STRONG COMMUNITIES ACT R.W. PANZER

That, on the recommendation of the Acting General Manager of Planning and Development, the attached report on the proposed amendments to the Planning Act, as set out in the Strong Communities Act, and additional recommended changes to the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement BE ENDORSED.

It being noted that the report has been submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to meet the Ministry's deadline for comments with the proviso that the report may be resubmitted with revisions once it has been reviewed by Council.

In December 2003, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs posted on their website that written submissions on Bill 126, The Strong Communities Act, would be received by the Ministry between December 16, 2003 and March 15,2004.

On January 26, 2004 an information report was submitted to Planning Committee relating to the proposed amendments to the Planning Act. The report noted that there are other changes to the Planning Act which should be considered and that the Province should be encouraged to engage municipalities and other interests in a consultation process to this end.

Staff recently carried out a further review of the proposed legislation and identified additional issues which should be given consideration. The attached correspondence to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs raises additional points on the proposed Planning Act amendments, provides commentary on the existing Provincial Policy Statement and suggests other amendments to the Planning Act which will assist municipalities in the land use planning process. This letter has been forwarded to the Ministry to comply with their requirements for submission.

Council's response to stars submission will be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs as part of the City's submission on this matter.

"Attach .'I Y:\Planner\Stong Communities Act\pcinformationrepor&.doc

I

1 London . C A N A D A

March 15,2004 *

Ken Petersen - Manager Legislation & Research Provincial Planning & Environmental Services Branch 777 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5

Dear Mr. Petersen:

EBR Registry Number: AF03E0001

Re: Stroncl Communities (Plannina Amendments) Act, 2003

This correspondence is in response to the Provincial Government's new Bill, 126 - Strong Communities (Planning Amendment) Act that was introduced on December 15, 2003. The City of London is. supportive of the proposed changes to the Planning Act as it appears that these changes are working towards achieving a better balance between competing interests.

The attached comments are a summary of the issues that the City of London would like to submit for the Ministry's consideration. The portion relating to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) builds upon the comments from the City of London provided on October I O , 2001. The previously submitted letter for the PPS is attached with this submission for consideration.

Given the Ministry's March 15'h deadline for submissions, this material has not yet been considered by Municipal Council. We are providing these comments to' you now and will forward Council's approved submission at a later date.

Please contact me or John Fleming of the Planning Division to discuss any of the issues raised'in this letter.

Rob Panzer U Acting General Manager of Planning and Development

JFIAMITMIH.McN . .

c. . J.Barber, City Solicitor J B.Curtis, Senior Planner, MMA-Southwestern, 659 Exeter Road - 2nd Flr, London ON N6E 1 L3

y:\shared\sub&spec\corres\2004\8ill 126 Letter to Ministry

The Corporation of the City of London Office: 51 9-661-4980 Direct Line: 51 9-661 -5343 Fax: 51 9-661 -5397 JmFlemin@london.ca www.london.ca

. 1.0 PROPOSED PROVINCIAL POLICY CHANGES

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (PPS)

The comments below build upon of the City of London's previous comments of the PPS Five Year Review (see attached letter October I O , 2001). I

I

Changes to the preamble to confirm how the PPS is to be used and implemented would ensure a consistent approach in a comprehensive 'application of the Policies, and minimize the "cherry-picking" application of the Policies.

For clarity. and direction it would be useful to specify in each policy the applicable guideline documents that apply to the Policy,. or include an appendix of + guideline documents that are intended to guide the implementation of the PPS. Also, it would be helpful to provide a "link" to definitions, regulations, and guidelines under all pieces of legislation that reflect provincial interests related to land use planning,

Also, consistency in the structure and specificity of Policies would be useful in achieving a balance among competing interests. For example, the water quality and quantity policy is general compared to the policy hierarchy giden in the agricultural and mineral resources policies.

Consideration should be given to the inclusion of directions that will help to address cross-jurisdictional issues relating to policies such as natural heritage and servicing. Such direction in the principles would assist planning actions at a watershed level.

The addition of design principles to the PPS would be beneficial. The design principles could be integrated as part of the Policies to address matters of provincial interest such as, the orderly development of safe and healthy communities (ie. CEPTED); cost efficient . development standards; conservation and efficient use of resources; and incorporating natural heritage features, built heritage resources and cultural landscapes as opportunities and not as constraints to development.

