently, subsection of the definition of reads in regard to cultural heritage and
archaeology, resources that are valued for the important contribution they make to our
understanding of the history of a place, an event, or a people. The definition can be interpreted
very broadly and should be refined to be made clearer. It would be appropriate for thedefinition
of‘significant’ to be based on the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest found
within Ontario Regulation 9/06. Where a cultural heritage resource (either built or landscape)
meets the criteria it is deemed to be significant. Alternatively, the definition of significant may not
be required. Instead the PPS could define ‘cultural heritage resource’ which would include both
built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. Where a resource meets the criteria
for determining cultural heritage value or interest found within Ontario Regulation 9/06 it shall be
conserved. The definition of significant also includes the following general statement: While
some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the
significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. The intent and meaning behind
this statement should be clarified. For instance, does this statement mean that municipalities
have the authority to require studies to evaluate the significance of a resource as part of the
Planning process, regardless of whether the resource has been previously listed by the local
jurisdiction or not?
The Cultural Heritage policies of the PPS would benefit from a stronger relationship to the
Ontario Heritage Act. For instance, the PPS should define “cultural heritage value or interest”
and the criteria for identifying cultural heritage value or interest within Ontario Regulation 9/06 of
the Ontario Heritage Act should be used to confirm if a resource is a cultural heritage resource
and therefore required to be conserved.
Policy2.6.3
makes reference to development and site alteration only. However, intensification,
redevelopment and residential intensification (each separately defined in the PPS) may in
themselves include activities that are not necessarily covered by the terms development and
site alteration. Policy 2.6.3 should be revised to reference development, site alteration,
intensification, redevelopment and residential intensification; as all such activities could have an
impact on protected heritage property.
Policy 2.6.3
states that development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to
protected heritage property where the proposed development and site alteration has been
evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage
Policy 2.6.1
property will be conserved. inherently requires similar measure. In reality,
development and site alteration may be permitted on protected heritage property where the
proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated
that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. As such, either
Policy 2.6.1 should be revised to include the requirement for development and site alteration to
demonstrate that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved; or
Policy 2.6.3 should be revised to apply equally to protected heritage property or on land
adjacent to protected heritage property.
ïî ó é
The Ministry of Culture’s Ontario Heritage Toolkit, specifically the document entitled “Heritage
Resources in the Land Use Planning Process: Cultural Heritage and Archaeology Policies of the
Ontario Provincial Policy Statement, 2005” has been a great support material for implementation
of the PPS. However, this document identifies some implementation tools which municipalities
do not have explicit authority to use under the existing Planning Act. For instance, this
document indicates that a municipality may require an owner to post a letter of credit, bond or
certified cheque as part of the development approval process; however, Section 41 of the
Planning Act does not enable municipalities to take securities for heritage conservation
objectives such as the implementation of a conservation plan or heritage impact assessment.
Amendments to the Planning Act that provide explicit authority for heritage conservation are
critical for the successful implementation of the PPS.
ïî ó è