The term "affordable" is used in Section 1.2,1(c) in reference to 'I..... encouraging housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower income households." The PPS requires stronger wording relating to the provision of "affordable housing". It may be appropriate to consider policies, in context for the whole municipality, that set minimum standards for housing to meet the full range of needs of current and future residents. Support for partnerships and incentive-based approaches to provide affordable housing should also be considered.

The policy in Section 1.2.l(d) refers to "......encouraging all forms of residential intensification in. parts of built-up areas that have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure to create a potential supply of new housing units available from residential intensification;. , . ..I' The PPS defines residential intensification as the creation of new residential units or accommodation in existing buildings or on previously developed serviced land and includes infill, accessory apartments, and rooming houses. It is important to encourage residential intensification; however, it is also important to consider the interests of the affected community, and to take into account potential adverse effects. A requirement to demonstrate that residential intensification will maintain the stability of the surrounding built-up area should be reflected in this policy.

Section 2.1.4. states "New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities will comply with the minimum distance separation formulae." Minimum distance separation (MDS) formulae, as defined in the PPS, means formulae developed by the Province to separate uses so as to reduce incompatibility concerns about odour from livestock facilities. This policy was at the centre.of a recent O.M.B. decision regarding an Official Plan amendment adopted by the City of London to protect agricultural land from urban expansion. The O.M.B. approved a modification to an Official Plan policy indicating which land use designations are subject to the application of MDS. The policy is intended to allow limited development inside the urban

growth area and not undermine the protection of livestock operations existing outside of the urban growth boundary. The MDS policy is extremely rigid in its application. Can some flexibility be introduced which requires that municipalities meet the intent of the MDS policies without requiring rigid enforcement of the MDS formulae?

In Section 2.1.2. the wording should state directly, rather than in a general sense, that lot creation in prime agricultural areas is "strongly" discouraged. It may be appropriate to emphasize up-front in the preamble the view that agricultural land severances are an exception and not the rule.

There is a need for clearer provincial policy with respect to all significant natural heritage resources including wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife habitat. Solid evaluation criteria with guidelines that reflect the local context are needed, and standardized monitoring and reporting.would be useful to measure the degree to which the policies are being met. The PPS policies should be reviewed to consider incentives to landowners to protect significant heritage resources and to municipal governments and other public bodies for the acquisition of these resources to secure maintenance.

The definition of "significant" as it applies to policies reviewed to clear up any discrepancies. For example, defines significant wetlands as those that meet the

their long term protection and

that use. this term should be in Section 2.3.1. (a) the PPS criteria for being provincially

significant.- -Does this mean that all other wetlands are therefore not significant? Section 2.3.l(b) is silent on whether development and site alteration is permitted in locally significant wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield. The minimum standard of the PPS suggests that if a wetland. is not provincially significant, then it can be developed without an Environmental Impact. Study (EIS). It is up to municipalities to recognize locally significant wetlands and protect them through municipal policies, without the support of a provincial minimum standard.

In Section 2.4.1 , the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water and the function of sensitive ground water, recharge/discharge areas, aquifers and headwaters will be protected or enhanced. The PPS review should include a clear definition of what "en h anced " means.

The Province needs to define whether stormwater management facilities are a form of development (subject to approval under the Planning Act) or a form of infrastructure (subject to the Environmental Assessment Act).

There needs to be a clear definition of the "no negative impact" concept referred to in Section 2.3.l(b). The policy as it is currently written .and if strictly applied, is an unreasonable test, given that cutting even one tree could result in a negative impact on the Natural Heritage feature.

The environmental policies need to provide clear identification of appropriate "buffers" (ie. setback requirements) to protect natural heritage features.

' r

.

i ,

The policy in Section 2.5.1. states "Significant built heritage resources and ,cultural heritage landscapes will be conserved." The definition ascribed to the term cultural .

heritage landscapes is very general and could support the identification of almost any landscape as a cultural heritage landscape. The definition is not workable within the context of the policy which requires that all such landscapes are to be preserved. Defining what is considered "significant" for. built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes would give municipalities the necessary direction to conserve these resources.

The Ontario Heritage Act provides municipal councils with very weak powers to recognize and protect. significant built heritage resources. Legislative authority is lacking to enable municipalities to put in place effective measures to conserve our heritage resources. The policy statement that requires heritage resources to be preserved is not supported by legislative tools that allow municipalities to implement this in their communities. Property owners should not be permitted to demolish heritage designated buildings.

2.0.

8 PROPOSED PLANNING ACT AMENDMENTS

REQUIREMENT FOR LAND USE DECISIONS

‘Shall be Consistent With”

The requirement that land use planning decisions “shall be consistent with” rather than “have regard to” provincial policy statements will require municipalities to clearly understand what Provincial Policies are to be implemented. Municipalities require a clearer understanding of how provincial interests are to be protected, including the tools, such as guideline documents and/or regulations to be relied upon to implement the protection of provincial interests.

It is recognized that given the range of possible provincial issues, prioritizing the policies may be difficult,, However, a clear understanding/direction to achieve a balance between environmental protection and community growth would assist municipalities in making land use decisions.

ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF AN OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT

0th er information

22(5) A council or planning board may require that a person or public body that requests an amendment to its official plan provide such other information or material that the council or planning board considers it may need.

In most instances, studies that are required prior to construction can be addressed through the application of a holding provision, the site plan approval process or a plan of subdivision. However, there are applications where additional information is required prior to application acceptance to properly assess the merits of the requested land use designation (e.9. environmental impact studies, decommissioning reports, etc.) or else the required timelines can not be met.

Ideally, Section 22(5) would be linked to Section 22(6), Refusal and timing, to allow a council or planning board to refuse to accept or further consider the request for an amendment to its official plan until additional information identified under Section 22(5) is submitted which would assist in determining the merits of the requested policy change. Similar to the alternatiye procedures in Section 17 (18), the studies and circumstances under which they would be required to be submitted prior to application acceptance must be set out in a municipality’s official plan.

In addition, when new studies critical to the evaluation of the application are identified or if the applicant makes significant revisions to the. application following application acceptance, there should be a provision that enables a municipality to extend the required application timeline.

I

TIME PERIOD TO APPROVE DEMOLITION PERMITS

Appeal to O.M.B.

33(7 5) Any person who has made application to the council under subsection (77) may . appeal from the decision of the council to the Municipal Board within twenty days of the mailing of the notice of the decision, or where the council refuses or neglects to make a decision thereon within #b&y- days after the receipt by the clerk of the application, the applicant may appeal to the Municipal Board and the Board shall hear the appeal and the Board on the appeal has the same powers as the council has under subsection (74) and the decision of the Board shall be final.

.

The 30 - make a

day time frame provided in the Act where the Council refuses or neglects to decision on a demolition permit application is typically adhered to by the City of

London. There are instances, however, when dealing with issues such as a structure designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or where a structure which is listed on the City’s Inventory of Heritage Structures where additional time is required to evaluate the application. In keeping with proposed amendments to increase time frames for other planning applications, an increase in the. time frame for decisions relating to a demolition permit should be increased from 30 days to 60 days.

DEFINITION OF ‘CHARACTER’

‘Construction of buildings or structures

-34(1)4 For regulating the type of construction and the height, ,bulk, location, size, floor area, spacing, character and use of buildings or structures to be erected or located within the municipality or within any defined area or areas or upon land abutting on any defined highway or part of a highway, and the minimum frontage and depth of the parcel of land and the proportion of the area thereof that any building or structure may occupy.

The definition of the terms height, bulk, location, size, floor area, spacing, use, etc. is commonly understood, although usually defined in a municipality’s by-law for clarity. The definition of ‘character’, however, is open to interpretation with no common understanding. The definition of character in the Webster dictionary, when not related directly to an individual, a group or a nation, is a “feature used to separate distinguishable things into categories”, and the “main or essential nature especially as strongly marked and serving to distinguish”. This does not provide enough guidance for municipal planners.

A definition of ‘character’ or what a municipality may consider when creating a definition of character or regulations should be included in Section 1, Definitions.

’

ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF A ZONING BY-LAW APPLICATION

Other information

34(10.2) A council may require that a person or public body that applies for an amendment to a by-law passed under this section or a predecessor of this section provide such other information or material that the council may need.

In most ‘instances, studies that are required prior to construction can be addressed through the application of a holding provision, the site plan approval process or a plan of subdivision. However, there are applications where additional information is required prior to application acceptance to properly assess the merits of the requested zone change (e.9. environmental impact studies, decommissioning reports, etc.) or else the required timelines can not be met.‘

Ideally, Section 34(10.2) would be linked to Section 34(10.3), Refusal and timing, to allow a council or planning board to refuse to accept or further consider the request for a zoning by-law amendment until additional information identified under Section 34( 10.2) is submitted which would assist in determining the merits of the requested zoning . change. Similar to the alternative procedures in Section 34 (14), the studies and circumstances under which they would be required td be submitted prior to application acceptance, must be set out in a municipality’s official plan.

. In addition, when new studies critical to the evaluation of the application are identified or if the applicant makes significant revisions to the e application following application acceptance, there should be a provision that enables a municipality to extend the required application timeline.

COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF A ZONING BY-LAW

Appeal to O.M. B.

34(1 I ) Where an application to the council for an amendment to a by-law passed under this section or a predecessor of this section is refused or the council refuses or neglects to make a decision thereon Whin 90 days after the receipt

e application, the applicant may appeal to the Municipal Boa and the Board shall hear the appeal and dismiss the same o

by-law in such manner as the Board may determine or direct that the by-law be amended in accordance with its order.

Currently there is no statutory time limit for an applicant to appeal a refusal of a zoning by-law amendment. This is problematic for both the municipality and the public. First, a municipality is placed in the position of potentially having to defend a refusal before the Board many years after the application is made. Also, without a statutory time limit, the public does not have any assurance that the decision is permanent, and it is left in a state where a change may or may not occur if the applicant chooses to appeal at a future, undetermined date. Decisions should be resolved within a specified time frame to provide all the parties involved to operate on the basis of a final determination

A recommended time frame to appeal a refusal decision to the Municipal Board of 20 days which is consistent with other statutory time limits for appeals found throughout the Planning Act.

HOLDING 'PROVISIONS

Holding provisions are applied to properties to ensure that development issues such as servicing, environmental impacts, or other site specific issues are addressed prior to development. The holding provision is removed at the time the applicant is involved in the site plan approval process, or after an applicant enters into a subdivision agreement. Although it is the developer's responsibility to apply to remove the holding provision, this is sometimes overlooked as it is expected that removal of the holding provision will occur as part of the Site Plan Approval/ subdivision agreement review process. It typically takes the City of London one month to process a Holding Provision removal application. To streamline the development approvals process, consideration should be given to amend the Planning Act (either Section 35 or Sections 41 and 51) to allow Council to delegate authority to either a Committee of Council or to an appointed officer(simi1ar to Section 41 13) b) or 51 14)) the authority of Council to remove a holding provision requirement .

DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT

Site plan control area

41. (1) In this section,

"development" means the construction, erection or placing of one or more buildings or structures on land or the making of an addition or alteration to a building or structure that has the effect of substantially increasing the size or

establishment of a parking lot, or of sites for the location of three or more

trailers as defined in subsection 168 (5) of the Municipal Act, 2007 or of sites for the location of three or more mobile homes as defined in subsection 46 ( I ) of this Act or of sites for the construction, erection or location of three or more land lease community homes as defined in subsection 46 (I) of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 41 (I); 1994, c. 4, s. 14; 2002, c. 17, Sched. B, s. 14 (I).

Based on the current definition of "develoment" site plan approval is not required should a land owner wish to increase the number of on site parking spaces unless it is for the creation of a commercial parking lot. The creation of new spaces can have a negative impact on adjacent properties in terms of increased traffic and visual aesthetics. It is

recommended that the creation of all parkina areas be subject to site plan approval to ensure that these issues are addressed.

A further amendment to the definition of “development” to include the creation of open storage areas should also be considered. Municipalities, through the site plan approval process, will then be able to address issues such as providing adequate screening of open storage areas from adjacent land uses.

.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION

Conditions to approval of plans

4 7 (7) As a condition to the approval of the plans and drawings referred to in subsection (4), a municipality may require the owner of the land to,

(a) provide to fhe satisfaction of and at no expense to the municipality any or all of the following:

7. Subject to the provisions of subsections (8) and (9), widenings of highways that abut on the land.

2. Subject to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, facilities to provide access to and from the land such as access ramps and curbings and traffic direction signs.

loading and parking facilifies, either covered or uncovered, a

including driveways for emergency vehicles, and fhe suflacing of such areas and driveways.

In keeping with recommendations in the “Shape the Future: Western Ontario Smart Growth Panel” report (4.Id iii) to provide viable alternatives to the automobile in urban communities to meet the needs of residents, it is recommended that the Act be amendment to include. the provision allowing municipalities to require parking facilities for bicycles.

ROAD DEDICATION

Conditions to approval of plans

4U7) As a condition to the approval of the plans and drawings referred to in subsection (4), a municipality may require the owner of the land .to,

(a) provide to the satisfaction of and at no expense to the municipality any or all of the following:

7. Subiecf to the xlrovisions of subsections (8) and (9). wideninas of / i y s that abuf‘on the

Widening must be described in official plan

47(9) An owner may not be required to provide a high way widening under clause (8) (a) unless the

e widened is shown on or described in an official plan as highway to be widened and the extent of the proposed

The current provisions in the Planning Act do not allow municipalities to acquire roads located entirely within developments subject to site plan control. Under the current standards the City must purchase the land required for the road from the developer. With larger format commercial land holdings within communities, a condition which would require the land owner to dedicate planned roads not just widenings within a development subject to site plan control would be’consistent with Section 51 25) (b) of the Act which deals with Plan of Subdivision approvals.

(a) or under paragrap

widening is likewise shown or described. R. S. 0. 7990, c, P. 13, s. 47 (9).

TIME PERIOD TO APPROVE DRAWINGS

Appeal to 0.M.B

47(72) fails to approve the plans or drawings referred to in subsection ys aRer they are submitted to the municipality or if the owner

of the land is not safisfied with any requirement made by the municipality under subsection (7) or by the upper-tier municipality under subsection (8) or with any part thereof, including the terms of any agreement required, the owner may require the plans or drawings or the unsatisfactory requirements, or parts thereof, including the terms of any agreement required, to be referred to the Municipal Board by written notice to the secretary of the Board and fo the clerk of the municipality or upper-tier municipality, as appropriate. 2002, c. 1 7) Sched. 8, s. 74 (5).

The time frame provided in the Act for the approval of drawings is inadequate. In keeping with proposed amendments to increase time frames for other Planning. applications an increase in the time frame for the approval of drawings for site plan applications should be increased from 30 days to 90 days.

ACCEPTANCE AND PROCESSING OF A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

Other information

51(18) An approval authority may require that an ' applicant provide such other information or material thaf the approval authority considers if may need.

In most instances, studies that are required prior to construction can be addressed through the application of a holding provision, the site plan approval process or a plan of subdivision. However, there are applications. where additional information is required prior to application acceptance to properly assess the proposed lotting and use (e.g. environmental impact studies, decommissioning reports, etc.) or else the required timelinescan not be met.

Ideally, Section 51(18) would be linked to Section 51(19), Refusal and timing, to allow a council or planning board to refuse to accept or further consider the request for draft approval until additional information identified under Section 51 ( I 8) is submitted. Similar to the alternative procedures in Sections 17(18) and 34(14), the studies required to establish conditions of draft approval and the circumstances under which they would be required to be submitted prior to application acceptance should be set out in a

* municipality's official plan. -

In addition, when new studies critical to the evaluation of the application are identified or if the applicant makes significant revisions to the application following application acceptance, there should be a provision that enables a municipality to restart or exte nd/adj ust the req ui red application t imeli ne.

APPLICATION NOTIFICATION CONSISTENCY

Notice

57(20) At least 14 days before a decision, is made by an approval authority under subsection (37), the approval authority shall ensure that,

(a) notice of the application is given, if required by regulation, in the manner and to the persons and public bodies and containing the information prescribed; and

(b) a public meeting is held, if required by regulation, notice of which shall be given in the manner and ,to the persons and public bodies and containing the in form a tion prescribed.

Currently, plans of subdivision have notification requirements that are not consistent with the notification requirements for official plan or zoning by-law am'endments. To ensure consistency and streamline the application notification procedures, municipalities should be permitted to develop alternative procedures for plans of subdivision consistent with those for official plan and zoning .by-law amendments in Sections 17(22) and 34(14).

. ?(IO: Duff erin Avenue ' p.0; B.oX 5035 London, ON N6A 4L9

.

October 10,2001

Bruce Curtis. Senior Planner ' Ministry of: Municipal Affairs and' Housing - Southwestern 659 Exeter Road - 2nd Floor London, ON N6E L3

Dear Mr. Curtis:

Re: Five Year Review of the Provincial Policv Statement

Thank you for giving the-City of London the'opportunity to provide input to your five year revkw of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The attached reportwas received by Planning Committee onTuesday, *

October 9th. Several additional issues were raised by the Committee and have been incorporated in this letter for equal consideration by the Ministry. The attached report and this letter will be forwarded to Council for an official City position on 'Monday, October 15th. Given the 'Ministry's October 12th deadline for submissions, w e are providing these comments to you now and will follow up with any changes that may

' occur at the October 15th Council meeting. . I

The following is a summary of t h e issues that (he City-of London would.like to submit .for the'Ministry's consideration:

,

4 The term "shall have regard to"-has been the subject of much debate and'disagreernent. It would '

be useful to define this term so that all parties involved in the planning process, including the Ontario Municipal' Board,. can apply it consistently.

a To recognize the new roles and responsibilities of municipalities in the provision of affordable housing, policies would be useful which support partnerships and incentive-based approaches to providing affordable housing. '

such intensification and the effect that it may have on existhg neighbourhoods.

I

0 Residential intensification policies should recognize the need to evaluate the potential impact of

. The Corporation of the City of London .Off ice: 51 9-661-4980 Direct Line: 519-661-4980 Fax: 519-661-5397 .

vcote@city.Iondon.on.ca . \

. www.city.london.on.ca . .

.I .

. ..

. . ___ _. . . . .. . ... . , .. ... ---- __.-e

? ,

V Minimum Distance Separation Formulae should be treated as guidelines and should allow for some degree of flexibility- rather than the current imp1ementation.of the Provincial Policy Statement which applies these formulae in a rigid and inflexible way.

e There is a need for clearer provincial policy and more detailed guidelines for natural heritage .

resources. Specifically, the Provincial Policy Statement and existing guiaelines currently:

- Do not give clear direction for the definition of locally vs. provincially significant wetlands - Do not give sufficient direction.for the preservation of locally significant wetlands - Do not clarify whether stormwater management facilities are site alterations (subject to the policies of Section 2.3) or a form of infrastructure (arguably not subject to Section 2.3) - Do not provide a clear and workable definition of "no negative impact"

To be effective, the Policy Statement's desire to protect woodlands should be '!backed up'' with legislation3hat gives municipalities the authority to require that significant woodlands be set aside for cohservation. Currently, there is no legislative authority to do so.

The PPS does not effectively address cross-jucisdictional issues relating to natural heritage. 'Polkies would be helpful which give some direction for municipalities to consider planning actions at a watershed level. <

The Provincial Policy Statement requires the conservation af cultural heritage landscapes, yet there is no legislative basisto do so nor guidance for how such landscapes are to be preserved. '

The status of existing guideline documents, many of which were prepared by the province priorto *

the establishment of the Provincial Poticy Statement, is unclear. It would be extremely useful to include an accampanflng 'list of guideline documents which are intended t o guide the simplementation of the PPS with a list of the policies to which these guidelines apply (this could be effectively accomplished in a table format).

.. The transportation.policy is extremely general and some reference to transit-supportive development and supp.ort.for alternative modes of transportation would be beneficial.

-. Air quality and energy policies are not included in the Provincial Policy Statement. These are

With respect to the implementation of the PPS, the province has sometimes been absent during

important issues that should be addressed at a provincial policy level.

the debate of major planning issues that are directly related to key provincial policies. It is important that the province provides leadership and support for municipalities, particularly at the Ontario Municipal Board, as they implement and defend provincial policy, In some instances, it would be helpfy! .i.f the province pro-actively becomes involved in planning issues, at the OMB, where provincial interest is an issue.

monitoring the effectiveness of the policies and their implementation. The province has not established an effective monitoring system and has not dedicated adequate resources to do so.

0

The PPS refers the need for the province to establish performance indicators' for the purpose of

.

. .

J . --. I i 1 '

I . .

. , . .+*

Finally, I.would.like to :bring your attention to an issue that is related .to the review of the,ProvinciaI Policy Statement. The C.ounciI'for'the City of London continues to have a concernthat the Ontario"Municipa1 Board is regularly ignoring'or minimizing the importance of the'Provincial Policy Statement and local .Off icial1PIans in the'decisions that tmakes. T.he. Board often places very little weight .on .Provincial Policy and local policies and has frequently made decisions that undermine the integrity the Provincial -Policy Statement and the local Official Plan ,policies that implement it. Yourefforts to impro.ve and strengthen the existing Provincial Policy Statement will have little positive.effect ifthe Board continues to apply,little weightto the Provincial Policy Statement itself. We submit that the province should review and.evaluate the decisions of the OMB and 'the Board should be issued a practice direction which require them to evaluate development proposals on the basis of local planning policies that are in place and the Provincial'Policy

- (

.

.

- - Statements.

Please do not hesitate to contact myself or John Fleming of the Planning Division should you require clarification or more detail in association with our comments.

. .

. .

Commissioner of Planning and Development '

, y:\mhicks\wpdocs\planning .div\ppsletter ..- . . .

. ..

.. .L;.

.I 'c

5

I

.- -. _. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . , . .