Skip to main content

Full text of "New planning for Ontario : final report of the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario."

See other formats


COMMISSION ON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REFORM IN ONTARl 






f) 



poll C'dj 



New 

Planning 

for 

Ontario 




Ontario 



Final Report 

John Sewell, Chair 

George Penfold, Commissioner 

Toby Vigod, Commissioner 



June 1993 



New Planning 
for Ontario 

Commission on Planning 

and Development Reform in Ontario 



Nouvel amenagement du territoire 
pour rOntario 

Conmiission sur la reforme de I'amenagement 
et I'exploitation du territoire en Ontario 



June 1993 




The Honourable Ed Philip 
Minister of Municipal Affairs 

Dear Mr. Minister: 

We are very pleased to submit to you the Final Report of the Commission on Planning 
and Development Reform in Ontario. 

The recommendations in this report are based on the energy and hard work of thousands 
of people across Ontario. We are confident this report outHnes a workable agenda for new 
planning in Ontario. 

Yours very truly, 



'JbiiM.'^UyKlZ_ ^^^^.^^.y^ ^y^.^^ '7^ ^h-^ 



John Sewell 
Chair 



George Penfold 
Commissioner 



Toby Vigod 
Commissioner 



John Sewell 

Chair 

president 

George Penfold 

Commissioner 

commissaire 

Toby Vigod 

Commissioner 

commissaire 



180 Dundas St. W., 22nd Floor, Toronto, Ont. M5G 1Z8 
Tel: (416) 325-8734 Fax: (416) 325-8739 



22^ etage, 180 rue Dundas ouest, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 
Tel: (416) 325-8734 Fax: (416) 325-8739 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

The Law Foundation of Ontario & the Ontario Council of University Libraries 



http://www.archive.org/details/newplanningforonOOcomm 



New Planning for Ontario 

Final Report 




T:e Commission appreciates the time, 
energy, and hard work that thousands 
of people across the province have put 
into submissions, presentations, and 
meetings. This report is built on the 
ideas they shared with us. 



Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data 

Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. 

New planning for Ontario : final report of the Commission on Planning and 
Development Reform in Ontario 

Commissioners: John Sewell (Chair), George Penfold, Toby Vigod. 

Issued also in French under title: Nouvel amenagement du territoire pour I'Ontario, 

rapport final de la Commission sur la reforme de I'amenagement et I'exploitation du 

territoire en Ontario. 

ISBN 0-7778-1325-4 

I. Land use — Ontario — Planning. I. Sewell, John, 1940- . 

II. Penfold, G. E. (George Edward) III. Vigod, Toby. IV. Title V. Title: Final report of 
the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. 

HD319.057C65 1993 346.71304'5 C93-092563-7 



© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 1993 



Copies of this report are available from the Commission until the end of July 1993. 
Contact: 

New Planning for Ontario 

180 Dundas Street West, 22nd Floor 

Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8. 

Telephone (416) 325-8734 
Toll-free in Ontario 1-800-267-4317 
Fax (416) 325-8739. 



After July 31, 1993, copies of this report are available for a charge from: 

Publications Ontario 
880 Bay Street 
Toronto 

Telephone (416) 326-5320. 

Mail order customers may contact: 

Publicahons Ontario 
50 Grosvenor Street 
Toronto, Ontario M7A INS. 

Telephone (416) 326-5300 
Toll-free in Ontario 1-800-668-9938 
Fax (416) 326-5317. 

The hearing impaired may call: 

(416) 325-3408, or 

Toll-free in Ontario 1-800-268-7095. 



nin Printed on recycled paper 

Ce document est aussi disponible en frangais 



Contents 



1. A New Approach to Planning 1 

Strong Voices Across the Province 1 

Rural Areas 1 

Agricultural Ontario 2 

Urban Ontario 2 

Northern Ontario 2 

Cottage Country 3 

A Common Complaint 3 

Recommended Reforms in Brief 3 

The Commission's Approach 5 

2. The Purposes of Planning 8 

3. Provincial Policy Statements 10 

Provincial Interests 10 

Environmental and Resource 

Interests 10 

Social Interests 11 

Economic Interests 11 

Financial Interests 11 

Interests in Municipal Planning 11 

Current Policies and Guidelines 12 

Characteristics of Policies 14 

Form 14 

Status 14 

Conflict Among Provincial Policies 15 

Consultation 16 

Commentary on Recommended 

Policies 17 



Natural Heritage and Ecosystem 

Protection and Restoration 17 

Community Development and 

Infrastructure 20 

Housing 23 

Agricultural Land 24 

Agricultural Viability 24 

Urban Sprawl 25 

Lack of Options 25 

Canada Land Inventory 25 

Right to Farm 25 

Conservation 25 

Non-renewable Resources 26 

Mineral Aggregates 26 

Minerals and Petroleum 

Resources 27 

Implementation 28 

Recommended Provincial Policies 29 

A. Natural Heritage and Ecosystem 
Protection and Restoration 

Policies 29 

B. Community Development and 
Infrastructure Policies 31 

C. Housing Policies 32 

D. Agricultural Land Policies 33 

E. Conservation Policies 33 

F. Non-renewable Resources 

Policies 34 

G. Implementation Policies 34 

Definitions 36 



CONTENTS 



4. The Provincial Role 39 

Policy and Planning 39 

Provincial Policy 39 

Provincial Planning Advisory 

Committee (PPAC) 40 

Interministerial Planning 

Committee (IPC) 41 

Provincial Planning 42 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 

Planning (MMAP) 43 

Minister's Powers 44 

Approvals 44 

Appeals 45 

Emergency Powers 45 

Zoning Controls 45 

Withdrawal of Approval 

Authority 46 

Declaration of Provincial 

Interest 46 

Administration of Provincial Planning 47 

Regional Planning Review 47 

Permits, Licences, and 

Technical Matters 49 

Timeliness 51 

The Province as Information 

Provider 52 

Monitoring 52 

Education and Training 53 

Grants and Subsidies 54 

Cost of Planning 54 

Provincial Grant Program 55 

Subsidies 55 

5. Planning and Aboriginal 

Communities 57 



6. Municipal Plan-making 60 

Decision-making Structures 60 

Upper-Tier and Lower-Tier 

Planning 61 

Planning Authorities 64 

Separated Municipalities 65 

Strong Lower Tiers 66 

Planning in the North 67 

Strengthening Existing 

Structures 67 

Planning Board Responsibilities 68 

Next Steps 70 

Plan Approvals 71 

Upper Tiers Without Plans 71 

Plan-making 72 

Strategic Planning 72 

Municipal Plans 73 

Principles and Content 73 

The Process of Planning 74 

Comprehensive Planning Process .... 74 

Plan Amendments 76 

Planning on a Watershed Basis 78 

Environmental Impact Studies ,. 81 

Joint-Planning 82 

Monitoring and Plan Review 83 

7. Lot Creation and Development 

Control 84 

Lot Creation 84 

Existing Legislation 84 

Response to the Commission's 

Draft Proposal 86 

Improvements to Subdivision 

and Consent Systems 86 

Delegation 87 

Development Control 90 

Zoning 90 

Water Zoning and Regulations 92 



CONTENTS 



Streetscape and Physical 

Design Guidelines 92 

Site-Plan Control 93 

Development Permits 96 

Sewage and Water Allocations 97 

Bonusing and Density Transfers 98 

Site Alterations 98 

Minor Variances 100 

Development Standards 100 

Municipal Infrastructure 101 

8. Public Involvement 105 

Information 105 

Council and Committee Meetings 106 

Notification 107 

Public Meetings 108 

Other Considerations 110 

Notification Periods and Time Limits HI 

9. Conflicts, Disputes, and Appeals 113 

Ontario Municipal Board 114 

Minor Variance Appeals 114 

Dispute Resolution 115 

Other Procedural Matters 117 

Unincorporated Associations 117 

Increased Authority 117 

Site-Specific Objections 117 

Right to Appeal 117 

Audio-tapes 118 

Intervenor Funding 118 

Awarding Costs 121 

Administration 121 

Backlog 121 

Board Membership 121 

Workload and Resources 121 



10. Sewage Treatment and Septics 123 

Sewage Treatment 123 

Septics 124 

Private Wells 125 

11. Streamlining 127 

General Issues 127 

Municipalities 128 

The Province 128 

The Ontario Municipal Board 129 

Economic Effects 129 

12. Implementing This Report 130 

Administrative Reform 130 

Policy Reform 131 

Legislative Reform 132 

13. Recommendations 134 

Appendices 

A. Order in Council 165 

B. Working Groups 168 

C. Meetings with Communities, 

Councils, and Groups 175 

D. Public Forums 177 

E. Submitters 178 

F. Commission Publications 200 

Selected Bibliography 202 

Staff 205 

Commissioners and Executive Director 206 



1 

A New Approach 
to Planning 



The Commission on Planning 
and Development Reform in 
Ontario was appointed on June 6, 
1991, by the Honourable Dave 
Cooke, then Minister of 
Municipal Affairs. John Sewell 
was appointed Chair of the 
Commission, and George Penfold 
and Toby Vigod were appointed 
Commissioners. The Honourable 
Ed Philip became the new 
Minister of Municipal Affairs in 
February 1993. 

The Commission was given a 
broad mandate to recommend 
changes to the Planning Act and 
related policy that would restore 
confidence in the integrity of the 
planning process, protect public 
interests, better define roles and 
relationships, focus more closely 
on protecting the natural environ- 
ment, and make the planning 
process more timely and efficient. 
The Commission was specifically 
directed to consult widely and 
submit its Final Report by 
July 1, 1993. 

At the time the Commission 
was appointed, the integrity of 
the planning system was being 
called into question, largely 



because of revelations about the 
influence of some developers in 
several municipalities. Concerns 
about the negative impact of 
land-use decisions on the natural 
environment and about the abili- 
ty of the planning system to pro- 
tect the natural environment had 
increased steadily over the previ- 
ous decade. As well, there was 
mounting criticism over red tape 
and delays in the system. 

Although these concerns 
emerged during a development 
boom, at the time the 
Commissioners began work the 
economy had turned sluggish 
and the province had entered a 
period of economic recession. The 
problem of coping with develop- 
ment pressure was replaced by 
concerns about jobs and the 
future, worries that continue to 
be evident as this Report is being 
completed. 

This Final Report is the culmi- 
nation of almost two years of 
extensive, provincewide consulta- 
tion and study. The Commission 
heard many voices and received 
many submissions that con- 
tributed to its recommendations. 



Strong Voices Across 
the Province 

The need for change became very 
apparent as the Commission 
heard strong voices and opinions 
from all parts of the province. 

Several themes emerged — 
support for more protection of 
the natural environment, concern 
about the economy, and general 
support for better, more local 
planning. Yet people in different 
parts of the province expressed 
different priorities. 

It is important that these 
strong opinions be recognized at 
the beginning of this Report. Not 
taking them into account could 
result in recommendations which 
miss the passion and sense of car- 
ing about individual communi- 
ties that are so evident through- 
out the province. Recognizing 
these voices will help create a 
more resilient and practical 
planning system. 

Rural Areas 

Many people told the 
Commission that rural Ontario is 
angry and disappointed. They 
said they thought rural Ontario 
was left out of decision-making, 
and was estranged from provin- 
cial government processes in 
Toronto. For them, the assets of 
rural Ontario were being held 
hostage to the whims of urbanites 
who want to use it either as a 
dumping place for their garbage, 
or as a retreat to the beauty of 
nature which has been destroyed 
in cities. Others saw the same 
influences as challenges that 
could be turned to economic 
advantage. Many expressed a 



FINAL 



REPORT 
1 



A NEW APPROACH TO PLANNING 



fierce pride in rural landscape 
and wanted to be assured the nat- 
ural heritage would be protected. 

Some said the Commission's 
early proposal to restrict the 
installation of new septic systems 
(since amended) was yet another 
attempt to control rural develop- 
ment, while others were pleased 
that a long-standing problem was 
finally being addressed. 

Some residents felt it was 
more important to develop a pro- 
gram to improve the economic 
health of rural Ontario than to 
reform the planning system. 

Agricultural Ontario 

Those parts of rural Ontario with 
an agricultural base have prob- 
lems of their own, centring on the 
viability of farming. 

The tender-fruit farmers of 
the Niagara Peninsula made this 
point most forcefully, and the 
Commission heard the same 
story in such places as Chatham, 
London, Kingston, Peterborough, 
and Guelph. Why protect farm- 
land, some argued, if the farmer 
can't make a living from it? Why 
are farmers asked to preserve 
farmland when it is the larger 
cities — particularly in the 
Greater Toronto Area — that have 
absorbed the best farmland in the 
past 40 years? 

Others, however, argued 
strongly in a different direction. 
They urged effective protection 
for quality agricultural land now, 
to provide food security in the 
future. 



Urban Ontario 

Residents in cities and their sub- 
urbs expressed a variety of views. 
Some saw intensification as a nat- 
ural next step for cities; others felt 
it would bring undesirable 
changes. The role of cities in 
addressing social issues and pro- 
viding affordable housing was 
emphasized by some. Concern 
was expressed about safety in 
cities, and the need to improve 
the urban environment was artic- 
ulated. Many supported more 
protection for the natural envi- 
ronment in and around cities, 
while some wanted a freer hand 
for economic initiatives. 

Very few complained about 
large new office and apartment 
developments, which were the 
source of much discontent five 
years ago. Some saw the current 
slowdown as a chance for cities 
to catch their breath and plan for 
what might happen when the 
economy turns around. The 
malaise in the development sec- 
tor was very apparent to the 
Commission, and it won't be alle- 
viated by improvements to the 
planning process. It requires a 
newly invigorated economy. 

Some recognized that public 
funds are insufficient to continue 
funding low-density develop- 
ment, but more seemed reluctant 
to make the hard choices just yet. 
Some councillors and residential 
developers hoped for the speedy 
return of the strong demand for 
large suburban houses on large 
lots, and argued that opportuni- 
ties for this kind of development 
should be kept open. 



Northern Ontario 

The Commission admired the 
apparent resilience of Northern 
Ontario. Nothing seems easy in 
the North, but people there give 
the impression they can generally 
make their own way if given half 
a chance. 

Northerners resent being con- 
trolled by decisions made in the 
South. The Commission heard 
numerous complaints about how 
this happens around planning 
issues, and many submissions 
urged an increase in decision- 
making for the North in the 
North. 

The big issue looming in the 
background of many submissions 
was the cost of planning. Most 
northern communities are so 
small that even if they were to 
band together with their neigh- 
bours, many feel, there would not 
be sufficient financial resources to 
undertake the kind of planning 
that should be done. Some are 
concerned that provincial policy 
statements protecting natural 
resources might hamper econom- 
ic development. Other 
Northerners, however, said that a 
healthy natural environment is 
the most significant resource for 
future jobs and economic 
opportunities. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

2 



A NEW APPROACH TO PLANNING 



Cottage Country 

One area of Ontario that expects 
continued growth is cottage 
country. There seems to be 
enough money in the system to 
allow more people to take up 
recreational boating and spawn 
increasing numbers of cottages. 
As well more and more cottages 
are becoming year-round homes. 

The fear here is how much 
more development the local 
ecosystem can bear. The impact 
of failing septic systems and the 
limited carrying capacity of lakes 
and rivers are of great concern. 
Cottagers worry about the intru- 
sion of boats; boaters worry 
about unfair restrictions and a 
lack of political voice. 

A Common Complaint 

In all parts of the province, 
people had complaints about the 
planning process. Almost all 
interests shared feelings of frus- 
tration and a sense that planning 
is an interminable process which 
produces unsatisfactory results. 
There were complaints about 
delay, red tape, and the time it 
takes to have an appeal heard. 
Some thought the process was 
difficult to gain access to and that 
everything was up for negotia- 
tion and nothing was certain — 
not even the official plan. 
Throughout the province, many 
thought the process did not ade- 
quately protect the natural 
environment. 



Recommended 
Reforms in Brief 

The challenge for the Commission 
was to design a planning system 
that accommodates considerable 
diversity and is resilient enough, 
given a wide range of opinions, 
to reach good conclusions. The 
Commission believes there is a 
common ground on the changes 
needed. One agreed-upon 
requirement for a reformed plan- 
ning system is a consistent policy 
approach from the province 
applied with a reasonable degree 
of flexibility. Another is a 
strengthened and more timely 
process, which involves the pub- 
lic in a meaningful way. A third is 
strong municipal planning and 
decision-making. 

It is not within the 
Commission's mandate to pro- 
pose strategies for broad econom- 
ic questions. However, muni- 
cipalities should have available to 
them better tools to deal with the 
concerns people expressed, even 
if responsibility for general eco- 
nomic issues rests elsewhere. 

Thus, the Commission 
strongly encourages strategic 
planning. We recommend 
stronger decision-making struc- 
tures and arrangements to permit 
municipalities to address broad 
planning issues. We make pro- 
posals to improve joint-planning 
and help municipalities share 
scarce planning resources and 
limited funds. We encourage 
more public involvement in plan- 
ning decisions to ensure the best 
ideas in the community are avail- 
able for the decision-makers to 
consider. 



The Commission believes the 
basic components of the current 
planning system are generally 
sound. But like a machine that 
has been allowed to run too long 
without maintenance, the legisla- 
tion and the planning process 
both need fixing, and in some 
cases parts need replacement. 
Some adaptations are needed to 
allow the system to respond to 
new and emerging concerns, 
which the existing system seems 
unable to address. 

Ideas of what changes should 
be made have been tested over 
four rounds of consultation. Most 
recommendations are quite 
straightforward. They do not 
involve significant new expendi- 
tures or extensive new structures. 
They provide a reasonable agen- 
da of reform, which can be put in 
place relatively quickly, without 
disruption or restructuring. The 
Commission is confident these 
recommendations have a wide 
base of support throughout the 
province. 

The mandate given to the 
Commission, along with the 
Commission's recommendations 
responding to that mandate, is 
summarized as follows: 

1. Protect public interests. 

General recommendations: 
• Planning decisions must 
be consistent with provin- 
cial policies that: 

- protect the natural 
environment and 
ecosystems; 

- promote community 
development and effi- 
ciently manage infra- 
structure; 



FINAL REPORT 

3 



A NEW APPROACH TO PLANNING 



promote a variety of 
housing to meet hous- 
ing needs; 
- protect quality agricul- 
tural areas; 
conserve energy and 
water; and 

protect non-renewable 
resources. 

• Provincial policy would 
also require that cultural 
and historical resources be 
respected and conserved; 
that urban areas encour- 
age intensification; that 
rural municipalities define 
rural characteristics to be 
protected as development 
occurs; and that social 
needs be addressed in the 
planning process. 

2. Better define roles and 
relationships. 

General recommendations: 

• The province should con- 
sult widely, write down 
policy, and give it formal 
status. 

• The province should be 
responsible for policy for- 
mation, provincial plan- 
ning, advice, information, 
and research. 

• Municipalities should 
plan, and municipal plans 
must address broad and 
local concerns. 

• The province should have 
approval authority for the 
plans and plan amend- 
ments of regions, counties, 
separated municipalities, 
cities in the North, and 
planning boards. 



• Regions and counties with 
plans should have author- 
ity to approve lower-tier 
plans and plan amend- 
ments, and plans of subdi- 
vision. 

• Local municipalities 
should be responsible for 
development control. 

• In the North, planning 
boards should be expanded 
or established and those 
with plans should have 
the authority to approve 
plans of subdivision. 

• Public notification should 
be given early in the 
process, and include on- 
site signage for site-specif- 
ic applications, and a noti- 
fication registry. 

• The Ontario Municipal 
Board should ensure 
municipal and provincial 
policy is upheld, should 
call procedural meetings, 
and should mediate and 
resolve disputes. 

3. Focus on protecting the 
natural environment. 

General recommendations: 

• Provincial policies would 
require that significant 
natural features be pro- 
tected from any develop- 
ment. Development may 
proceed in other sensitive 
areas only if it is deter- 
mined there are no 
adverse effects. 

• Municipalities must assess 
the environmental 
impacts of options and 
alternatives when prepar- 
ing plans. 



• MunicipaHties must map 
or describe environmental 
resources, regularly moni- 
tor environmental (and 
other) indicators, and plan 
on a watershed basis. 

• Municipalities should be 
able to control site alter- 
ations, including clearing 
of vegetation and placing 
or removal of fill. 

• Private septic systems 
should be better regulated, 
including regular pump- 
outs and inspection. 

• Municipal infrastructure 
should be subject to a 
Class Environmental 
Review process under the 
Planning Act. 

4. Create a more timely and 
responsive planning process. 

General recommendations: 

• Provincial decisions should 
be made within six months. 

• Ministries should define 
standards that applicants 
must meet, and enforce- 
ment should be delegated 
to capable municipalities. 

• Provincial decision-making 
should be delegated to 
regional offices, and the 
actions of ministries 
coordinated. 

• A three-month timeframe 
should be established for 
municipal decisions on 
rezoning applications and 
a six-month timeframe for 
other applications. 

• The Ontario Municipal 
Board should call a proce- 
dural meeting of all par- 
ties within 30 days of 
receiving an appeal. 



FINAL REPORT 
4 



A NEW APPROACH TO PLANNING 



The Commission believes 
these changes will help restore 
confidence in the integrity of the 
planning system. One significant 
problem in the relationship 
between public and private inter- 
ests has been the lack of clear 
provincial policy, which is 
addressed by the Commission's 
policy recommendations. Other 
actions affecting the relationship 
between public and private inter- 
ests, such as the ongoing police 
investigation known as Project 80, 
conflict-of-interest legislation, 
and legislation requiring open 
meetings at the municipal level, 
are being taken by others. 
Accordingly, the Commission has 
not addressed these matters but 
has focused attention on the sys- 
tem of planning and how it might 
be improved. 

Recommendations are also 
made on other matters, including: 
the involvement of First Nations, 
Aboriginal, and Metis communi- 
ties in municipal planning; 
provincial planning; ministerial 
powers; provincial permits and 
licences; municipal control over 
the use of water bodies; septic 
systems and sewage treatment; 
and minor variances. 



The Commission's 
Approach 

The Commission set out to seek 
and recommend a package of 
reforms that would be acceptable 
to the public and those involved 
in planning, that would have a 
realistic possibility of being 
implemented, and that would 
work within the variety of muni- 
cipal and planning structures in 
the province. 

The 10 million people who 
live in Ontario are found in a 
wide range of settings — in 
towns and on farms, in rural 
areas and remote Northern com- 
munities, in downtowns, and in 
suburbs. Where Ontarians live 
determines, to some extent, the 
nature of their interest in the 
planning process. But there are 
diverse views on the planning 
process within every community. 

The municipal planning 
structure in Ontario is complicat- 
ed and varied. There are 831 
municipalities, 70 percent of 
which have populations of less 
than 5000. Southern Ontario is 
covered by a regional or a county 
structure — regions and counties 
constitute a second tier of muni- 
cipal government — although 21 
cities and towns are "separated" 
and outside this two-tiered struc- 
ture. In Northern Ontario, half 
the 800,000 residents live in six 
cities, of which only Sudbury is 
in a regional structure. The other 
half live in small municipalities 
or in "unorganized areas" with- 
out a municipal structure. Some 
of these small municipalities and 
unorganized areas are served by 
planning boards. As well, there 



are more than 200 Aboriginal 
communities in Northern 
Ontario. 

The Commission decided 
early on that our key task was to 
find common ground among the 
various players involved in plan- 
ning. Rather than taking an 
abstract and distanced approach, 
we decided to go to planners, 
developers, citizen activists, envi- 
ronmentalists, farmers, municipal 
politicians and staff, provincial 
staff, and others across the 
province who work with the 
planning process. 

We especially wanted to 
encourage the widest possible 
public participation — to involve 
as many people as possible. More 
than 40 public forums were held 
in different locations across the 
province. We also convened 
meetings of 15 different working 
groups, sponsored three dozen 
community meetings, and met 
regularly with many organiza- 
tions closely involved in planning. 

Our newsletter. New Planning 
Nczus, presented proposals for 
comment, informed readers of 
our schedule and the status of 
our work, and provided informa- 
tion on specific issues. In all, 
eight issues of the newsletter 
were published in both English 
and French editions. The mailing 
list for the newsletter included 
more than 16,000 addresses, and 
on average a further 9000 copies 
of each issue were distributed at 
meetings, conferences, and other 
events attended by the 
Commissioners. 

Since September 1991, the 
wider public was also kept 
informed of the Commission's 



FINAL 



REPORT 
5 



A NEW APPROACH TO PLANNING 



progress through the 
Commission Chair's biweekly, 
10-minute slot on CBC's "Radio 
Noon," hosted by Christopher 
Thomas. Since September 1992, a 
similar arrangement has been in 
place with Benita Hart on CBC- 
Sudbury's "Radio Noon," which 
reaches communities in 
Northeastern Ontario. 

Finally, the Commission's 
activities have been extensively 
covered elsewhere in the media. 
More than 500 articles about the 
Commission's proposals and 
local reactions to them were 
carried in daily and weekly 
newspapers, in Ontario. As well, 
many local radio and television 
stations covered the forums and 
local meetings. 

To begin our work, we need- 
ed to articulate a set of goals and 
policies for planning in Ontario 
which would set a direction for 
planning decisions. Two tech- 
niques for arriving at draft poli- 
cies were rejected. Going to the 
public with a blank piece of 
paper and saying "what do you 
think goals for a new planning 
system should be?" might appear 
useful, but would probably pro- 
duce little more than stock 
responses. Another approach 
would have been to have the 
three of us as Commissioners 
write down and circulate our per- 
sonal ideas for discussion, but 
that seemed much too limited. 
Instead, we decided to use work- 
ing groups to develop a first set 
of draft goals and policies. 

In the fall of 1991, six working 
groups were formed to look at 
planning policies for different 
areas of the province: urban. 



urban fringe, rural and small 
centres, cottage country. 
Northeastern Ontario, and 
Northwestern Ontario. Each 
group consisted of about 20 
members who were well-respect- 
ed advocates of the interests they 
were representing; were interest- 
ed in seeing what kind of com- 
mon ground existed; and were 
able to attend three or four two- 
hour meetings every second 
week. Participation was indepen- 
dent of any organization individ- 
uals might represent. Minutes of 
meetings were circulated to assist 
in the discussions. 

The ideas suggested by the 
working groups were published 
in the November/ December 1991 
and December 1991 issues of our 
newsletter. New Planning News. 
Comments made in January 1992 
at public forums, along with writ- 
ten submissions, led to reconsid- 
eration and a second draft of 
goals and policies, published in 
the April 1992 newsletter. This 
second draft was subject to two 
further rounds of forums, in the 
spring and fall of 1992, and addi- 
tional written submissions. It 
evolved into the proposals found 
in our Draft Report. 

A similar working group 
approach was used to develop 
ideas about reforming the plan- 
ning process, with groups set up 
in Kingston, London, Sudbury, 
and Toronto. Two more special- 
ized groups were formed to pro- 
vide input and criticism: an inter- 
ministerial group, made up of 
representatives from the key min- 
istries involved in planning at the 
provincial level; and a chairs 
group, made up of representatives 



of approximately 20 major orga- 
nizations in the province with a 
stated interest in the work of the 
Commission. Other working 
groups were created to look at 
particular problems such as 
development control issues, 
relationships between the 
Environmental Assessment Act and 
the Planning Act, and social 
poHcy statements. 

A regular schedule of meet- 
ings was maintained with provin- 
cial ministries and agencies, as 
well as with organizations repre- 
senting many interest groups. 
Groups in this category included 
organizations such as the Ontario 
Professional Planners Institute, 
the Association of Municipalities 
of Ontario, the Land Use Caucus 
of the Ontario Environmental 
Network, the Ontario Home 
Builders' Association, and the 
Urban Development Institute. 
These meetings enabled us to 
keep informed of concerns, 
allowed people to learn of our 
ongoing work, and ensured that 
we remained realistic about 
achieving a reformed, and work- 
able, planning system. 

Since the comments received 
by the Commission were both 
wide-ranging and precise, the 
Commission decided to prepare a 
Draft Report and make it as 
detailed as possible. Our aim was 
to permit readers to respond pre- 
cisely rather than have them strug- 
gle with generalities. The Draft 
Report was released in December 
1992, and approximately 30,000 
copies were circulated. 

The Commission has been 
impressed by the breadth and 
depth of response to the Draft 



FINAL REPORT 
6 



A NEW APPROACH TO PLANNING 



Report. The round of public 
forums after its release, held in 
18 centres during February and 
March 1993, was very well 
attended. Some 1200 submissions 
commenting on the draft were 
received. Many submissions were 
lengthy and showed considerable 
attention to detail: those writing 
submissions devoted a great deal 
of time and care to this task. 
Many municipalities went 
through the Draft Report recom- 
mendation by recommendation, 
commenting on all or a great 
number of our proposals. 
Responses came from all kinds of 
interests throughout the 
province, and the Commission 
was gratified at the number of 
submissions that commended the 
process for stimulating thinking 
among friends, among col- 
leagues, and among municipal 
council members. 

After the Draft Report was 
released, the Commission contin- 
ued to hold community meetings, 
attend conferences, and meet 
with major organizations to get 
feedback and comment. 

In sum, the Commission held 
four rounds of public forums. 
Afternoon and evening sessions 
were held in each centre, and 
local councillors of surrounding 
municipalities were frequently 
asked to attend a special advance 
meeting for general discussion 
and questions. More than 2200 
people attended these forums, 
and more than 700 presentations 
were made. 

In addition, the Commission 
hosted or attended less formal 
public meetings and discussions in 
38 communities, with a total 



attendance of about 4000 people. 
As Commissioners, we attended 
a further 80 conferences, work- 
shops, or other gatherings to 
deliver speeches or participate in 
discussions. In total we have, to 
date, spoken directly with some 
23,000 people across the province. 

By the end of April 1993, the 
Commission had received a total 
of 2083 formal written submis- 
sions. These submissions were 
augmented by a further 600 letters 
from people commenting on, or 
seeking more information about, 
the work of the Commission. 

The ideas presented to the 
Commission by all those who 
participated in meetings and 
forums or who wrote submis- 
sions have been the basis for for- 
mulating recommendations. The 
collaborative and open process 
has meant many different ideas 
have been presented for consider- 
ation, and the process has permit- 
ted constructive reaction and 
interpretation so that weak ideas 
were rejected and good ideas 
strengthened. An open process 
has substantial benefits: ideas can 
be tested easily, and those not 
well-thought-out can be set aside 
without fear of embarrassment. 
The sense of innovation sur- 
rounding this process has made 
the travelling and the long hours 
both enjoyable and intellectually 
rewarding. We thank the many 
people who invested so much 
time and energy and participated 
so fully in the Commission's 
work. The strength of the recom- 
mendations in this Final Report is 
a result of their work, energy, and 
commitment. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

7 



2 



The Purposes of Hamung 



Currently, the Planning Act does 
not have a purpose section. A 
large number of submissions 
agreed that a purpose section 
should be added to provide 
greater clarity and direction to 
decisions made under the Act. 

There were many different 
suggestions on what should be 
included in a purpose section. All 
agreed that statements should be 
general in nature, touching on 
larger issues, but there was no 
general agreement about exactly 
what should be said. Some want- 
ed more emphasis on economic 
development; others wanted 
more emphasis on sustainability 
Some wanted more visionary lan- 
guage; others thought the section 
should define not just the pur- 
pose of the Planning Act, but also 
the purpose of planning. 

A number of submissions 
thought the purpose section 
should make a statement about 
property rights, and a motion 
was endorsed by a number of 
municipalities that actions should 
be "consistent with the historic 
and inherent rights respecting the 
private ownership and enjoyment 
of property." There are difficult 
questions about what such a 
statement of purpose in legisla- 
tion would mean. For example. 



although many agreed it should 
not interfere with municipal zon- 
ing powers, such a statement 
might have that impact. 

In any case, it is not the 
Commission's intention to sug- 
gest any changes to the common 
law pertaining to property own- 
ership and rights. It would help 
no one for the Commission to 
wade into a debate about proper- 
ty rights questions. For these rea- 
sons, the Commission believes 
this purpose section should not 
include references to property 
ownership or rights. 

The Commission is proposing 
a purpose section that is simple 
and clear, covering the main 
interests important to Ontario. 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

1. The Planning Act be amend- 
ed to state that the purposes 
of the Act are to guide land- 
use change in a manner that: 

(a) fosters economic, 
environmental, cultural, 
physical, and social 
well-being; and 

(b) protects and conserves 
the natural environment 
and conserves and man- 
ages natural resources 
for the benefit of present 
and future generations; 
and 

(c) provides for planning 
processes that are fair, 
open, accessible, 
accountable, timely, and 
efficient; and 

(d) encourages cooperation 
and coordination among 
differing interests. 



FINAL REPORT 

8 



THE PURPOSES OF PLANNING 



A number of matters of 
provincial interest are set out in 
section 2 of the current Planning 
Act. Many submissions agreed 
this section should be updated to 
respond to matters now generally 
accepted as important in plan- 
ning. Further, all planning juris- 
dictions should have regard for 
these interests, not just the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs or 
those exercising his or her 
authority, as the section now 
states. The Commission is recom- 
mending modest changes to 
many subsections, and has added 
several in its proposed list, such 
as (g) and (k). 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

2. Section 2 of the Planning Act 
be amended to provide that, 
in exercising powers under 
the Act, the council of every 
municipality, every local 
board or authority, every 
minister of the Crown and 
every ministry, board, com- 
mission or agency of the gov- 
ernment, including the 
Ontario Municipal Board 
and Ontario Hydro, shall 
have regard to, among other 
things, such matters of 
provincial interest as: 

(a) the protection of ecosys- 
tems, including natural 
features and functions; 

(b) the protection of the 
agricultural resource 
base of the province; 

(c) the conservation and 
management of natural 
resources and the miner- 
al resource base; 



(d) the protection and con- 
servation of heritage 
features of significant 
architectural, cultural, 
historical, archaeological 
or scientific interest; 

(e) the supply, efficient use 
and conservation of 
energy and water; 

(f) the adequate provision 
and efficient use of 
communication, trans- 
portation, sewer, water, 
and waste-management 
services; 

(g) the minimization of 
waste; 

(h) the orderly development 
of safe and healthy 
communities; 

(i) the adequate provision 
and equitable distribu- 
tion of educational, 
health, social and recre- 
ational facilities and 
programs; 

(j) the adequate provision 
of a wide variety of 
housing; 

(k) the adequate provision 
and distribution of 
employment opportuni- 
ties; 

(1) the protection of the 
financial and economic 
well-being of the 
province and its muni- 
cipalities; 

(m) the coordination of plan- 
ning activities of public 
bodies and private 
interests; 

(n) the effective and efficient 
resolution of planning 
conflicts. 



FINAL REPORT 
9 



3 

Provincial Policy 

Statements 



For the planning process to work 
effectively, there is a need for 
clarity on what planning is trying 
to accomplish. The interests of 
the province must be stated, and 
written down. The mechanism to 
express those interests is through 
policy statements under the 
Planning Act. 

Provincial policy statements 
provide direction to all planning 
activity. Apart from any changes 
that might be made to the 
Planning Act, submissions to the 
Commission consistently identi- 
fied the need for such statements 
to provide clarity, despite some 
disagreement on the appropriate 
scope and detail of each policy. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending a comprehensive set of 
policy statements that outline 
provincial interests in a clear, 
straightforward manner. The 
policies recommended in this 
chapter attempt to fulfil this 
objective. The Commission 
believes these recommended 
policies represent a considerable 
amount of common ground in the 
province. 



Provincial Interests 

Provincial interests in planning 
include environmental and 
resource protection, social, eco- 
nomic, and fiscal well-being, and 
effective planning administration. 
Policies embodying these inter- 
ests would provide the frame- 
work for plarming in Ontario. 
Of course, there are other 
interests besides those of the 
province: there are a variety of 
private interests, and there are 
more local public interests. In 
many cases, a development 
scheme that seems entirely 
appropriate to satisfy private 
interests may have to be modified 
to serve public interests as well. 
Further, although provincial and 
municipal public interests will be 
similar in many instances, those 
interests are not always the same; 
to ensure both sets of interests are 
protected, it is important that 
they be stated in a clear manner. 
Planning is an activity that tries 
to resolve differences among 
interests — public and private 
interests, local and more regional 
public interests. 



The province has an interest 
in the planning aspects of the full 
range of government responsibili- 
ties — environmental and 
resource, social, economic, and 
financial. In addition, since much 
of the planning is done by muni- 
cipalities, the province has an 
interest in how municipalities 
carry out their planning function. 
The province needs to develop 
policies to define these interests. 

Environmental and 
Resource Interests 

As settlement and new develop- 
ment occur, the province has an 
interest in ensuring that, in the 
long term, natural heritage and 
natural resources are protected. 
Natural resources — mineral 
deposits, agricultural land, 
forests, rivers, and so forth — are 
a source of long-term wealth and 
must not be depreciated. Natural 
heritage — wetlands, ravines, 
green corridors, habitat, and so 
forth — is a key source of long- 
term ecosystem health, and too 
often in the past has been 
ignored. The 1987 report of the 
World Commission on 
Environment and Development, 
Our Common Future (the 
Brundtland report), makes per- 
haps the most lucid statement of 
the global need to protect natural 
heritage and resources. The 
report concludes that we can no 
longer afford to take the natural 
environment for granted — we 
can't continue to live off our capi- 
tal. The long-term costs are much, 
much too great. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
10 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Social Interests 

The province is responsible for 
the social well-being of people in 
Ontario. It designs and provides 
most of the funds for long-term 
social programs in the province, 
with the voluntary sector and 
municipalities also playing 
important roles. Thus, it is in the 
province's interest to ensure that 
within municipal planning, social 
problems are clearly identified, 
social trends are noted, and ade- 
quate responses are made. 

The design of cities plays its 
part in the creation and resolu- 
tion of such problems. For exam- 
ple, many critics have noted that 
the design of public housing proj- 
ects in the 1950s and 1960s has 
exacerbated some social prob- 
lems. The health of rural areas 
and communities is equally as 
important, and economic decline 
in rural communities is signifi- 
cant in human terms. Providing 
opportunities for the provision of 
social facilities and affordable 
housing is also important. 
Provincial planning policies 
should address these issues. 

Most issues of social welfare 
are the province's responsibility, 
and municipalities cannot be 
expected to devise and fund pro- 
grams for which the province has 
the ultimate authority. As well, 
the land-use planning system has 
limited ability to address a wide 
range of social issues. Any state- 
ment of provincial interests in 
this area must recognize these 
limitations. 



Economic Interests 

The province has a clear interest 
in encouraging economic devel- 
opment to create jobs and wealth. 
The details of how this is done 
are a source of continuing politi- 
cal debate, and the land-use plan- 
ning system cannot fully resolve 
these issues. 

Two points seem reasonably 
clear. First, if the planning system 
provides no clarity of process and 
no sense of urgency to get things 
done, opportunities for enterprise 
will be lost. The province has an 
interest in an efficient and timely 
planning process. 

Second, the form of settle- 
ments, the nature of permitted 
change, and the encouragement 
of private enterprise are related 
to one another. For instance, 
noted urban critic Jane Jacobs 
argues that compact form, mixed 
uses, and inexpensive commer- 
cial rental space are critical to 
expanding economic activity in 
cities. 

Financial Interests 

It is in the province's interest to 
minimize the need for new infra- 
structure to which it will con- 
tribute, such as water- and 
sewage-treatment facilities, 
schools, and roads. The province 
has a direct financial interest in 
ensuring that existing infrastruc- 
ture is used very efficiently before 
new infrastructure is constructed. 
There are also operating sub- 
sidies to municipalities, which 
the province has an interest in 
controlling. For example, devel- 
opment patterns should mini- 
mize the need for subsidies to 
public transit by encouraging 



densities which support economi- 
cally viable public transit and 
road patterns that allow good 
access to transit use. 

The province also has an 
interest in ensuring that develop- 
ment and change do not lead to 
long-term problems which 
require provincial intervention. 
The province has found itself pro- 
viding funds for water-treatment 
and sewage-treatment plants 
after water quality has been 
reduced to levels that threaten 
public health. It is much more in 
the province's interest to ensure 
that development meets clear cri- 
teria about water and air quality, 
and that development patterns 
are acceptable in the long run, so 
expenditures for later remedia- 
tion are not incurred. Provincial 
expenditures to rectify inade- 
quate sewage systems are sub- 
stantial and should be avoided by 
ensuring the systems are ade- 
quate from the beginning. 

In sum, the province has a 
direct interest in ensuring that 
inefficient development patterns 
are strongly discouraged, and 
that the provision of public ser- 
vice facilities is efficient. 

Interests in Municipal 
Planning 

Since much of the planning done 
in Ontario is carried out by 
municipalities, the province has 
to work with municipalities to 
ensure its interests are addressed. 
The province, therefore, has a 
strong inte,rest in helping muni- 
cipalities to plan well. This can be 
done by providing a workable 
planning structure, useful advice, 
and policies that provide scope 



FINAL REPORT 
11 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



and direction for municipal plan- 
ning decisions. As well as 
expressing public interests, good 
provincial policies reinforce 
municipal planning activities and 
encourage consistency and coor- 
dination across the province. 

Current Policies and 
Guidelines 

Since 1983, the Planning Act has 
contemplated the adoption of 
policy statements, yet only four 
policies have been formally 
adopted: 

• Mineral Aggregate Resources 
(Ministry of Natural 
Resources, Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs, 1986) 

• Flood Plain Planning 
(Ministry of Natural 
Resources, Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs, 1988) 

• Land Use Planning for 
Housing (Ministry of 
Housing, Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs, 1989) 

• Wetlands (Ministry of Natural 
Resources, Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs, 1992) 

They have been accompanied 
by implementation guidelines. 

A number of ministries have 
released policy guidelines on 
other issues. These guidelines are 
used as the basis for provincial 
decision-making because the 
provincial government has 
retained approval authority over 
plans, plan amendments, and 
plans of subdivision for most 
municipahties. Yet the province 
has no clear consultation process 
for the development of guide- 
lines, and no clear procedure for 



their introduction. This informali- 
ty of process means guidelines 
can be put into place and 
changed with little notice, and 
they then can be used by staff as 
if they were policy. For these rea- 
sons, municipalities and many 
others are generally unhappy 
about the array of provincial poli- 
cy guidelines that directly affect 
their decisions. 

A list of some of the policy 
guidelines related to land-use 
planning includes: 

• Agricultural Code of Practice 
(Agriculture and Food, 1976) 

• Food Land Guidelines 
(Agriculture and Food, 1978) 

• Land Use Policy Near 
Airports (Housing, 1978) 

• Guidelines on Noise and New 
Residential Development 
Adjacent to Freeways 
(Municipal Affairs and 
Housing, 1979) 

• Manual of Policy, Procedures 
and Guidelines for Onsite 
Sewage Systems 
(Environment, 1982) 

• District Land Use Guidelines 
— Various MNR Districts 
(Natural Resources, 1983) 

• Land Use Compatibility 
(Environment, 1984) 

• Water Management: Goals, 
Policies, Objectives and 
Implementation Procedures 
of the Ministry of the 
Environment (Environment, 
1984) 

• Environmental Noise 
Assessment in Land Use 
Planning (Environment, 1987) 

• Land Use on or Near 
Landfills and Dumps 
(Environment, 1987) 



Implementation Strategy: 
Areas of Natural and 
Scientific Interest (Natural 
Resources, 1988) 
Guidelines for the 
Decommissioning and 
Clean-up of Sites in Ontario 
(Environment, 1989) 
Commercial Site Access 
Policy and Standards 
(Transportation, 1990) 
Implementation Guidelines: 
Provincial Interest on the Oak 
Ridges Moraine Area of the 
Greater Toronto Area (1991) 
Guideline for Calculating and 
Reporting on Uncommitted 
Reserve Capacity at Sewage 
and Water Treatment Plants 
(Environment, 1992) 
Guideline for the 
Responsibility for Communal 
Water and Sewage Works and 
Communal Sewage Systems 
(Environment, 1992) 
Guideline on Planning for 
Sewage and Water Services 
(Environment, 1992) 
Guideline on Planning for the 
Re-use of Potentially 
Contaminated Sites 
(Environment, 1992) 
Guideline on Separation 
Distance Between Industrial 
Facilities and Sensitive Land 
Uses (Environment, 1992) 
Growth and Settlement Policy 
Guidelines (Municipal 
Affairs, 1992) 
Ontario's Heritage 
Conservation District 
Guidelines (Culture and 
Communications, 1992) 
Technical Guideline for 
Assessing the Potential for 
Groundwater Impact at 
Developments Serviced by 



FINAL 



REPORT 
12 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Individual Sub-Surface Sewage 
Systems in Non-Designated 
Areas (Environment, 1992) 

• Technical Guideline for Water 
Supply Assessment for 
Subdivision Developments on 
Individual Private Wells 
(Environment, 1992) 

• Transit-Supportive Land Use 
Planning Guidelines 
(Transportation, Municipal 
Affairs, 1992) 

Some of these policy guide- 
lines are general, affecting the 
way communities are planned, 
such as the Food Land Guidelines 
and the Growth and Settlement 
Policy Guidelines. Others are 
more technical, and are con- 
cerned with details of implemen- 
tation, such as Environmental 
Noise Assessment, and 
Commercial Site Access Policy 
and Standards. 

The Draft Report contained a 
letter from the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs, advising the 
Commission that the government 
is not contemplating making 
changes to the four existing poli- 
cy statements issued under sec- 
tion 3 of the Planning Act, with 
the exception of considering 
ways to strengthen the land-use 
planning for housing policy 
statement. 

On the basis of the submis- 
sions received on the proposed 
policies contained in the Draft 
Report, the Commission has con- 
cluded that the policies it is rec- 
ommending in this Report should 
replace all four existing policies 
to provide a consistent and coher- 
ent approach to provincial policy 
The recommended policies 
should also replace the Food 



Land Guidelines and the Growth 
and Settlement Policy Guidelines, 
since the matters dealt with in 
these guidelines are covered by 
recommended policies, and 
should be given the full status of 
policy. The Commission is recom- 
mending that all existing guide- 
lines should be made consistent 
with the comprehensive set of 
provincial policy statements, and 
should remain advisory only. 

Existing formal policy state- 
ments have been supported by 
implementation guidelines, and a 
number of submissions noted the 
usefulness of such guidelines as 
statements of how the province 
interprets policy, or how policy 
could be implemented. These 
guidelines must not detract from 
policy, and they should not be 
binding. Making guidelines pure- 
ly advisory means that innovative 
methods of meeting objectives 
not included in the guidelines can 
still be considered. 

The adoption of the compre- 
hensive set of provincial policy 
statements should not be delayed 
while guidelines are prepared. 

Currently, very limited public 
input is sought in the preparation 
of guidelines. More public 
involvement will result in better 
guidelines, as well as wider 
acceptance of them. The 
Commission is recommending 
that guidelines be prepared with 
public input. At a minimum, this 
should include circulation of pro- 
posed guidelines and opportuni- 
ty for comment prior to adoption. 
These proposals for new guide- 
lines are incorporated into an 
implementation policy, which is 
discussed later in this chapter. 



The Commission recommends 

that: 

3. To provide clarity and con- 
sistency in the definition of 
provincial interests in 
planning: 

(a) The province adopt a 
comprehensive set of pol- 
icy statements under sec- 
tion 3 of the Planning 
Act. 

(b) This comprehensive set 
of policy statements 
replace the four existing 
policies under section 3, 
namely the Mineral 
Aggregate Resources 
Policy, the Flood Plain 
Planning Policy, the Land 
Use Planning for 
Housing Policy, and the 
Wetlands Policy. 

(c) This comprehensive set 
of policy statements 
replace the Food Land 
Guidelines and the 
Growth and Settlement 
Policy Guidelines. 

(d) After the comprehensive 
set of policy statements 
has been adopted, any 
new implementation 
guidelines be developed 
with public input. 

(e) All existing guidelines be 
made consistent with the 
comprehensive set of 
provincial policy state- 
ments and remain 
advisory only. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
13 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Characteristics of 
Policies 

Form 

Some submissions were concerned 
that provincial policy statements 
would constitute an intrusion into 
matters within municipal plan- 
ning jurisdiction. The Commission 
believes provincial interests need 
to be protected and can be 
expressed in a manner that allows 
reasonable flexibility for local con- 
ditions to be taken into account. 

Some submissions suggested 
that provincial policies would 
cause delay. However, policies 
define what can be done and 
remove uncertainty so that those 
involved in municipal plan-mak- 
ing and those making develop- 
ment applications will know 
what would be acceptable under 
provincial policy. Policy does not 
create additional steps. 

There are different expecta- 
tions for provincial policy. Some 
want it to be very general, with- 
out too much bite, so it can be 
easily translated into local cir- 
cumstances as local decision- 
makers see fit. Others want poli- 
cy to be written in a way that will 
nail down all the details of imple- 
mentation. The problem with the 
first approach is that it does not 
provide clarity or direction; with 
the second, that it does not pro- 
vide the flexibility needed for 
application to local situations. 



The Commission has tried to 
find some middle ground that 
provides certainty of direction 
and flexibility to adapt to local 
conditions. Policies should 
express provincial interests 
without putting municipalities in 
a straitjacket. The following char- 
acteristics are desirable in the 
expression of provincial policy: 

• Policy should focus on direc- 
tion and results rather than 
on the detail of how imple- 
mentation will occur or the 
means to be employed. 

• Policy should be clear, under- 
standable, comprehensive, 
and brief. 

• Policy should be established 
under clear legal authority. 

The proposed policy statements 
attempt to meet these criteria. 



Status 

In the short term, the Commission 
recommends that the province 
adopt a comprehensive set of pol- 
icy statements under section 3 of 
the Planning Act. Proceeding in this 
fashion permits the government to 
act in a timely manner to establish 
provincial policy direction. 

In the long term, however, the 
section of the Planning Act 
enabling policy statements 
should be amended to strengthen 
their status. The current section 3 
states that all planning authori- 
ties "shall have regard to" policies. 
Courts have interpreted this to 
mean only that a decision-making 
body cannot dismiss such a policy 
out-of-hand. This status might be 
appropriate for very detailed poli- 
cies, which include the ways in 
which policies will be implement- 
ed, but it is much too weak a status 
for policies that are more general in 
nature and do not include details 
of implementation. Policies that 
are clear in direction and focus on 
results must have a stronger status. 

Various alternatives have been 
suggested. Some have suggested 
a requirement that planning 
authorities "consider" such poli- 
cies, but that suggestion also 
seems too weak. The term "com- 
patible with" seems too loose for 
general statements. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
14 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Other terms have been sug- 
gested and considered, such as 
"conform to," "comply with," "be 
consistent with," and "be in accor- 
dance with." One term is already 
in use in Ontario: the Planning Act 
requires that lower-tier plans must 
"conform to" upper-tier plans. 
Plans represent a resolution of 
conflicting policies, and thus con- 
formity of plans can be achieved, 
but it is much more difficult to 
"conform to" a set of provincial 
policy statements where conflicts 
are not fully resolved. 

Although there is little case 
law to help distinguish among 
these phrases, some allow more 
flexibility than others. As noted, 
the desired term will provide cer- 
tain strength of direction tem- 
pered by reasonable flexibility in 
local application. The 
Commission is recommending 
that the Act be amended to state 
that the exercise of any authority 
that affects any planning matter 
by any body — every municipali- 
ty, local board or authority, minis- 
ter of the Crown, ministry, board, 
commission, or agency of govern- 
ment including the Ontario 
Municipal Board and Ontario 
Hydro — shall be consistent with 
policies adopted under the Act. 

Only policies adopted under 
this section of the Act should 
have official status, and methods 
to amend these and introduce 
new policies should be clearly 
established, as discussed in 
Chapter 4, The Provincial Role. 

It cannot be expected that pol- 
icy statements made at one point 
in time will always be effective or 
applicable. Policy should be 
reviewed with some regularity to 
ensure it is appropriate. 



Consideration should be given at 
least every five years to whether 
a full review should be made of 
each policy. As suggested in 
Chapter 4, the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs should be 
renamed the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning 
and given the lead role in plan- 
ning. The Minister should be 
responsible for considering the 
need for reviewing provincial 
policy and should seek the advice 
of the Provincial Planning 
Advisory Committee, which is 
also recommended in Chapter 4. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

4. The Planning Act be amended 
to provide that in exercising 
any authority that affects any 
planning matter, the council 
of every municipality, every 
local board or authority, 
every minister of the Crown 
and every ministry, board, 
commission or agency of the 
government, including the 
Ontario Municipal Board 
and Ontario Hydro, shall be 
consistent with policies 
adopted under the Act. 

5. The Planning Act be amend- 
ed to require that the pro- 
posed Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning give 
consideration every five years 
to whether there is need for 
revision of provincial policy 
statements. 



Conflict Among Provincial 
Policies 

In some cases, conflict will occur 
among policies expressed under 
the Act; this is to be expected 
when a number of desirable ends 
are sought. One approach is to 
resolve conflicts at the policy 
level itself. Another is to resolve 
them in the planning process. 

The Commission has given 
much consideration to the ques- 
tion of conflicting policies and, in 
particular, to how conflicts might 
be resolved in favour of, rather 
than at the expense of, the natural 
environment. One approach con- 
sidered by the Commission was 
to specify that, in cases of conflict, 
the health of ecosystems must be 
considered of primary importance. 
Another approach considered was 
to specify that, in cases of doubt, 
the doubt will be resolved in 
favour of the natural environment. 

The Commission is not confi- 
dent these approaches clarify 
intentions — indeed, they might 
muddy the waters further, partic- 
ularly if an applicant argues that 
a development proposal in a pro- 
tected natural area should pro- 
ceed because it could result in 
improved health for the ecosys- 
tem. Thus, an environmental 
"override" might act not to con- 
clude debate, but to fuel it. 

The best way to resolve this 
matter is through the wording of 
individual policies. Policies that 
set absolute prohibitions should 
mean what they say, and not be 
breached by another policy. No 
should mean no. For example, if 
one policy prohibits development 
in significant wetlands, and other 
policies encourage aggregate 



FINAL 



REPORT 
15 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



extraction or affordable housing, 
the prohibition should rule out 
both extraction and housing in a 
wetland. Any other interpretation 
renders the plain words of policy 
meaningless. 

Where conflicts are not fully 
resolved at the policy level, the 
best place to resolve them is in 
the municipal plan, which inter- 
prets them into a local context. 
The upper-tier plan, which is the 
most appropriate place to review 
how provincial policy statements 
will be applied in the local situa- 
tion, should resolve any conflicts 
that become evident. Where con- 
flicts emerge in the process of 
plan development and review, 
provincial ministries should try 
to resolve any conflicts among 
provincial interests. Where dis- 
agreements persist between par- 
ties, an appeal may be made to 
the Ontario Municipal Board for 
final resolution. 

Where policies require a mat- 
ter to be anticipated, encouraged, 
promoted, or demonstrated, the 
decision on whether this has 
occurred shall be based on infor- 
mation, studies, professional 
opinion, or consultation that 
would satisfy a reasonable person. 

If policy statements do not 
fulfil intentions over time, they 
should be changed to achieve the 
desired results. This need will 
become evident during consider- 
ation of the five-year review. 



Consultation 

The policies recommended later 
in this chapter have evolved from 
a process that began in the fall of 
1991, when the Commission con- 
vened six working committees to 
talk about planning goals. The 
conclusions of the work of those 
committees were published in the 
Commission's newsletters. New 
Planning News, and public com- 
ment was received. The proposals 
were redrafted, published in 
April 1992, and public comment 
was again encouraged. A third 
draft of policy was contained in 
the Commission's Draft Report, 
published in December 1992. 

In response to a request made 
in the Commission's interim 
report (published in the July 1992 
issue of New Planning News), the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs 
advised that consultation on pro- 
posed policies set out in the Draft 
Report would be the consultation 
required under section 3 of the 
Planning Act. The Commission 
will provide the Minister with a 
full record of the consultation, 
including the submissions 
received on the proposed policies 
in the Draft Report. The policies 
recommended in this Final 
Report represent a fourth draft. 

Many submissions urged that 
whatever policy statements the 
Commission recommended in the 
Final Report, another opportunity 
for comment be provided. 



The Commission agrees that a 
further opportunity for comment 
on policy would be very useful. 
The policies recommended are a 
response to the submissions 
received on the Draft Report, and 
contain important differences 
from earlier versions. The further 
public comment should not sim- 
ply be on the Commission's poli- 
cy recommendations, but on a set 
of policies the government itself 
has indicated it wishes to adopt. 

As noted in Chapter 12, 
Implementing This Report, the 
Commission is recommending 
that further consultation on poli- 
cy be undertaken by the govern- 
ment, which would also be con- 
sidered part of the government's 
required consultation under the 
Planning Act. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
16 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Commentary on 

Recommended 

Policies 

The Commission is recommend- 
ing policies in six areas. The fol- 
lowing commentary provides 
some background on the policies 
recommended, as well as discus- 
sion of the major points raised in 
submissions on the Draft Report. 

Natural Heritage and 
Ecosystem Protection and 
Restoration 

There has been a growing recog- 
nition that land-use planning 
decisions have a major impact on 
the natural environment. Bad 
planning decisions may lead to 
environmental problems, includ- 
ing pollution of ground and sur- 
face water, depletion of ground- 
water reserves, destruction of 
wetlands and other natural fea- 
tures, increases in carbon dioxide 
emissions, and the loss of impor- 
tant wildlife habitat. For example, 
in some Southern Ontario coun- 
ties, 90 percent of all pre-settle- 
ment wetlands have been lost 
along with important flora and 
fauna. The remaining wetlands 
become increasingly critical for 
species survival. 



Environmental concerns have 
often been treated as an add-on to 
the planning process. Recent 
years have, however, seen a gen- 
eral acceptance that a pro-active 
rather than a remedial planning 
approach is the best way to 
ensure that the kinds of environ- 
mental problems experienced in 
the past do not recur in the 
future. The cost of environmental 
clean-up often far exceeds the 
cost of incorporating environ- 
mental considerations in plan- 
ning at the first instance. 

To date, there has not been a 
comprehensive set of policies 
adopted under the Planning Act 
to deal with the natural environ- 
ment. Only the Flood Plain 
Planning Policy, which deals pri- 
marily with hazard and safety 
issues, and the recent Wetlands 
Policy touch on environmental 
matters. Given the lack of provin- 
cial direction, municipalities and 
provincial staff have often dealt 
with environmental issues in an 
inconsistent manner. One mayor 
recently noted that "such a piece- 
meal and haphazard approach 
not only provides uneven, patchy 
protection for ecosystems, but 
also creates a climate of uncer- 
tainty for both developers and 
the public. Obviously, there is 
urgent need for leadership at the 
provincial level; planning issues 
that transcend municipal bound- 
aries require a level of coordina- 
tion that is difficult to achieve 
without provincial direction." 



Submissions to the 
Commission expressed concern 
about the need to "balance" envi- 
ronmental and economic consid- 
erations. Further, some fear has 
been expressed that the 
Commission's environmental 
policies would result in the prohi- 
bition of development over wide 
tracts of the province. The 
Commission does not believe in 
the two solitudes of environment 
and economy. Environmental 
health is a foundation for social 
and economic well-being. The 
Commission maintains that devel- 
opment can occur in a manner 
that takes the natural environment 
into account — and respects it. As 
one submitter observed, the ques- 
tion is "how can we live and plan 
with nature in ways that create 
social, economic and ecological 
well-being?" 

The need to integrate eco- 
nomic and environmental 
decision-making was made clear 
in the Brundtland report. That 
report called for a new approach: 
sustainable development, defined 
as meeting the needs of the 
present generation without com- 
promising the ability of future 
generations to meet their own 
needs. The notion of sustainable 
development rejects the approach 
of treating environment and 
economy as separate spheres, 
with the environment occupying 
a subordinate position. It calls for 
environmental considerations to 
be introduced into the front end 
of decisionTmaking, rather than 
introduced after environmental 
degradation has occurred. This is 
extremely important in land-use 
planning. The Commission has 



FINAL 



REPORT 
17 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



tried to outline policies and 
processes which should help lead 
to development that is more sus- 
tainable in the future. 

Two approaches to protecting 
the natural environment are pos- 
sible. One approach is to look 
closely at each proposal for 
change to ensure important fea- 
tures and functions are not 
degraded. The other approach is 
to define significant features and 
functions, and prohibit develop- 
ment in these areas. 

The Commission proposes 
both approaches be used. 
Significant features and functions 
must be protected from the threat 
of any development. These areas 
are not open for development, 
and negotiation is not permitted. 
It also seems fair to define these 
areas so that everyone will know 
they are off-limits and can make 
investment decisions based on 
this information — an approach 
that seems to have worked suc- 
cessfully with flood plains. If 
everything is up for grabs, the 
environment will often come out 
on the losing side. 

Thus, the policy statements 
recommended provide that 
development be prohibited in sig- 
nificant natural features; and that 
development will not be permit- 
ted on adjacent and other lands if 
it adversely affects the integrity 
of the features or functions of the 
areas included in the policy. 
Development may occur on less 
significant features if no adverse 
effects are demonstrated. 



The policies go beyond pro- 
tecting only "islands of green" 
and specific natural features as 
static, isolated entities. Natural 
linkages and corridors are also 
important to protect from the 
adverse effects of proposed 
development. 

Unfortunately, as a result of 
decisions made in the past, our 
environment has been degraded 
in many parts of the province. 
Remediation, restoration, and 
regeneration are becoming 
important considerations in deci- 
sions about development. They 
are also dealt with in the recom- 
mended policies. 

Several recommended poli- 
cies reflect existing government 
policy. One policy is essentially 
the existing Wetlands Policy 
Statement in a more concise form. 
The recommended policy on 
flood plains, in keeping with the 
Commission's recommendation 
to have short, clear statements, 
summarizes the current Flood 
Plain Planning Policy in a few 
sentences. One policy addresses 
the protection of fish habitat, a 
matter covered by the federal 
Fisheries Act and administered by 
the Ministry of Natural 
Resources. The policy on Great 
Lakes shorelines is a summary of 
a draft policy now being dis- 
cussed by that ministry. 

Various submitters wondered 
how policies to protect natural 
features and functions should 
apply to Northern Ontario, where 
settlements are often surrounded 
by natural areas. The Commission 
has considered this point at some 
length and concluded that, with 
two exceptions, common policies 
to protect the natural environ- 



ment should be applied across 
the province if the features to be 
protected are significant — with 
significance determined in a 
regional context. The two excep- 
tions are wetlands, where existing 
government policy distinguishes 
between Northern and Southern 
Ontario; and woodlots, where the 
Commission recommends devel- 
opment be prohibited in signifi- 
cant woodlots in Southern 
Ontario. 

To protect lands adjacent to 
lakes, rivers, and streams, the 
Commission initially thought pre- 
scribing minimum setbacks was 
an appropriate approach. It quickly 
became clear, however, that the 
situation varied considerably 
across the province and that dif- 
ferent types of shoreline had dif- 
ferent setback requirements. The 
provincial interest lies in ensuring 
that water quality, shoreline vege- 
tation, bank stability, and wildlife 
habitat are not adversely affected. 

A number of recommended 
policies provide that development 
shall not be permitted if it has 
"adverse effects" on the particular 
feature or subject of the policy. 
Questions have been raised about 
the use of the phrase "adverse 
effects." This phrase has been 
used in legislation and policies in 
Ontario and elsewhere. It has been 
interpreted by the courts and 
administrative bodies as allowing 
a degree of tolerance for change 
appropriate to the circumstances. 
Thus, while the phrase imposes a 
stringent test — as is appropriate 
in the circumstances in which it is 
used — it does not mean "no 
change." The Commission propos- 
es that an environmental impact 
study will provide a basis for 



FINAL REPORT 
18 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



assessing adverse effects, as set 
out in the Implementation Policy. 

The policy included here 
regarding wetlands is similar to 
the existing Wetlands Policy, with 
one change; the phrase "negative 
impact" has been replaced in this 
Report with the phrase "adverse 
effect," so that one consistent 
term is used throughout this set 
of policy statements. 

One recommended policy 
deals with the situation where 
development is proposed on sites 
that have been contaminated. The 
need to remediate must be deter- 
mined and an appropriate plan 
for site remediation must be pre- 
pared and implemented before 
above-grade building permits are 
issued. But as the policy directs, 
implementation of the remedia- 
tion plan should be permitted 
after planning decisions have 
been made. This approach will 
allow financing to be made avail- 
able to do the clean-up before 
above-grade construction. It is 
recognized that below-grade con- 
struction may be part of the 
implementation of the remedia- 
tion plan. This policy will be very 
important if intensification and 
redevelopment are to occur. 

It should be noted that many 
municipalities in recent years 
have adopted official plan poli- 
cies similar to those recommend- 
ed for the protection of natural 
heritage and ecosystems. Some 
municipalities told the 
Commission that policies on nat- 
ural heritage systems were sim- 
ply a codification of the kinds of 
things they were already doing. 



To encourage the stewardship 
of some natural areas, the provin- 
cial Conservation Land Tax 
Reduction Program permits prop- 
erty tax rebates to owners of 
certain wetlands, areas of natural 
and scientific interest, and several 
other types of natural features. 
The annual rebate paid to private 
owners is about $1.3 million. 
Only 15 percent of eligible own- 
ers apply for the rebate, perhaps 
owing to the small amounts actu- 
ally involved. The program is 
useful as another way to ensure 
good stewardship of natural her- 
itage, and it should continue. 

An additional opportunity for 
the protection of natural heritage 
is the use of heritage and other 
trusts to accept easements and 
gifts of property. Several private 
trusts and foundations now exist 
in various parts of the province, 
and the Ontario Heritage 
Foundation has been established 
under the Ontario Heritage Act to 
accept gifts on behalf of the 
province. 

Currently, the Ontario Heritage 
Act provides that the Ontario 
Heritage Foundation and local 
municipalities can enter into vol- 
untary easements with owners of 
property regarding the conserva- 
tion of heritage features. These 
agreements bind present and 
future owners. Recent proposals 
to amend the Ontario Heritage Act 
would result in this authority 
being extended to include 
approved non-profit corporations 
and trusts. The Commission 
supports these initiatives. 



For income tax purposes, 
Revenue Canada treats gifts of 
land or interests in land to the 
Crown differently from gifts to 
municipalities and registered 
non-profit charities. A donation 
to the Crown by an individual 
can be used to offset up to 100 
percent of taxable income for up 
to six years, but if the gift is made 
to a charity or municipality, the 
donor may offset only 20 percent 
of taxable income for up to six 
years. In both cases, the donor 
may not be able to take full 
advantage of the donated value 
as a tax credit. Also, a donation of 
land may be subject to capital 
gains tax. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending that the province 
engage in negotiations with the 
federal government to allow indi- 
viduals to claim the full value of 
donated land as an income tax 
credit and to ensure that gifts of 
land or of interests in land to 
approved non-profit corporations 
or trusts can be made without 
triggering capital gains tax. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

6. The province engage in 
negotiations with the federal 
government to allow indi- 
viduals to claim the full 
value of land or of interests 
in land donated to approved 
non-profit corporations or 
trusts as an income tax credit, 
and to ensure that such gifts 
can be made without trigger- 
ing capital gains tax. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
19 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Community Development 
and Infrastructure 

Although Ontario has become 
increasingly urbanized, the 
province has never had a formal 
policy about development in 
cities, in other settlements, or in 
non-agricultural areas. 

In 1966, then Minister of 
Municipal Affairs, Wilfrid Spooner, 
gave a speech about urban devel- 
opment in rural areas, arguing 
that new development should be 
concentrated in existing settle- 
ments. This became known as the 
Urban Development in Rural 
Areas (UDIRA) policy, but it was 
never more than a statement by 
the Minister. 

In the late 1960s, the province 
embarked on the Design for 
Development program, an ambi- 
tious undertaking to provide a 
planning basis for decisions in 
various parts of the province. 
Among other things. Design for 
Development spawned the 
Toronto-Centred Region (TCR) 
concept, proposing to surround 
Toronto with a green belt in 
which development would be 
strongly discouraged. 

Design for Development 
sputtered early in the 1970s, and 
development decisions to expand 
Toronto's northern boundary 
were made by the province, thus 
sounding the death-knell of the 
TCR concept. One last attempt to 
address ideas of city containment 
was found in the Central Ontario 
Lakeshore Urban Complex 
(COLUC) study, but it was never 
applied. 

The Food Land Guidelines in 
1978 touched tangentially on the 
question of urban growth by 



requiring justification for the use 
of agricultural land. No further 
policy attempts were made by the 
province to consider urban 
growth until the Office of the 
Greater Toronto Area was estab- 
lished in the late 1980s. That 
office was established more as a 
response to servicing issues relat- 
ed to explosive growth in the 
Toronto area than as an attempt 
to create policies about cities and 
their expansions. 

In 1992, the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs issued the 
Growth and Settlement Policy 
Guidelines. The Ministry thought 
it was essential that there be some 
written guidelines to assist it in 
dealing with plan review and 
approval. These guidelines outline 
basic policies about the growth in 
cities, other settlements, and rural 
areas. The Ministry of the 
Environment augmented this 
policy by releasing guidelines 
requiring communal or muni- 
cipal servicing for rural develop- 
ments of more than five lots, gen- 
erally supporting the expansion 
of existing settlements on full ser- 
vices and discouraging scattered 
development on private services. 

The Commission heard many 
criticisms from rural Ontario 
about these guidelines, arguing 
that they had been adopted by 
the province without adequate 
consultation, and that they per- 
mitted almost no development 
that was not on full municipal 
services. The Commission's pro- 
posals in the Draft Report and in 
this Report are more amenable to 
allowing some development not 
on full services. 



The Commission has suggest- 
ed a number of conditions relating 
to development in rural areas. 
One proposal is that in non- 
agricultural rural areas, muni- 
cipalities must define "rural 
characteristics," and then ensure 
that developments which are 
approved respect those character- 
istics. This approach responds to 
concerns that some rural areas 
are becoming just another variety 
of low-density suburb. Another 
proposal is that long-term effects 
of development must be assessed 
both in terms of possible public 
expenditures and in terms of the 
natural environment. Both these 
proposals will require municipal- 
ities to give considerable atten- 
tion to planning matters by rural 
municipalities, and should result 
in development that strengthens 
the rural parts of the province. 

One point that comes up in 
any discussion of community 
building in rural areas is servic- 
ing — the provision of water and 
sewage systems. The 
Commission's recommendation 
is that communal services, 
whether private or public, can be 
well utilized in cases where full 
public services or individual pri- 
vate services are not appropriate. 
Legal and other administrative 
arrangements will have to be 
developed for this purpose. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
20 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



As they apply to cities, the 
Commission's draft proposals for 
community development and 
infrastructure policies were gen- 
erally well received, although 
some provoked strong comment. 
Many supported the idea of 
explicitly requiring attention to 
social issues and safe streets. 
Although intensification was 
generally supported in principle, 
some submissions expressed 
doubts about how such policies 
would be implemented. A num- 
ber of submissions expressed the 
view that lower densities are bet- 
ter than higher densities, and of 
course this has been a general 
cultural trend for most of the 20th 
century. Some suggested that 
intensification which makes good 
use of existing infrastructure is 
fine, but that the public will 
never agree to it. Some worried 
that certain forms of intensifica- 
tion — such as the high-rise 
apartment, which invaded many 
neighbourhoods in large cities in 
the 1960s and 1970s — are inap- 
propriate. Some thought intensifi- 
cation means certain groups will 
invade established neighbour- 
hoods, particularly students in 
neighbourhoods surrounding 
universities. 

A number of concerns were 
expressed about the management 
of intensified properties. Recent 
amendments introduced in the 
Legislature would provide 
municipalities with improved 
power of entry to enforce muni- 
cipal by-laws. Current legislation 
permits municipalities to estab- 
lish maintenance and occupancy 
standards to deal with property 
maintenance, garbage issues, 
noise, and parking. 



Municipalities should make good 
use of all these provisions, forc- 
ing owners and tenants to attend 
to problems or face the cost of 
any municipal action to remedy 
the problem added to the proper- 
ty taxes. In the Commission's 
opinion, no new powers are 
needed for municipalities to act 
effectively. 

Given the fiscal crisis of 
governments at all levels, and the 
limited funds available for new 
infrastructure, the Commission 
believes that making better use of 
the infrastructure already built 
and paid for is a reasonable 
course of action. If municipalities 
are to continue to grow, much of 
this growth will probably occur 
within existing built-up areas. 

One assumption commonly 
made by municipalities is that 
development should be approved 
because it "enlarges the tax base" 
and brings in more revenue, 
which lightens the tax load for 
everyone. But development is 
often approved without adequate 
consideration of the additional 
expenses incurred for such public 
services as schools and health 
facilities. With limited provincial 
subsidies and municipal funds 
available for new services and 
infrastructure, this assumption is 
being challenged. Municipalities 
are recognizing that new residen- 
tial development may not expand 
the tax base significantly enough 
to cover its own costs. Studies to 
calculate development charges 
touch on some of these issues, but 
do not provide a full picture. 



While there seem to be no 
definitive studies, some research 
has concluded that certain devel- 
opment forms involve less initial 
and ongoing expenditure than 
others — medium-density, 
mixed-use projects appear to be 
more cost effective, for instance, 
than low-density, single-use proj- 
ects. Cluster development is more 
efficient in the use of municipal 
and provincial tax dollars than is 
scattered development, at least in 
some circumstances. 

But the results of these stud- 
ies are often contentious. Given 
the number of assumptions that 
have to be made about funding 
arrangements or long-term costs, 
preparing cost/benefit studies 
will always be controversial. The 
Commission is recommending 
that the Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning undertake 
research on the cost and benefit 
of different development forms 
and settlement patterns, and pro- 
vide municipalities with advice 
on methods of assessing the fiscal 
impact of development options 
and proposals. 

A number of school boards 
made submissions about the 
shortage of school space, and 
urged that municipalities not be 
permitted to proceed with devel- 
opment approval until school 
availability is certified by the 
board. In the past, school boards 
responded to the need for more 
facilities by calling on the province 
for the funds required for new 
schools. However, the level of 
financial support provided by the 
province in the past is no longer 
there. Lacking ready access to 
funds, boards no longer are able to 
take municipal decisions in stride. 



FINAL REPORT 
21 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



In the past, policies assumed 
that if a site in a subdivision had 
been designated for a school, the 
school would be built. Plans of 
subdivision were approved on 
that basis. Such an assumption is 
no longer valid. The Commission 
proposes that municipalities be 
required to develop policies in 
the municipal plan addressing 
the provision of educational facil- 
ities, rather than just sites. This 
requirement should be set out in 
both policy and legislation. 

Some submissions argued 
that school boards should be able 
to prevent new development 
from proceeding if school facilities 
are not available. The Commission 
is recommending that school 
boards should be notified of plans 
and development proposals for 
comment; ultimately, however, 
decisions about development 
should be made by municipalities. 

School boards need to under- 
take long-range planning in con- 
junction with municipalities, and 
together they should consider 
innovative approaches to provid- 
ing school sites and facilities. 

To make efficient use of new 
services, the form of any new 
additions to existing communities 
will also be critical. The 
Commission's proposed criteria 
for urban expansion attracted a 
number of submissions. 



One of the Commission's sug- 
gestions was that new additions 
to communities on full services 
should be developed at "medium 
density." Submitters painted vari- 
ous scenarios of stacked town- 
houses for miles on end as the way 
that criteria would be interpreted. 
Some argued that requiring 
"medium density" in new com- 
munities would remove choice 
from home buyers who want large 
homes on large 50- and 60-foot 
lots. Some suggested that setting 
any criteria was an attempt to 
interfere with the market, and 
would be unsuccessful. 

Most municipalities define 
medium density as a range of 
12 to 18 units per acre, which 
implies single-family houses on 
25- and 30-foot lots. In mixed- 
density form, the definition 
would translate into a range of 
housing types from large-lot 
single-family homes to apartment 
buildings. Single-family housing 
starts in Ontario have decreased 
from about 60 percent to under 
50 percent of all starts in the past 
decade, and some Toronto area 
homebuilders say that, given cur- 
rent market conditions, the figure 
is now in the range of 40 percent. 

It is important that some cri- 
teria be stated for extensions to 
urban areas to ensure efficient 
use of land and services. The 
Commission's recommended pol- 
icy stresses compactness and a 
mix of uses and densities that 
permits considerable variation of 
housing types and housing 
choice. 



A number of submissions 
pointed out that many urban 
areas are similar to rivers and 
other natural features in that they 
pay little heed to municipal 
boundaries. Attempting to imple- 
ment a policy that relates efficient 
use of infrastructure in one 
municipality to opportunities for 
expansion in another municipali- 
ty — even though both are part of 
the same "city" — is, they said, 
almost impossible. 

This is admitted to be a diffi- 
culty, but it is of the same order 
as the difficulty engendered in 
watershed planning. If cities are 
to be designed in ways that are 
efficient for their inhabitants, as 
well as using reduced amounts of 
public dollars, their design 
should not depend solely on 
municipal boundaries. The pro- 
posals on both sides of a muni- 
cipal boundary must be exam- 
ined closely. Upper-tier planning 
should help to resolve many of 
these questions. 

A number of policy guide- 
lines are concerned with the com- 
patibility of certain uses that 
could have impacts on other uses, 
and it is important that this mat- 
ter be dealt with in provincial 
policy. 



FINAL REPORT 

22 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

7. The Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning under- 
take research on the cost and 
benefit of different develop- 
ment forms and settlement 
patterns, and provide muni- 
cipalities with advice on 
methods of assessing the fis- 
cal impact of development 
options and proposals. 



Housing 

The availability of housing to 
accommodate the full range of 
current and future housing needs 
is essential to the economic and 
social well-being of the province. 
The provincial government, 
therefore, has an interest in the 
provision of housing and, in par- 
ticular, in ensuring that a wide 
range of housing types are avail- 
able in locations and at prices that 
serve the needs of current and 
future residents of the broader 
community. 

Housing needs cannot be 
assessed only on the basis of indi- 
vidual local municipal jurisdic- 
tions. In providing for housing, 
the needs in the larger area must 
be looked at. 

In 1989, the provincial gov- 
ernment issued the Land Use 
Planning for Housing policy 
statement under section 3 of the 
Planning Act. This policy statement 
directs planning jurisdictions to 
address the supply of land for 
housing, to provide for a range of 
housing types, to provide for resi- 
dential intensification, and to 
streamline the planning process. 
Over the past four years, many 
municipalities have undertaken 
municipal housing studies and 
have amended their official plans 
and other planning documents 
and planning processes to facili- 
tate the provision of affordable 
housing. 

The Commission's recom- 
mendations on housing are built 
largely on this policy. 



A variety of comments were 
received on the proposed housing 
policies. A common comment 
outside the larger urban areas is 
that the housing policy statement 
is a "Toronto policy," addressing 
a "Toronto problem." The defini- 
tion of affordability was so wide, 
it was argued, that most housing 
in some jurisdictions was "afford- 
able" — making the requirement 
for elaborate studies and policy 
changes redundant. 

The Commission in its Final 
Report has attempted to intro- 
duce some simplifications to the 
policy, and has attempted to clari- 
fy a number of issues: the area in 
which housing need is to be 
determined, the definition of 
those to be served by the policy 
on affordable housing, the variety 
of housing to be planned for, and 
the applicability of the policy to 
large residential projects. The 
current policy requiring that 
25 percent of new units be afford- 
able does not include units creat- 
ed through intensification. Since 
the recommended policies 
encourage intensification, the 
Commission is recommending 
that the proportion of new units 
in a municipality which would 
come within the definition 
"affordable" should be increased 
from 25 to 30 percent, and 
include affordable units created 
through intensification. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
23 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Agricultural Land 

Policy dealing with development 
in agricultural areas was first 
established in the province in 
1970 as the Suggested Code of 
Practice, which proposed separat- 
ing livestock and poultry opera- 
tions from other rural uses in 
order to avoid nuisance conflicts 
resulting from odour and noise. 
It was refined several times and 
in 1976 became the Agricultural 
Code of Practice and included 
formulas for calculating minimum 
distance separation between agri- 
cultural and non-agricultural uses. 

In 1978, the provincial 
Cabinet approved the Food Land 
Guidelines as a provincial policy, 
but it has never been adopted 
under section 3 of the Planning 
Act. The key purposes of this pol- 
icy are to ensure that as much 
land as possible "with the capa- 
bility for agriculture is kept avail- 
able for farming when it is need- 
ed" and to "protect a land area 
which will be available on a long 
term basis and within which agri- 
cultural activity can occur with a 
minimum of disruption from 
competing or non-compatible 
land uses." 

Lands to be protected under 
this guideline include specialty 
crop lands, Canada Land 
Inventory classes 1 to 4 soils, and 
additional areas where there is 
ongoing viable agriculture or 
where local market conditions 
ensure agricultural viability. 
Development of agricultural land 
for non-agricultural purposes 
requires justification in terms of 
demonstration of a greater public 
interest or need and proof that no 
alternatives in terms of lower 



quality soils are available. Rural 
residential development on agri- 
cultural soils is not permitted 
unless it is agriculturally related. 

A review of both the 
Agricultural Code of Practice and 
the Food Land Guidelines was 
undertaken in 1985, and although 
changes were proposed, they 
were never adopted as policy. 
The original documents are still 
used to review municipal plan- 
ning policy and development 
applications. 

Concerns about agricultural 
land policy relate to the uncertain- 
ty of the agricultural economy, the 
lack of effectiveness of the Food 
Land Guidelines in containing 
urban sprawl, the lack of devel- 
opment options in areas with 
high-quality agricultural soils, the 
limitations of the Canada Land 
Inventory as a means of identify- 
ing quality agricultural area, and 
the lack of certainty in the current 
right-to-farm legislation. 

Agricultural viability When the 
Food Land Guidelines were 
adopted in 1978, they were part 
of a "Strategy for Ontario 
Agriculture," which also put for- 
ward the idea of income security 
for farmers. Virtually all submit- 
ters agreed that protection of 
quality agricultural land is an 
important goal, both to protect 
the rural economy and to provide 
food security. Although farm 
income security, crop insurance, 
property tax relief, and capital 
assistance programs are in place, 
current market conditions in 
some sectors, and the possible 
impact of further free-trade and 
General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade agreements, have 



resulted in considerable uncer- 
tainty about both the short- and 
long-term economic future of 
agriculture. The most specific 
concerns were expressed by the 
tender-fruit farmers in the 
Niagara Peninsula, where a case 
was made that under current 
market conditions tender-fruit 
farming is not economically 
viable. Similar concerns were also 
expressed in the Central and 
Eastern Ontario forums, where 
lower quality soils in more mar- 
ginal climatic conditions make 
farming less economically viable 
in current markets. In the absence 
of a stronger income support pol- 
icy, creation of residential lots on 
poorer quality pockets of land 
was suggested as an alternative 
source of farm income. A submis- 
sion from one county council dis- 
agreed strongly with that option, 
stating: "Severances and urban 
development in agricultural areas 
will not save farming or protect 
Canada's future food supply." 
The Commission agrees and has 
recommended policies to protect 
quality agricultural areas. These 
economic issues cannot be dealt 
with through a land-use policy 
under the Planning Act. They 
need to be addressed by econom- 
ic policies of the provincial and 
federal governments if farming is 
to be viable over the long term. 



FINAL REPORT 

24 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Urban sprawl Although the 
Food Land Guidelines require 
justification for the conversion of 
agricultural land for urban pur- 
poses, the general feeling among 
the agricultural community and 
others is that low-density urban 
sprawl on quality farmland has 
continued relatively unhampered 
by policy. There is a concern 
about the equity involved in 
farmers and rural communities 
having restricted development 
options while major urban areas 
seem to expand at will. The 
Commission is recommending 
strong policies to contain the 
expansion of cities. 

Lack of options Many areas of 
Southwestern Ontario contain 
only high-quality agricultural 
soils. Although agriculture con- 
tinues to be a critical part of the 
local economy, the decline in the 
number of farms and in farm 
income means a decline in the 
local economy. Other sources of 
income are needed for farmers as 
well as for other community 
members. On-farm options such 
as secondary uses on farms 
should be permitted, as should 
additions to existing settlements. 
The Commission's recommenda- 
tions support these options. 

Canada Land Inventory The 

Canada Land Inventory was criti- 
cized by a number of submitters 
who said it was not a reliable 
method for evaluating the long- 
term capability of soils for agri- 
cultural use. Inaccuracy in the 
inventory, changing markets, 
inadequate consideration of cli- 
matic limitations for a wide range 



of agricultural commodities, lack 
of consideration of fragmentation, 
and incompatible development 
were noted as limitations. The 
Commission is recommending 
that Class 4 lands not be included 
in the definition of quality agri- 
cultural land, and that municipal- 
ities work with the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Food in develop- 
ing alternative evaluation meth- 
ods for identification of quality 
agricultural areas. 

Right to farm In 1988, the 
province enacted the Farm 
Practices Protection Act. Popularly 
called right-to-farm legislation, 
the Act provides a forum for 
review and resolution of farm- 
related nuisance conflict. Since 
the Farm Practices Protection 
Board was established under that 
Act, it has resolved nine com- 
plaints. None of these has pro- 
ceeded to the courts. Farmers 
were concerned that although the 
existing legislation and related 
appeal processes appear to be 
effective for avoiding legal con- 
frontation, neighbours still can 
complain about farm practices 
and subject farmers to investiga- 
tion and review. The minimum 
separation distances set out in the 
Agricultural Code of Practice are 
useful in preventing nuisance 
problems between agricultural 
and other uses. Consideration 
should be given to bringing for- 
ward the changes recommended 
to the code in 1985. 



Conservation 

Per capita, Ontario residents are 
among the world's greatest con- 
sumers of energy and water, and 
generators of waste. Increased 
water consumption has led to a 
strain on our infrastructure, 
resulting in the failure of a large 
number of septic systems and 
demands for expansions of 
sewage-treatment plants. Land- 
use decisions have a direct impact 
on the use of the automobile and 
resulting carbon dioxide emis- 
sions. The province has a clear 
interest in ensuring that conser- 
vation strategies are pursued. 

We must begin to look seri- 
ously at conservation policies at 
the front end of the planning 
process, when cost-effective mea- 
sures can be taken. Appropriate 
design of communities and siting 
of buildings can help reduce our 
consumption of resources. 

It is also important to reduce 
the need for private automobile 
use in daily life. As a number of 
submissions made clear, con- 
straints posed by climate and 
travel distances, especially in 
Northern and rural Ontario, must 
be taken into account in trying to 
reduce automobile dependency, 
and for this reason the policy is 
cast in general terms. 

A number of submissions also 
supported the conservation of 
energy and resources embodied 
in the materials of existing struc- 
tures, and a policy on this matter 
is included. 



FINAL REPORT 

25 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Non-renewable Resources 

Non-renewable resources include 
mineral aggregates (sand and 
gravel, for example), minerals 
(industrial, metallic, and non- 
metallic minerals), and petroleum 
resources (oil and gas). The min- 
ing and use of these resources is 
an integral part of the economy of 
the province and, therefore, a 
matter of provincial interest. 

Although sand and gravel 
pits, mining operations, and oil 
and gas wells are represented by 
different interests and different 
ministries, they share certain land- 
use attributes. They can be devel- 
oped or extracted only where the 
resource is found, which means 
there are limited choices where 
an operation can be established. 
The actual development of these 
resources generally constitutes a 
heavy industrial-type operation 
with significant potential for envi- 
ronmental and nuisance impacts. 
They are controversial when close 
to other uses and require regula- 
tion to ensure responsible set-up, 
management, and rehabilitation. 
Even with this type of regulation, 
however, these operations are 
intrusive neighbours. Provincial 
policies are needed to protect the 
resources for future use and to 
allow for the establishment and 
operation of facilities. 

Mineral aggregates In 1986, the 
province adopted a Mineral 
Aggregate Resources Policy 
Statement (MARPS) under section 
3 of the Planning Act. The policy 
directs planning jurisdictions to 
identify and protect from incom- 
patible uses both existing pits and 
quarries and "as much of the 



mineral aggregate resources 
occurring in the municipality as 
is realistically possible," in the 
context of both the other land-use 
planning objectives and the local, 
regional, and provincial need for 
mineral aggregates. In 1990, the 
Pits and Quarries Act was replaced 
by the Aggregate Resources Act, 
with new regulations governing 
licensing, operations, penalties, 
and rehabilitation in designated 
areas. 

Mineral aggregates are used 
extensively in construction, and 
transporting them from the exca- 
vation to the site where they are 
used becomes a significant part of 
total costs. As a result, pits and 
quarries are located as close as 
possible to the urban areas where 
the demand exists. There are both 
economic and environmental rea- 
sons for keeping the travel dis- 
tances short. 

The location and quality of 
Southern Ontario mineral aggre- 
gate deposits are fairly well docu- 
mented. These deposits are not 
evenly distributed across muni- 
cipalities, but are concentrated 
where there are glacial, moraine, 
or limestone deposits — which 
means that aggregate excavation 
is much more significant in some 
communities than in others. 
Because of their nature, aggregate 
deposits tend to be located in 
environmentally important areas 
such as the Niagara Escarpment 
and the Oak Ridges Moraine. As 
restrictions are put on these areas, 
and as other areas are mined out, 
more pressure is put on previous- 
ly unexcavated areas farther from 
the urban area where the demand 
is located. This trend has led to 



major controversies. 

The Mineral Aggregate 
Resources Policy Statement has 
been implemented in municipal 
official plans, following discus- 
sions between the municipalities 
and the Ministry of Natural 
Resources to define "as much of 
the mineral aggregate resources 
... as is realistically possible" to 
protect. Although the policy has 
had some success in defining 
areas to be protected for future 
extraction, it has not proven as 
effective in avoiding conflict 
when a licence application is 
made to open up a previously 
unextracted area. Because current 
provincial policy statements do 
not provide any direction on pri- 
orities or on how to resolve con- 
flicting policies, each municipali- 
ty must consider these issues, 
case-by-case, in developing offi- 
cial plans or official plan amend- 
ments. 

The Commission is not rec- 
ommending any significant 
changes to the MARPS, since the 
Commission recognizes that 
provincial policies can-deal only 
with some of the problems relat- 
ed to aggregate extraction. In the 
Draft Report, the Commission 
recommended that the Ministry 
of Natural Resources form a task 
force of affected parties to review 
outstanding problems with the 
Aggregate Resources Act, including 
priorities for extraction, levies, 
and notification for the establish- 
ment and operation of wayside 
pits. After reviewing these mat- 
ters further, the Commission has 
concluded that a major task force 
exercise is not needed at this 
time. The Ministry of Natural 



FINAL REPORT 
26 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Resources is completing a major 
study on the state of aggregate 
resources of Southern Ontario, 
and the Commission is recom- 
mending that the Ministry of 
Natural Resources work with 
municipalities, the industry, and 
other organizations to determine 
the sequence for extraction of pri- 
mary aggregate resources. 

The Commission also recog- 
nizes that the results of changes 
under the Aggregate Resources Act, 
which was enacted in 1990, are 
just beginning to be felt. A major 
review is not appropriate at this 
time. 

However, the Commission is 
recommending that the Ministry 
develop strategies for dealing with 
contraventions of the Aggregate 
Resources Act and the enforcement 
of aggregate licence conditions 
and wayside pit permits. In addi- 
tion, the Commission is recom- 
mending that the Ministry, in 
consultation with municipalities, 
the industry, and others, review 
the amount of fees assessed 
against aggregate operations and 
the proportion allocated to 
municipalities. 

Minerals and petroleum 
resources Mineral resources are 
largely regulated under the 
Mining Act, through the Ministry 
of Northern Development and 
Mines. Industrial minerals such 
as salt, graphite, talc, and gyp- 
sum are mostly produced in 
Southern Ontario, although some 
industrial minerals (notably 
barite, silica, and talc) are pro- 
duced in the north. Metallic min- 
erals are mainly mined and 
processed in Northern Ontario, 
and to a lesser extent on the 



pre-Cambrian shield in Eastern 
Ontario. The exploration and pro- 
duction of petroleum resources, 
which include oil, natural gas, 
and underground natural gas 
storage facilities, are regulated by 
the Ministry of Natural Resources 
under the Petroleum Resources Act 
and the Mining Act. Most petrole- 
um resource activity occurs in 
Southwestern Ontario. 

Although considerable miner- 
al resource exploration with 
sophisticated remote surveillance 
equipment has occurred in areas 
of high mineral potential, the spe- 
cific location of many deposits 
remains unknown until ground 
exploration occurs. Much of the 
exploration will occur on Crown 
land and undeveloped land, 
although during the Commission's 
public forum in Timmins in 
March 1993, exploration for gold 
was taking place under the city's 
downtown. There is a provincial 
interest in assuring the future of 
the mineral and petroleum 
resource industries. Planning 
policies should provide for the 
future exploration and develop- 
ment of these resources by not 
allowing incompatible develop- 
ment to impede access to known 
potential resource deposits. At 
the same time, however, policies 
should allow for non-renewable 
resource areas to be used for 
other purposes if the public inter- 
est would be better served. 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

8. To address outstanding 
issues related to mineral 
aggregate resource opera- 
tions, the Ministry of 
Natural Resources, in consul- 
tation with municipalities, 
the industry, and others: 

(a) Determine the sequence 
for extraction of primary 
aggregate resources. 

(b) Develop strategies for 
dealing with contraven- 
tion of the Aggregate 
Resources Act and the 
enforcement of aggregate 
licence conditions and 
wayside pit permits. 

(c) Review the amount of 
fees assessed against 
aggregate operations and 
the proportion allocated 
to municipalities. 



FINAL REPORT 

27 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Implementation 

Many submissions raised concerns 
about the implementation of poli- 
cies: when they would become 
effective; how they would be 
implemented; who would imple- 
ment them; and how value 
judgements would be made. 

The best way to answer these 
questions is in the policy state- 
ments themselves, and the 
Commission recommends a 
section on implementation. 

If policies are adopted under 
existing legislation, planning 
authorities would be required to 
"have regard" to them. If legisla- 
tion is passed as recommended 
by the Commission, decisions 
would be required to "be 
consistent with" them. 

Policies should become effec- 
tive immediately on adoption 
under section 3 and should apply 
whether or not municipal plans 
have been amended to reflect 
such policy. New policies should 
apply to any plan or development 
proposal not fully approved. 
Thus, new policies would apply 
to any decision approved by a 
municipality, but still awaiting 
approval at the provincial level. 
Development applications requir- 
ing no further approvals would 
not be affected. Subdivisions with 
"draft approval" fit into this cate- 
gory since, if specified conditions 
are met, no further approvals are 
required. 

However, there may be some 
instances where a development 
proposal has achieved such a 
status in the approval process, 
that attempting to implement the 
full force of newly adopted policy 
would be unfair. 



A number of organizations 
representing the development 
industry have stated very clearly 
that a reasonable transition agree- 
ment for planning policy must be 
devised. One submission noted 
that land development is "a grad- 
ual process in which incremental 
changes occur over a long period 
of time" and "the economic via- 
bility of investments is frequently 
dependent on anticipated future 
development," making the 
process "especially vulnerable to 
changes in policy." 

The challenge is to set criteria 
to deal with the application of 
policy to ongoing development 
projects. 

It would not be reasonable to 
"grandfather" all projects for 
which an application has been 
made. Some applications have 
long been abandoned in spirit, 
and they should receive no special 
status. Some have been submitted 
to create a negotiating position. 
Some will be able to meet new 
policy with no great trouble. 
Some might require substantial 
alteration to meet new policy, but 
such change might be quite feasi- 
ble. Some, however, are part of a 
phased development where 
investments in infrastructure have 
already been made, and new policy 
might cause considerable upset. 

There seems to be no easy way 
to determine the extent to which 
new policy would apply to indi- 
vidual applications filed before 
policy was adopted. Discretion 
will have to be used to make this 
determination. The matters to take 
into consideration in exercising 
this discretion are: planning and 
front-end agreements; issues 



considered and decisions and 
formal agreements already made 
with municipalities; and confor- 
mity of the application to current 
municipal plans and provincial 
policy. 

The implementation policy 
should also set out the province's 
role in providing guidelines, 
information, and mapping assis- 
tance to support the policies. 
Questions of the advisory status 
of guidelines and the need for 
public involvement in their 
preparation — discussed earlier 
in this chapter — should be 
addressed. In addition, the policy 
should define the responsibility 
of municipalities to incorporate 
the provincial policies in plan- 
ning documents and should set 
out requirements for environ- 
mental impact studies. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
28 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Recommended 
Provincial Policies 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

9. The following comprehen- 
sive set of policy statements 
be adopted by the province, 
after further consultation, 
under section 3 of the 
Planning Act. 



A. Natural Heritage and 
Ecosystem Protection and 
Restoration Policies 

Goal: to protect the quality and 
integrity of ecosystems, includ- 
ing air, water, land, and biota; 
and, where quality and integrity 
have been diminished, to restore 
or remediate to healthy condi- 
tions. 

1. Development may be permit- 
ted only if the quantity and 
quality of water in ground- 
and surface-water systems are 
not impaired in the short and 
long term. 

2. Development shall not be per- 
mitted in significant ravines, 
river, stream, and natural cor- 
ridors, and in the habitat of 
endangered, threatened and 
vulnerable species. 
Development shall not be per- 
mitted in significant woodlots 
south of the northern bound- 
aries of the District 
Municipality of Muskoka, 
and the counties of 
Haliburton, Hastings, Lennox 
and Addington, Frontenac, 
and Lanark. Development 
shall not be permitted on 
adjacent and related lands if it 
adversely affects the integrity 
of the natural features or eco- 
logical functions of the areas 
included in this statement. 
New infrastructure shall be 
located outside of these sig- 
nificant features unless it is 
demonstrated there is no rea- 
sonable alternative. 



3. In the Great Lakes - St. 
Lawrence Region, develop- 
ment shall not be permitted 
within provincially significant 
wetlands. On adjacent lands, 
development may be permit- 
ted only if it does not result in 
any of the following: loss of 
wetland functions; subse- 
quent demand for future 
development that will have 
an adverse effect on existing 
wetland functions; conflict 
with existing site-specific wet- 
land management practices; 
and loss of contiguous wet- 
land area. This shall be 
demonstrated by an environ- 
mental impact study (EIS) 
prepared in accordance with 
established procedures and 
carried out by a proponent 
addressing all these issues. 
On adjacent lands, estab- 
lished agricultural activities 
are permitted without an EIS. 

In the Boreal Region, 
development may be permit- 
ted in provincially significant 
wetlands and adjacent lands 
only if it does not result in 
any of the following: loss of 
wetland functions; subse- 
quent demand for future 
development that will have 
an adverse effect on existing 
wetland functions; and con- 
flict with existing site-specific 
wetland management prac- 
tices. This shall be demon- 
strated by an environmental 
impact study (EIS) prepared 
in accbrdance with estab- 
lished procedures, and car- 
ried out by a proponent, 
addressing all these issues. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
29 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



I 



On adjacent lands, estab- 
lished agricultural activities 
are permitted without an EIS. 

New infrastructure shall 
be located outside provincial- 
ly significant wetlands unless 
it is demonstrated there is no 
reasonable alternative. 
Approval authorities shall 
consider alternative methods 
and measures for minimizing 
impacts on wetland functions 
when reviewing proposals to 
construct transportation, com- 
munications, sanitation, and 
other such infrastructure in 
provincially significant 
wetlands. 

4. Except for areas covered in 
policies A2 and A3, areas of 
natural and scientific interest, 
groundwater recharge areas, 
significant wildlife habitat, 
and shorelines will be classi- 
fied into areas where either 
(a) no development is permit- 
ted or (b) development may 
be permitted only if it does 
not adversely affect the fea- 
tures and functions for which 
the area is identified. In the 
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence 
Region, locally significant 
wetlands will be classified 
into areas where either 
(a) no development is permit- 
ted or (b) development may 
be permitted only if it does 
not adversely affect these 
wetland functions. 



5. Except for areas covered in 
policies A2 and A3, develop- 
ment on lands adjacent to 
lakes, rivers, and streams may 
be permitted only if it does 
not impair water quality or 
adversely affect shoreline 
vegetation, bank stability, and 
wildlife habitat. 

6. Development may be permit- 
ted only if there are no 
adverse effects on, or is no net 
loss of, fish habitat within the 
same watercourse. 

7. Development shall not be per- 
mitted in the floodway of a 
defined storm, or in the flood 
plain where the floodway is 
not defined, except with the 
consent of, or in special policy 
areas approved by, the 
Ministry of Natural Resources 
or a conservation authority. 
Where development is per- 
mitted in the flood fringe, 
structures may be permitted 
only if protected by flood- 
proofing actions appropriate 
to the purpose for which the 
structure is used, including 
the ingress and egress of vehi- 
cles and pedestrians during 
times of flooding. 



8. Development on lands adja- 
cent to the Great Lakes and 
their connecting channels and 
the St. Lawrence River shore- 
lines shall not be permitted 
within areas susceptible to 
100-year flood levels and 
100-year erosion limits unless 
mitigative measures have 
been taken to address flood, 
erosion, and related hazards. 

9. Development may be permit- 
ted on hazardous sites only if 
it does not present a risk to 
public safety, public health, 
and property. 

10. The need to remediate conta- 
minated air, water, and soil, 
their systems, and contami- 
nated sites will be deter- 
mined, and an appropriate 
plan for site remediation will 
be approved and implement- 
ed, before above-grade build- 
ing permits are issued. 

11. In decisions regarding devel- 
opment, every opportunity 
will be taken to: improve the 
quality of air, land, water, and 
biota; maintain and enhance 
biodiversity compatible with 
indigenous natural systems; 
and protect, restore, and 
establish natural links and 
corridors. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
30 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



B. Community 
Development and 
Infrastructure Policies 

Goal: To manage growth and 
change to foster communities 
that are socially, economically, 
environmentally, and culturally 
healthy, and that make efficient 
use of land, new and existing 
infrastructure, and public ser- 
vices and facilities. 

1 . Social and human needs will 
be addressed by an adequate 
distribution of facilities and 
services available to residents 
diverse in ability, age, income, 
and culture. 

2. Public streets and places used 
by the public will be planned 
to meet the needs of pedestri- 
ans and be designed to be 
safe, vibrant, and accessible to 
all, including the disabled. 

3. The well-being of downtowns 
and main streets will be 
fostered. 

4. To encourage economic 
opportunities that enhance 
job possibilities and broaden 
the economic base of commu- 
nities, a supply of zoned land 
will be maintained sufficient 
to meet anticipated needs. 

5. Communities will be planned 
to minimize the consumption 
of land, promote the efficient 
use of infrastructure and pub- 
lic service facilities, and, where 
transit systems exist or may be 
introduced in the future, pro- 
mote the use of public transit. 



6. The efficiency of transporta- 
tion systems shall be maxi- 
mized by coordinating trans- 
portation plans with those of 
other relevant jurisdictions, 
integrating transportation 
modes, and making optimal 
use of existing transportation 
systems before proceeding 
with system expansion. 

7. In existing built-up areas 
served by public sewage and 
water systems, intensification 
and mixed uses will be 
encouraged by appropriate 
land-use designations and 
zoning. 

8. Extensions to built-up areas 
served by public sewage and 
water systems may be permit- 
ted only if the following con- 
ditions are met: 

(a) new development areas 
are logical extensions of 
the existing built-up areas, 
and will be served by 
public sewage and water 
systems; and 

(b) a strategy for the develop- 
ment, staging, and financ- 
ing of the infrastructure for 
the extension is adopted; 
and 

(c) opportunities for the effi- 
cient use of land, infra- 
structure, and public 
service facilities through 
intensification and mixed 
uses in existing built-up 
areas are provided; and 



(d) the extension will have a 
compact form and a mix 
of uses and densities that 
efficiently use land, infra- 
structure, and public ser- 
vice facilities; and 

(e) if the extension is to 
include quality agricultur- 
al land, it is demonstrated 
there is no reasonable 
alternative to accommo- 
dating the growth antici- 
pated. 

9. Extensions to built-up areas 
not served by public sewage 
may be permitted only if the 
following conditions are met: 

(a) new development areas 
are logical extensions of 
the existing built-up areas; 
and 

(b) the long-term adequacy of 
private on-site or public 
or communal systems of 
water supply and sewage 
treatment is demonstrat- 
ed; and 

(c) a strategy for the develop- 
ment, staging, and financ- 
ing of any needed infra- 
structure and public ser- 
vice facilities for the 
extension is adopted; and 

(d) the extension will have a 
compact form and densi- 
ties and uses appropriate 
to the water and sewage 
systems proposed; and 

(e) if the extension is to 
include quality agricultur- 
al land, it is demonstrated 
there is no reasonable 
alternative to accommo- 
dating the growth antici- 
pated. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
31 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



10. In recreational and rural areas 
other than quality agricultural 
areas, development that is not 
an extension of the built-up 
areas of communities may be 
permitted only if the follow- 
ing conditions are met: 

(a) rural and recreational char- 
acteristics are defined and 
policies to protect those 
characteristics are set out 
in the municipal plan; and 

(b) the cumulative impacts of 
development on rural and 
recreational characteristics 
and on natural features 
and functions are assessed 
and are acceptable; and 

(c) the long-term adequacy of 
private on-site or public 
or private communal 
systems of water supply 
and sewage treatment is 
demonstrated; and 

(d) the long-term public costs 
of reasonably expected 
infrastructure and public 
services and public ser- 
vice facilities are assessed 
and are acceptable. 

11. Reasonable public access to 
public land and water bodies 
will be maintained or provided. 

12. Policies and decisions regard- 
ing infrastructure and devel- 
opment will respect and con- 
serve significant landscapes, 
vistas, ridge-lines, and areas 
of natural beauty. 

13. Policies and decisions regard- 
ing infrastructure and devel- 
opment will respect and con- 
serve significant cultural and 
historical patterns, built her- 
itage, and cultural resources. 



14. On lands containing significant 
archaeological heritage, devel- 
opment shall not be permitted 
where, by its nature, the 
resource must be preserved 
on site to ensure its heritage 
integrity. In other cases, devel- 
opment may be permitted if 
the site is studied and signifi- 
cant archaeological heritage is 
catalogued, analysed, and 
removed by licensed archae- 
ologists prior to development. 

15. The continuous linear charac- 
teristics of significant trans- 
portation and infrastructure 
corridors and rights-of-way, 
including abandoned railway 
corridors, will be protected. 

16. New permanent town sites 
shall not be permitted in areas 
without municipal organiza- 
tion, and development in 
areas without municipal orga- 
nization will generally be 
restricted. New permanent 
town sites shall not be permit- 
ted for the purposes of 
resource extraction. 

17. Development will be planned 
to minimize the impact of 
noise, odour, and other conta- 
minants generated by major 
facilities such as airports, 
transportation corridors, 
sewage-treatment facilities, 
waste sites, industries, and 
aggregate activities, on sensi- 
tive uses such as residences, 
hospitals, and schools. 



C. Housing Policies 

Goal: To provide opportunities 
in each municipality for the 
creation of housing that is 
affordable, accessible, adequate, 
and appropriate to the full 
income and age range of present 
and expected future households. 

1. The opportunity for a full 
range of housing types to 
accommodate households 
diverse in ability, age, and 
income will be provided in all 
communities served by public 
sewage and water systems. 

2. The area used to determine 
housing needs in relation to 
number of units and afford- 
ability is the same as the geo- 
graphical boundary of the 
upper-tier municipality, sepa- 
rated municipality, city in the 
North, planning board, or 
planning authority. Where the 
urban area extends over those 
boundaries, then the area 
used will incorporate the larg- 
er geographical boundary. 

3. (a) Opportunities will be 

provided so that at least 
30 percent of new units 
created through residential 
intensification and devel- 
opment will be affordable 
to households in the 
lowest 60th percentile of 
household income 
distribution in the area, 
(b) In large-scale housing 
development projects, 
such opportunities will be 
provided. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
32 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



(c) Innovative development 
and redevelopment, 
small-scale intensification, 
residential conversion, 
and government programs 
will be used, where possi- 
ble, to create opportunities 
for half of the housing 
provided through Policy 
C3(a) to be affordable to 
households in the lowest 
30th percentile of house- 
hold income distribution. 

4. Where land owned by the 
provincial government is 
declared surplus and devel- 
opment for housing is pro- 
posed, the province will cre- 
ate the opportunity for the 
development of affordable 
housing. Small sites will be 
dedicated to not-for-profit 
housing; large sites will serve 
a broader income range. 

5. A sufficient supply of land 
designated for residential 
redevelopment or develop- 
ment will be maintained to 
allow for the provision of a 
full range of housing to meet 
present and future housing 
needs. Municipalities served 
by public sewage and water 
systems will maintain at least 
a three-year supply of zoned 
land and a ten-year supply of 
land designated for residen- 
tial redevelopment or devel- 
opment. 



D. Agricultural Land 
Policies 

Goal: To protect quality 
agricultural areas for long-term 
agricultural use. 

1. Quality agricultural areas will 
be protected for agricultural 
use, except as noted herein. 
Other agricultural areas may 
also be protected. 

2. Extensions of communities 
that include quality agricul- 
tural lands may be permitted 
if the conditions outlined in 
policies B8 and B9 are met. 

3. Infrastructure and public ser- 
vice facilities shall be located 
outside quality agricultural 
areas unless it is demonstrated 
there is no reasonable 
alternative. 

4. Lot creation in quality agri- 
cultural areas may be permit- 
ted only for primary agricul- 
tural uses, infrastructure, 
public service facilities, or 
residences surplus to farming 
operations as a result of farm 
consolidation. 

5. Separation distances in agri- 
cultural areas between new 
development and existing 
uses will be adequate to 
ensure no adverse effects 
from odour, dust, noise, and 
light generated by primary 
agricultural uses. 



E. Conservation Policies 

Goal: To pursue energy 
conservation, water conservation, 
and the reduction, re-use, and 
recycling of waste. 

1. Patterns of land use and 
development will be planned 
and modified to best promote 
efficiency of energy and water 
use and reduce per capita 
consumption. 

2. Water and energy conservation 
and waste minimization 
measures will be incorporated 
into the siting and design of 
landscaping, infrastructure, 
and buildings. 

3. Patterns of land use and 
development will be planned 
and modified to encourage 
the most efficient modes of 
transportation and to reduce 
the need for private automobile 
use in daily life. 

4. Transportation systems in 
urban areas will be designed 
to give priority to energy- 
efficient low-polluting travel, 
including priority to walking, 
bicycling, and public transit, 
where appropriate. 

5. The built environment and its 
embodied energy and 
resources will be conserved, 
where possible, through 
re-use, recycling, and 
renovation. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

33 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



E Non-renewable 
Resources Policies 

Goal: To protect non-renewable 
resource operations, significant 
deposits of non-renewable 
resources (including mineral 
aggregates, minerals, and 
petroleum resources), and areas 
of significant non-renewable 
resource potential for resource 
use. 

1. Existing non-renewable 
resource operations, signifi- 
cant deposits of non-renew- 
able resources, and areas of 
significant non-renewable 
resource potential will be 
protected from incompatible 
uses. 

2. In areas of significant non- 
renewable resource potential, 
uses that do not preclude 
future access to and develop- 
ment of these potential 
resources may be permitted. 

3. Development on lands 
adjacent to existing operations 
and areas of significant 
known deposits of non- 
renewable resources will be 
permitted, provided the 
development does not 
preclude continuation of the 
existing operations, does not 
preclude development of the 
remaining resource, and 
addresses issues of potential 
public health and safety. 



4. Development may be permit- 
ted in areas of significant 
known deposits of non- 
renewable resources where 
extraction is not feasible; or 
where existing or proposed 
uses serve a greater long-term 
interest of the general public 
than does access or extraction; 
or where it would not signifi- 
cantly preclude or hinder 
future extraction. 

5. Rehabilitation of non-renew- 
able resource lands will be 
required after extraction. In 
areas of quality agricultural 
land, rehabilitation will be 
carried out to achieve sub- 
stantially the same land area 
and soil capability for agricul- 
ture as existed prior to extrac- 
tion, except where high-water 
conditions make it impossible 
and the operation has been 
issued approval to extract 
below the water table. 



G. Implementation 
Policies 

The following principles shall be 
used to implement provincial 
policies and make them effective: 

1. Policy takes effect after Cabinet 
approval and on publication in 
the Ontario Gazette, and applies 
to all planning applications 
under the Planning Act. 

2. Policy statements shall be 
implemented by municipali- 
ties through municipal plans, 
plans of subdivision, consents, 
zoning by-laws, minor vari- 
ances, and other planning 
tools, and by other planning 
jurisdictions through their 
decisions. 

3. Policy applies whether or not 
municipal plans have been 
amended to reflect such policy. 

4. New policies apply to appli- 
cations made but not finally 
approved when the policy 
takes effect. In applying new 
policies to such applications, 
the applicant and all planning 
jurisdictions must make their 
best efforts to achieve the pol- 
icy to the greatest extent pos- 
sible. Decisions of planning 
jurisdictions on such applica- 
tions must be tempered by 
fairness, including a consider- 
ation of: planning and 
front-end agreements, issues 
considered and decisions and 
formal agreements already 



FINAL 



REPORT 
34 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



made with municipalities and 
other planning jurisdictions, 
and conformity of the appli- 
cation to current municipal 
plans and consistency with 
provincial policy. 

5. The Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning, together 
with other ministries, and in 
consultation with the public, 
may prepare guidelines to 
assist planning jurisdictions 
in implementing policy state- 
ments. Such guidelines will 
be advisory only and shall not 
derogate from policy. 

6. Ministries will provide avail- 
able information to planning 
jurisdictions on matters of 
provincial significance out- 
lined in policy statements, 
and will assist planning juris- 
dictions in mapping and 
developing their policies. 

7. Conflicts between policies 
will be resolved by the clear 
meaning of words. For exam- 
ple, if one policy prohibits 
development in provincially 
significant wetlands and 
other policies encourage 
aggregate extraction or 
affordable housing, the prohi- 
bition should rule out both 
extraction and housing in that 
wetland. Where conflicts still 
remain, those conflicts will be 
resolved in municipal plans 
as municipalities make best 
efforts to make decisions 
consistent with provincial 
policies. 



8. Municipal plans will include 
maps or other descriptions of 
areas referred to in policy 
statements. 

9. An environmental impact 
study (EIS), as outlined in 
legislation, will be required 
for development proposals in 
the following areas: 

• lands adjacent to a signifi- 
cant ravine, river, stream, 
or natural corridor, or to 
the habitat of endangered, 
threatened, and vulnerable 
species, or to provincially 
significant wetlands in the 
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence 
Region; 

• lands adjacent to signifi- 
cant woodlots defined in 
Policy A2; 

• provincially significant 
wetlands and adjacent 
land in the Boreal Region; 

• those parts of areas of nat- 
ural and scientific interest, 
groundwater recharge 
areas, significant wildlife 
habitat, and shorelines 
where development is not 
prohibited; 

• land adjacent to lakes, 
rivers, and streams; and 

• where development is 
proposed which may 
impact fish habitat. 



An EIS shall include: 

(a) a description of the exist- 
ing natural environment 
that will be affected or 
that might reasonably be 
expected to be affected, 
directly or indirectly; 

(b) the environmental effects 
that might reasonably be 
expected to occur; 

(c) alternative methods and 
measures for mitigation of 
potential environmental 
effects of the proposed 
development; and 

(d) a monitoring plan to mea- 
sure the potential effects 
on the environment. 

An environmental impact 
study will provide a basis for 
assessing adverse effects. 



FINAL REPORT 

35 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Definitions 

Adjacent land Land contiguous to an 
identified natural feature or function, 
or resource. For the purpose of Policy 
A3 concerning wetlands, adjacent 
lands means (a) those lands within 
120 metres of an individual wetland 
area, and (b) all lands connecting 
individual wetland areas within a 
wetland complex. 

Affordable Annual cost of housing, 
including mortgage, principal, and 
interest payments as amortized over 
25 years with a 25 percent down pay- 
ment, or gross rent, that does not 
exceed 30 percent of gross annual 
household income. 

Agricultural activity Ploughing, seed- 
ing, harvesting, grazing, or animal 
husbandry, or buildings and struc- 
tures associated with these farming 
activities. It includes these activities 
on areas lying fallow as part of a con- 
ventional rotation cycle. 

Agricultural use Primary agricultural 
uses are: (1) The growing of crops or 
raising of livestock, including poultry 
and fish. (2) Farm-related commercial 
and farm-related industrial uses that 
are directly related to the farm opera- 
tion and are required to be in close 
proximity to farm operations. 
Secondary agricultural uses are sec- 
ondary to the farm operation, such as 
home occupations, home industries, 
and uses that produce value-added 
agricultural products from the farm 
operation. Agricultural drains are pri- 
mary and secondary agricultural 
uses. 

Archaeological heritage The remains of 
any building, structure, activity, 
place, or cultural feature or object 
which, because of the passage of time, 
is on or below the surface of land or 
water, and is of significance to the 
understanding of the history of a peo- 
ple or place. 

Areas of natural and scientific interest 

Areas of land or water, as identified 
by the Ministry of Natural Resources, 
representing distinctive elements of 
Ontario's geological, ecological, or 
species diversity and including natur- 
al landscapes or features of value for 
natural heritage protection, scientific 
study, gene pools, and education. 



Biodiversity The variety of life in all 
forms, levels, and combinations. It 
includes ecosystem diversity, species 
diversity, and genetic diversity. 

Biota All plant and animal life. 

Boreal Region The part of Ontario 
defined as the Boreal Region in fig- 
ures 1 and 3 of the Wetlands Policy 
Statement. (For information purposes, 
the region is an area north of a line 
running roughly between Sault Ste. 
Marie and Temagami.) 

Built heritage A building, structure, 
monument, or installation (or a group 
of them), or remains, associated with 
architectural, cultural, social, political, 
economic, or military history. 

Built-up area The area where develop- 
ment is concentrated and contiguous 
with the developed portions of ham- 
lets, villages, towns, and cities. 

Contaminated site Property or lands 
that, for reasons of public health and 
safety, are unsafe for development as 
a result of past human activities, par- 
ticularly those activities that have left 
a chemical or radioactive residue. 
Such sites include some industrial 
lands, electrical facilities, and some 
abandoned non-renewable resource 
operations. 

Cultural resource May include archaeo- 
logical or built heritage resources and 
structural remains of historical and 
contextual value, as well as human- 
made rural, village, and urban dis- 
tricts, or landscapes and tree lines of 
historic and scenic interest. 

Cumulative impact The combined 
effects or potential effects of one or 
more development activities in a 
specified area over a particular time 
period. They may occur simultane- 
ously, sequentially, or in an interac- 
tive manner. 

Defined Storm The Hurricane Hazel 
storm (1954) or the Timmins storm 
(1961) or the 100-year storm, 
whichever is greatest, in the planning 
area, or other standard approved by 
the conservation authority or 
Ministry of Natural Resources. 



Development (1) The construction, 
erection, or placing of a building or 
structure. (2) The making of a signifi- 
cant addition or alteration to a build- 
ing or structure. (3) A significant 
change in use or in intensity of use of 
any building, structure, or premises. 
(4) Activities such as site-grading, 
excavation, removal of topsoil or 
peat, or the placing or dumping of 
fill. (5) Drainage works. The mainte- 
nance of existing municipal and agri- 
cultural drains is not "development" 
for the purpose of these policies. 

Ecosystem Systems of plants, animals, 
and micro-organisms, together with 
the non-living components of their 
environment and related ecological 
processes. 

Endangered species Any indigenous 
species of fauna or flora that, on the 
basis of the best available scientific 
evidence, is indicated to be threat- 
ened with immediate extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion 
of its Ontario range. Endangered 
species are identified in Regulations 
under the Endangered Species Act. 

Farm consolidation The joining together 
of two farm parcels that are abutting. 

Fish habitat The spawning grounds and 
nursery, food supply, and migration 
areas upon which fish rely to live. 

Flood fringe The outer portion of the 
flood plain between the floodway and 
the limit of flooding expected from 
the defined storm. 

Flood plain The area of land adjacent to 
a watercourse that may be subject to 
flooding during the defined storm. It 
includes the floodway and the flood 
fringe. 

Floodproofing A combination of struc- 
tural changes or adjustments incorpo- 
rated into the basic design or con- 
struction of buildings, structures, or 
properties subject to flooding so as to 
reduce or eliminate flood damages. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
36 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Floodway The channel of a watercourse 
and the inner portion of the flood 
plain, where flood depths and veloci- 
ties are generally higher than in the 
flood fringe. It is the area required for 
the safe conveyance and discharge of 
flood flow resulting from a storm less 
intense than the defined storm, or 
where water depths and velocities are 
such that they pose a potential threat 
to life or property on or near the flood 
plain. 

Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region The 

area of Ontario defined as the Great 
Lakes - St. Lawrence Region in figures 
1 and 3 of the Wetlands Policy 
Statement. (For information purposes, 
the region is south of a line running 
roughly between Sault Ste. Marie and 
Temagami.) 

Groundwater (1) Water occurring 
below the soil surface that is held in 
the soil itself. (2) Subsurface water, or 
water stored in the pores, cracks, and 
crevices in the ground below the 
water table. (3) Water occurring in the 
zone of saturation below the earth's 
surface. 

Groundwater recharge area An area 
from which there is significant addi- 
tion of water to the groundwater sys- 
tem. 

Hazardous site Property or lands that, 
for reasons of public health, safety, or 
potential property damage, are 
unsafe for development as a result of 
naturally occurring or human-made 
perils. They may include unstable 
lands or areas subject to change as a 
result of their previous use as mining 
sites, sites prone to erosion, slopes 
and banks, unstable soils such as 
some organic and clay soils, areas of 
unstable bedrock, orphaned wells, 
capped wells, and underground cav- 
erns. 

Infrastructure Physical structures that 
form the foundation for development. 
Infrastructure includes public sewage 
and water systems, storm-water dis- 
posal systems, waste management 
facilities, electric power, communica- 
tions and transportation corridors 
and facilities, and oil and gas 
pipelines. 



Intensification The development of a 
property or site at a higher density 
than previously existed. It includes 
(1) redevelopment, or development 
within existing communities; (2) infill 
development, or development on 
vacant lots or underdeveloped lots 
within a built-up area; (3) conversion, 
or the change of use of an existing 
structure or land use; (4) creation of 
apartments or other accommodation 
in houses. 

Mineral aggregate Sand, gravel, shale, 
limestone, dolostone, sandstone, and 
other mineral materials suitable for 
construction, industrial, manufactur- 
ing, and maintenance purposes, but 
excluding metallic minerals, fossil 
fuels, and non-aggregate industrial 
minerals such as asbestos, gypsum, 
nepheline syenite, peat, and rock salt. 

Minerals: 

Industrial minerals are generally 
synonymous with non-metallic min- 
erals and include any mineral, rock, 
or other naturally occurring sub- 
stance of present or potential econom- 
ic value, exclusive of metallic ores, 
mineral aggregates, and mineral 
fuels. 

Metallic minerals have a high specif- 
ic gravity and a metallic lustre from 
which metals (such as copper, nickel, 
or gold) are derived. 

Non-metallic minerals lack the com- 
mon properties of metallic minerals, 
such as metallic lustre or high specific 
gravity, and are generally of value for 
intrinsic properties of the mineral 
itself and not as a source of metal. 
They are generally synonymous with 
non-aggregate industrial minerals 
such as asbestos, gypsum, nepheline 
syenite, peat, and rock salt. 

Mixed use A variety of uses m a build- 
ing or community in close proximity, 
possibly including housing, recre- 
ational, and commercial, institutional, 
industrial, or other employment uses. 

Non-renewable resource operations 

(1) Legally existing pits and quarries, 
oil, gas, and brine wells, and mining 
operations, including associated pro- 
duction and processing facilities. 

(2) Areas of existing mining land dis- 
positions (mining leases and patents). 

(3) Past-producing mines, pits, and 
quarries with remaining mineral 
development potential. 



Petroleum resources Included are oil 
and gas deposits and underground 
natural gas storage facilities. 

Provincially significant wetland (1) A 
Class 1, 2, or 3 wetland in that part of 
the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region 
below the line approximating the 
south edge of the Canadian Shield, as 
defined in An Evaluation System for 
Wetlands of Ontario South of the 
Precambrian Shield (MNR, 1984). (2) A 
wetland identified as provincially sig- 
nificant by the Ministry of Natural 
Resources through an evaluation sys- 
tem developed specifically for other 
areas of Ontario. 

Public service facilities Buildings and 
structures for the provision of public 
services. 

Public services Programs and services 
provided or subsidized by a govern- 
ment or other public body. Examples 
include social assistance, health, and 
educational programs, and cultural 
services. 

Quality agricultural area An area 
where quality agricultural land pre- 
dominates. 

Quality agricultural land Land that 
includes specialty crop lands and /or 
Canada Land Inventory Classes 1, 2, 
and 3 agricultural capability soils. 
Quality agricultural land may also be 
identified through an alternative 
land-evaluation system approved by 
the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 

Specialty crop land Areas where 
specialty crops such as tender fruits 
(peaches, grapes, cherries, plums), 
other fruit crops, vegetable crops, 
greenhouse crops, and crops from 
agriculturally developed organic soil 
lands are predominantly grown, usu- 
ally resulting from: (1) soils that have 
suitability to produce specialty crops, 
or lands that are subject to special cli- 
matic conditions, or a combination of 
both; and /or (2) a combination of 
farmers skilled in the production of 
specialty crops, and of capital invest- 
ment in related facilities and services 
to produce, store, or process specialty 
crops. 

Rehabilitate After extraction, to treat 
land so that the use or condition of 
the land is restored to its former use 
or condition, or is changed to another 
use or condition that is or will be 
compatible with adjacent land uses. 



FINAL REPORT 

37 



PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENTS 



Rural and recreational characteristics 

Elements of a municipality's physical, 
environmental, social, or cultural fab- 
ric through which its identity or 
uniqueness has evolved and is 
defined. Examples include historic 
settlement patterns, natural or cultur- 
al resources, waterw^ays, and distinc- 
tive landscapes or vistas. 

Sewage and water systems: 

Private communal systems are 

sew^age works and systems, and 
water works that provide for the dis- 
tribution, collection, or treatment of 
sewage or water not connected to full 
public systems; are for the common 
use of more than five units of full- 
time or seasonal residential occupan- 
cy; and are owned, operated, and 
managed privately. 

Private sewage and water systems, 

including on-site systems, are sewage 
works and systems, and water works, 
that are owned, operated, and man- 
aged privately and used by five or 
fewer properties or units. 

Public communal systems are 

sewage works and systems, and 
water works that provide for the dis- 
tribution, collection, or treatment of 
sewage or water not connected to full 
public systems; are for the common 
use of more than five units of full- 
time or seasonal residential occupan- 
cy; and are owned, operated, and 
managed by the municipality or other 
public body. 

Public sewage and water systems are 

sewage and water works, owned by 
the municipality or the province and 
provided to serve the whole muni- 
cipality or a substantial part of it. 

Significant In regard to natural features 
and functions, ecologically important 
to the natural environment in terms 
of amount, content, representation, or 
effect and contributing to the quality 
and integrity of an identifiable eco- 
logical region. In regard to matters 
other than natural features and func- 
tions, important in terms of amount, 
content, representation, or effect. 



Threatened species Any indigenous 
species of fauna or flora that, on the 
basis of the best available scientific 
evidence, is indicated to be experienc- 
ing a definite non-cyclical decline 
throughout all or a major portion of 
its Ontario range, and that is likely to 
become an endangered species if the 
factors responsible for the decline 
continue unabated. 

Transportation system Public corridors, 
transit systems, roads, pathways, and 
other facilities for the movement of 
people or goods. Modes of trans- 
portation in these systems may 
include automobile, bus, train, truck, 
aircraft, bicycle, or foot. 

Unorganized areas Those parts of the 
province without municipal organiza- 
tion. 

Vulnerable species Any indigenous 
species of fauna or flora that is repre- 
sented in Ontario by small but rela- 
tively stable populations, and/or that 
occurs sporadically, or in a very 
restricted area of Ontario, or at the 
fringe of its range, and that should be 
monitored periodically for evidence 
of a possible decline. 

Wetland area A single contiguous wet- 
land, which may be composed of one 
or more wetland types. Two or more 
wetland areas, plus their adjacent 
lands, form a wetland complex. 

Wetland functions The biological, 
physical, and socio-economic interac- 
tions that occur because wetlands are 
present. Included are groundwater 
recharge and discharge, flood dam- 
age reduction, shoreline stabilization, 
sediment trapping, nutrient retention 
and removal, food-chain support, and 
fish and wildlife habitat. 

Wetland management practices The 

activities undertaken by municipal or 
provincial public bodies, or by pri- 
vate landowners or individuals, to 
modify or enhance wetland features 
or functions to meet specific objec- 
tives. 



Wetlands Lands seasonally or perma- 
nently covered by shallow water, as 
well as lands where the water table is 
close to or at the surface. In either 
case, the presence of water has caused 
the formahon of hydric soils and has 
favoured the dominance of 
hydrophytic, or water-tolerant, 
plants. The four types of wetlands 
found in Ontario are bogs, fens, 
marshes, and swamps. Lands being 
used for agricultural purposes, that 
are periodically "soaked" or "wet," 
are not considered to be wetlands in 
this definition. Such lands, whether 
or not they were wetlands at one 
time, are considered to have been 
converted to alternate uses. 

Wildlife habitat Areas of the natural 
environment upon which wildlife 
depend for survival as self-sustaining 
populations in the wild, including 
land and water needed for cover, pro- 
tection, or food supply. Wildlife 
include all wild mammals, birds, rep- 
tiles, amphibians, fishes, and inverte- 
brates. Areas included may be deer 
yards, nesting areas, aquatic habitat, 
waterfowl staging areas, and habitat 
of endangered, threatened, and vul- 
nerable species. 

Woodlot A hardwood, softwood, or 
mixed wooded area of more than one 
hectare, covered in trees to a density 
of (1) at least 1000 trees per hectare of 
all sizes, or (2) 750 trees per hectare 
measuring over 5 centimetres in 
diameter, or (3) 500 trees per hectare 
measuring over 12 centimetres in 
diameter, or (4) 250 trees per hectare 
measuring over 20 centimetres in 
diameter. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

38 



4 

The PtDvindal Role 



The provincial government has 
the responsibility of providing the 
framework within which planning 
takes place. It is responsible for 
the legislation — the Planning Act 
— that provides municipalities 
with the authority to plan and 
sets out procedural requirements 
to ensure equity and due process 
in planning decisions. 

The province must also artic- 
ulate provincial policy to provide 
a context for municipal planning 
decisions, and where appropriate 
it should formulate provincial 
plans. 

The province has other impor- 
tant functions, such as providing 
information, undertaking research, 
advising municipalities, review- 
ing and approving municipal 
plans, and reviewing some signi- 
ficant development applications. 

This chapter outlines a number 
of recommended changes in the 
way the province carries out its 
responsibilities. 

Lead responsibility for coordi- 
nating policy-making and planning 
under the Planning Act should be 
assigned to one ministry, and the 
Commission is recommending 
that the Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs be given the responsibility 
and renamed the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning 
(MMAP). 



To facilitate the province's 
role in developing policy and 
preparing provincial-level plans, 
two committees are recommend- 
ed: a Provincial Planning 
Advisory Committee (PPAC), 
and an Interministerial Planning 
Committee (IPC). 

As well, improvements are 
recommended for provincial 
planning administration, permits 
and licences, the provision of 
information, monitoring, educa- 
tion and training, and grants and 
subsidies. 

Policy and Planning 

Policy development and the 
preparation of plans are separate 
but related exercises. Provincial 
policies establish provincewide 
direction on specific issues, 
whereas provincial plans consist 
of policy direction applied to a 
particular geographic area. In 
both cases, the processes used in 
developing the policies or plans 
must be open to the public and 
involve municipalities. The 
implementation mechanisms 
must be effective and administra- 
tively straightforward. 



Provincial Policy 

Provincial policy must be clearly 
stated and developed in a marmer 
credible to those affected. This is 
important for two reasons: 

1. Provincial policy provides a 
context for provincial planning 
decisions. 

2. It defines the framework 
within which municipal 
planning can occur. 

Considerable dissatisfaction 
exists with the present system of 
provincial policy development, 
which is characterized by confu- 
sion about what policy is, how it 
is developed, and how it gets 
expressed. Some accuse the 
province of developing provincial 
policy in isolation, without effec- 
tive involvement of interested 
parties. Some have noted that the 
current approach does not ensure 
coordination among ministries or 
among policy areas, and that the 
process is not as open to public 
involvement as it should be. 
Some say it often seems that poli- 
cy belongs to a ministry rather 
than to the government as a 
whole or the people of Ontario. 

A policy-making process that 
is fair, open, accessible, account- 
able, coordinated, and effective is 
essential. New mechanisms are 
required at the provincial level to 
ensure effective consultation in 
the formulation of policy. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
39 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



Generally, a good process for 
formulating provincial planning 
policy should include the follow- 
ing steps: 

1. Provide notice of intent to 
formulate a policy about a 
particular subject, including 
the suggested timetable for 
decision-making and a 
description of the process to 
be followed. 

2. Allow opportunity for early 
comment. 

3. Where appropriate, create a 
small working committee (or 
committees) to help produce 
background studies and a 
draft policy. 

4. Publish a draft policy docu- 
ment and background studies 
addressing options. 

5. Provide opportunities for 
public review, including, 
where appropriate, public 
meetings. 

6. Make a recommendation to 
Cabinet for decision. 

Section 3(2) of the Act now 
requires the Minister of Municipal 
Affairs to "confer with such 
municipal, provincial, federal or 
other officials and bodies or per- 
sons as the Minister considers to 
have an interest." This require- 
ment gives the Minister flexibili- 
ty, but it does not provide much 
direction or assurance about pub- 
lic input. The scope of consulta- 
tion should be broadened, and at 
the same time the process should 
be made more specific. The 
Planning Act should require the 
province to consult on proposed 
policy, including giving notice 
and providing a fair opportunity 
for public comment. 



In order to facilitate policy- 
making, two committees should 
be established at the provincial 
level, with members to be 
appointed by the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning. 

The committees would pro- 
vide focus and integration for the 
planning policy-making function 
of the government as a whole by 
creating forums for discussion — 
and clarification — of the issues. 
These two committees would 
involve many of the parties that 
have a clear interest in planning 
and policy. 

The first of these committees, 
the Provincial Planning Advisory 
Committee (PPAC), would 
undertake consultation and 
would provide the government 
with advice on provincial plan- 
ning policies. The second, the 
Interministerial Planning 
Committee (IPC), would provide 
a forum for achieving interminis- 
terial coordination and resolving 
conflicts. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

10. The Planning Act be amend- 
ed to require the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning, before issuing a 
policy statement, to consult 
on the proposed policy, 
including providing notice 
and providing a fair opportu- 
nity for public comment. 



Provincial Planning 
Advisory Committee (PPAC) 

The Commission recommends 
the Planning Act be amended to 
provide for the establishment of a 
Provincial Planning Advisory 
Committee (PPAC). It should 
consist of no more than 20 mem- 
bers, representing the diverse 
interests in the planning system 
such as the development indus- 
try, environmental groups, 
municipalities, farming groups, 
community groups. Aboriginal 
interests, planners, and architects. 
PPAC was discussed in the 
Commission's Draft Report, and 
several submissions agreed that 
the committee would be unwieldy 
if its size were larger than about 
20 members. Some submissions 
emphasized the importance of 
geographical distribution, with 
strong representation from 
Northern and rural communities. 
The Commission agrees the gov- 
ernment should ensure adequate 
geographical representation. 

The prime responsibilities of 
the Provincial Planning Advisory 
Committee, regarding policy, 
would be to: 

• review proposals for policy 
referred by the Minister or 
submitted by the public; 

• recommend to the Minister, 
for approval, an annual agen- 
da of planning policy priori- 
ties for the committee; 

• direct the preparation of back- 
ground studies, directing 
assigned staff and retaining 
consultants, as needed; 

• direct public consultation on 
policy matters, using special 
committees, as needed, with 
diverse interests and expertise 
in particular policy issues; 



FINAL REPORT 
40 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



• review the results of the pub- 
lic consultation and then pro- 
vide feedback to the public on 
the recommendations made 
(explaining how public input 
was considered); 

• make recommendations to the 
Minister for provincial poli- 
cies, providing supporting 
rationale; and 

• review the effectiveness of 
existing planning policy. 

As noted later in this chapter, 
PPAC should also play a role in 
provincial planning initiatives. 

A number of submissions to 
the Commission expressed con- 
cern that PPAC would amount to 
just more bureaucracy — another 
layer in the approval process. 
Others suggested PPAC should 
become involved in reviewing 
Ministry budgets and in setting 
research agendas. However, those 
are government responsibilities. 
PPAC should be the link between 
the government and the public in 
policy formulation — it should be 
an advisory committee, not 
involved in day-to-day decisions 
or administration — and it must 
play no role in reviewing or 
approving municipal plans or 
development applications. 

PPAC should be an ongoing 
committee, meeting regularly, with 
members appointed by the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning for limited terms. The 
chair should also be appointed by 
the Minister. Members of PPAC 
should, where appropriate, 
receive per diems and expenses 
for meetings. PPAC should be sup- 
ported by staff from the Ministry 
of Municipal Affairs and Planning 
and, as appropriate, from other 



ministries. As well, PPAC should 
have its own administrative staff 
and budget. It is expected that the 
modest staff expenditures for 
PPAC will be secured through the 
reallocation of existing resources. 

Interministerial Planning 
Committee (IPC) 

The coordination of different 
ministry interests and activities in 
land-use planning is very impor- 
tant. Various submissions noted 
that coordination does not occur 
frequently enough. 

Deputy ministers concerned 
with planning issues now meet 
on a regular basis. This mecha- 
nism should be formalized to 
provide integration and coordina- 
tion of provincial planning policy, 
and to allow for the resolution of 
policy conflicts. It should be 
called the Interministerial 
Planning Committee (IPC). 

The ministries represented on 
IPC should be: Municipal Affairs 
and Planning, Environment and 
Energy, Natural Resources, 
Housing, Agriculture and Food, 
Transportation, Finance, and 
Management Board. The deputies 
of other ministries with an inter- 
est in planning should be 
involved as necessary, depending 
on the policy issues being 
addressed. Such ministries could, 
for example, include: Economic 
Development and Trade; 
Culture, Tourism and Recreation; 
Education and Training; 
Northern Development and 
Mines; and Community and 
Social Services. A number of 
submissions suggested the IPC 
should include more ministries 
on the ongoing committee, but a 
large committee of all ministries 



with an interest in planning 
matters would be unwieldy and 
ineffective. 

Since the Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning is being 
recommended to coordinate the 
province's plarming activities, the 
committee should be chaired by 
the deputy of that ministry. 

With respect to policy, the 
prime responsibilities of the 
Interministerial Planning 
Committee would be to: 

• coordinate policy activities 
among ministries and resolve 
policy conflicts; 

• arrange for appropriate staff 
resources and information to 
support PPAC; and 

• advise the Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Plarming and other 
ministers on policy activities. 

To ensure liaison between the 
government and the Provincial 
Planning Advisory Committee, at 
least two representatives of the 
Interministerial Planning 
Committee should be included 
on PPAC. 

Regular liaison between PPAC 
and the IPC will be important to 
ensure that the interests of both 
committees are fully addressed 
and the expertise of all members 
is utilized. Close cooperation will 
not be guaranteed by a structural 
relationship, but will depend on 
the goodwill of members of both 
committees. In addition to having 
at least two members of the IPC 
assigned to sit on PPAC, the com- 
mittees should hold joint sessions 
to work out any problems and 
approaches. 

The Interministerial Planning 
Committee will involve no new 
staff resources. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
41 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



Provincial Planning 

The province's role in developing 
provincial-level plans has not 
been very clear. 

But plans are as necessary — 
and as desirable — at the provincial 
level as they are at the municipal 
level. Provincial planning would 
help the government make 
informed decisions about vital 
issues such as where to spend lim- 
ited funds, how to protect large- 
scale natural features, and where 
to locate needed infrastructure. 
Some provincial planning is now 
occurring: there is the Oak Ridges 
Moraine study, and also the work 
of the Office of the Greater 
Toronto Area. The Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs is currently 
pursuing various planning initia- 
tives, but the mandate for provin- 
cial plans is not entirely clear. 
Areas that might benefit from 
provincial plans include the Lake 
Simcoe area. Eastern Ontario, and 
the eastern shore of Georgian Bay. 

Provincial planning could serve 
a number of purposes, including: 

• setting area priorities and 
direction on a general level, 
touching on larger economic, 
environmental, and social 
issues; 

• dealing with specific issues 
crossing municipal bound- 
aries that are too complex for 
several municipalities to deal 
with on a joint basis; 

• addressing issues that require 
consistent application of 
policies across municipal 
boundaries; and 

• dealing with infrastructure 
such as transportation, sewage, 
and water, which involves 
provincial capital expenditures. 



Although the province has 
used several different approaches 
over the years, there is no 
commonly accepted process for 
implementing this kind of 
planning. 

Like other good planning 
processes, provincial planning 
should identify problems, review 
alternatives, evaluate the specific 
choices that seem available, and 
recommend a course of action. 
The Commission is recommend- 
ing that provincial plans be 
developed through a process that 
involves substantial consultation, 
and that the same approach out- 
lined for the formulation of 
provincial policy be used for 
provincial plans. 

The Provincial Planning 
Advisory Committee should be 
responsible for this consultative 
process, with the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning 
providing the necessary staffing. 
With the approval of the Minister, 
PPAC should establish special 
committees representing interests 
— including those of municipali- 
ties — in that part of the province 
subject to the planning exercise. 
Such committees would ensure 
the best possible input for the 
drafting of plans. 

PPAC and any committees it 
helps establish, whether for plan- 
ning or policy-making, should 
operate in a public fashion. As 
part of the consultation process, 
reports and background studies 
should be readily available. 

The implementation of 
provincial plans must be careful- 
ly thought out. What is needed is 
an administratively simple 
approach that does not duplicate 



municipal planning activities. At 
the same time, plans must be 
enforceable. 

Currently, several options 
exist for implementing provincial 
plans. The Ontario Planning and 
Development Act provides one 
mechanism for provincial plan- 
ning, but it has not been used 
often because of cumbersome 
procedures that require the time 
and attention of Cabinet for even 
minor changes and amendments. 
Another option is special 
legislation, such as the Niagara 
Escarpment Planning and 
Development Act. The Commission 
is not making recommendations 
regarding either piece of legisla- 
tion. Further, the Commission is 
not making recommendations on 
the administration of the Niagara 
Escarpment Commission. 

Another route would be to 
formalize plans as provincial pol- 
icy statements under the Planning 
Act. This option would regularize 
the planning process, giving 
provincial plans clear status but 
not requiring elaborate new 
administrative structures. These 
policies would provide clear 
direction for municipal plans. 
Municipalities would be required 
to act in a manner consistent with 
these plans. Maps could be 
included in the policy statements, 
with the precise boundary lines 
of designated areas implemented 
through municipal plans and 
zoning by-laws. Legislation 
should clearly authorize the 
adoption of provincial plans as 
policy statements. 



FINAL REPORT 
42 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

11. The Planning Act be amended 
to provide for the establish- 
ment of a Provincial Planning 
Advisory Committee (PPAC), 
consisting of no more than 
20 members representing the 
diverse interests in the plan- 
ning system, appointed by 
the Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning. PPAC 
will have the following 
functions: 

(a) Review proposals for 
provincial planning 
policy and plans referred 
by the Minister or sub- 
mitted by the public. 

(b) Recommend to the 
Minister, for approval, an 
annual agenda of policy 
and planning priorities 
for the committee. 

(c) Direct the preparation of 
background studies, 
directing assigned staff 
and retaining consultants 
as needed. 

(d) Direct public consultation 
on policy and planning 
matters, using special 
committees having 
diverse interests and 
expertise in particular 
policy issues or repre- 
senting interests in 
specific parts of the 
province. 

(e) Review the results of the 
public consultation, and 
provide feedback to the 
public on the recommen- 
dations made and how 
public input was 
considered. 



(f) Make recommendations 
to the Minister for 
provincial planning poli- 
cies and plans, providing 
supporting rationale. 

(g) Review effectiveness of 
existing planning policy 
and plans, and make 
appropriate recommen- 
dations. 

12. To provide coordination 
among ministries on planning 
matters, an Interministerial 
Planning Committee (IPC) of 
deputy ministers from min- 
istries that have a direct 
interest in land-use planning 
in Ontario be established, 
chaired by the deputy 
minister of the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning. The committee's 
mandate would include 
coordinating policy and 
planning activities among 
provincial ministries and 
working with the Provincial 
Planning Advisory Committee 
(PPAC) on provincial policy 
and planning proposals. 

13. The Planning Act be amend- 
ed to provide that provincial 
plans be adopted as policy 
statements under the Act. 



Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning 
(MMAP) 

Lead responsibility for policy- 
making and planning under the 
Planning Act at the provincial 
level should be assigned to one 
ministry, which the Commission 
suggests be called the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning 
(MMAP). 

Other ministries will continue 
to be involved in developing 
provincial planning policies of 
specific interest to their functions, 
but responsibility for provincial 
planning policy initiatives, coor- 
dination, and response should be 
assigned to MMAP. Restructuring 
of the Ministry may be required 
to accommodate new responsibil- 
ities and priorities. 

The prime responsibilities of 
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning regarding policies 
and provincial planning would 
be to: 

• administer the Planning Act; 

• coordinate provincial activities 
regarding policies and 
planning for land-use and 
related matters, including 
studies, analysis, and 
monitoring; 

• play a leadership role in 
resolving interministerial 
disputes; and 

• work with the Provincial 
Planning Advisory 
Committee. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
43 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

14. Responsibility for provincial 
planning policy initiatives, 
coordination, and response 
be assigned to the Ministry 
of Municipal Affairs, which 
should be renamed the 
Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning. 

15. The Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning be given 
lead responsibility for 
planning functions in the 
province. To exercise this 
responsibility, the Minister 
should receive notice of 
municipal planning matters 
and be given the following 
responsibilities in respect of 
municipal planning functions: 

(a) Administer the Planning 
Act. 

(b) Coordinate provincial 
activities regarding 
policies and planning for 
land-use and related 
matters, including studies, 
analysis, and monitoring. 

(c) Play a leadership role in 
resolving interministerial 
disputes. 

(d) Work with the Provincial 
Planning Advisory 
Committee. 



Minister's Powers 

The Commission is recommend- 
ing that the Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning be given 
lead responsibility for planning 
functions in the province. To 
exercise this responsibility, the 
Minister should be given powers 
described below. 

Approvals 

The Commission's Draft Report 
proposed that once the first plan 
was approved by the province 
under a comprehensive statement 
of provincial policies, then the 
method to ensure consistency 
and conformity would be simple 
notification and circulation of 
decisions, with the right to appeal 
to the Ontario Municipal Board in 
cases of dispute. The proposal 
was that the province would not 
have plan approval after the first 
plan. 

Many municipalities 
expressed delight at the Draft 
Report's proposal that no 
approvals would be needed from 
a higher level of government. 
They felt the ability of municipal- 
ities to approve their plans would 
reduce the lengthy delays now 
involved in obtaining provincial 
approvals. It was seen as a good 
method of making the provincial 
bureaucracy more accountable 
and cutting out considerable 
duplication. 

However, a number of other 
submissions criticized this pro- 
posal, from three perspectives. 
First, it was suggested that dis- 
putes between governments 
would often go forward to the 
Ontario Municipal Board without 
having had a fair chance of being 



resolved through local discussion 
and negotiation. One submission 
said the proposal was undesir- 
able because "it reduces the abili- 
ty of the province or an upper- 
tier municipality to effectively 
implement policies; it relies more 
heavily on utilization of the 0MB 
or court to settle disputes; it 
removes necessary checks and 
balances from the system; and it 
could lead to conflict between 
levels of municipal government." 
Another submission argued that 
the proposed arrangement was 
by its nature adversarial. 
Retaining approval power would 
ensure reasonable attempts by 
governments to settle their differ- 
ences instead of taking them 
before a third party like the 0MB. 
There was concern that addition- 
al appeals would further over- 
load the 0MB and create more 
delays. 

Second, there was a fear that 
some municipalities would forge 
ahead without significant regard 
for important policies, hoping to 
proceed without being chal- 
lenged. Having no strong provin- 
cial approval system would 
favour those municipalities less 
inclined to plan well. 

Third, as one submission 
noted,"unless legislated to do so, 
ministries would not voluntarily 
be involved to ensure provincial 
policies are implemented consis- 
tently and thoroughly by 
municipalities." 

The Commission considered 
several methods of dealing with 
these concerns in a way that did 
not require approval by another 
level of government. Requiring a 
municipality to have on staff a 
full-time qualified planner was 



FINAL 



REPORT 
44 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



one proposal, but many submis- 
sions questioned the kind of 
guarantee that that method gave 
to the quality of political deci- 
sions, and others showed that 
some municipalities planned in 
an effective manner using consul- 
tants rather than staff. Another 
idea was to require a director of 
planning to sign a certification of 
consistency or conformity, but 
many suggested that a planner's 
job could well be in jeopardy if, 
against council's wishes, certifica- 
tion was not given. Few planners 
wished to be put in that position. 

There was considerable sup- 
port for maintaining provincial 
approvals for plans and plan 
amendments. 

The Commission came to the 
conclusion that the most effective, 
straightforward, and least adver- 
sarial manner of ensuring consis- 
tency with provincial policy is to 
require provincial approval of the 
plans and plan amendments of 
upper tiers, separated municipali- 
ties, cities in the North, planning 
boards, and planning authorities. 
For similar reasons, the 
Commission concluded that once 
a comprehensive set of planning 
policy statements is in place, 
upper tiers with plans should have 
the authority to approve lower-tier 
plans and plan amendments. This 
approval authority would 
include the authority to modify 
plans and plan amendments. 

This approach would ulti- 
mately lead to a significant reduc- 
tion in the number of plans the 
province would have to approve. 
(Where an upper-tier plan was in 
place, the province would not 
have to approve any lower-tier 
plans and plan amendments.) 



In Chapter 7, Lot Creation and 
Development Control, the 
Commission recommends that 
once a comprehensive set of plan- 
ning policy statements is in place, 
the province delegate subdivision 
approval authority to regions, 
counties, separated municipali- 
ties, cities in the North, planning 
boards, and planning authorities 
with plans. 

There will be situations where 
there are no upper-tier plans in 
effect, and where provincial 
approval of plans, plan amend- 
ments, and plans of subdivision 
will continue to be exercised. 

Thus, the Commission is rec- 
ommending that the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning 
approve plans and plan amend- 
ments of regional governments, 
counties, separated municipali- 
ties, cities in the North, planning 
boards, and planning authorities. 
Where no regional, county, or 
planning board plan exists, the 
Minister's approval powers will 
continue for plans and plan 
amendments of local municipali- 
ties. In all cases, the approval 
authority should continue to 
include the authority to modify 
plans and plan amendments. 

Appeals 

Ministries now have the authori- 
ty to appeal some decisions, such 
as zoning by-laws and consents. 
That authority should be extend- 
ed to all municipal planning mat- 
ters. The Commission is recom- 
mending that the Minister, as 
well as other ministers, be per- 
mitted to appeal any municipal 
planning decision within the 
same timeframe, and subject to 
the same rules, as other objectors. 



Emergency Powers 

In cases of emergencies, the 
Minister should have the power 
to impose an interim control 
order on any site or area where 
there is a provincial interest that 
is not addressed by provincial 
policy, and where that interest 
will not be protected unless the 
Minister intervenes. This power 
would be parallel to the interim 
control by-law provisions now 
available to a municipality. An 
interim control order would be 
effective for up to one year, 
renewable for no more than one 
further year. Notice similar to 
that required by municipalities 
for control by-laws must be given 
to affected parties (that is, notice 
within 30 days). The purpose of 
the interim control order would 
be to allow time to create and 
enact appropriate provincial 
policy. However, because such an 
order could affect individual 
rights, its imposition should be 
subject to an appeal to the Ontario 
Municipal Board within 45 days 
of notification. The interim con- 
trol order would expire with 
adoption and implementation of 
policy. 

Zoning Controls 

Currently, the Minister has the 
authority to impose zoning 
orders to regulate land use any- 
where in Ontario, on land with 
and without local zoning controls 
in place. This authority is com- 
monly used in unorganized areas, 
where no municipal zoning pow- 
ers exist. Although infrequently 
used in municipalities, the 
Minister's zoning orders do have 
the effect of overriding existing 



FINAL REPORT 

45 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



municipal zoning by-laws. The 
Commission believes that, in 
order to remove possible duplica- 
tion with municipal controls, the 
exercise of this power should be 
limited to areas without zoning 
controls. If the province is to 
intervene directly in municipal 
plarming matters, it must be on a 
policy basis, as contemplated in 
the emergency power discussed 
above. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending that the Minister be 
authorized to place a zoning 
order on any site or area without 
local zoning controls where there 
is a provincial interest that will 
not otherwise be protected. The 
right of appealing such orders to 
the Ontario Municipal Board 
should be retained. 

Withdrawal of Approval 
Authority 

Where the powers of the Minister 
of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning are delegated to muni- 
cipalities, the Minister is now 
permitted to remove those dele- 
gated powers. This authority is 
rarely used, but it should contin- 
ue to be available to the Minister. 
In addition, the Minister should 
be permitted to withdraw 
assigned consent powers. 



Declaration of Provincial 
Interest 

Under the Planning Act, if the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs 
declares a provincial interest in a 
matter that has been appealed to 
the Ontario Municipal Board, 
then the decisions of the 0MB are 
subject to confirmation or varia- 
tion by the Lieutenant Governor 
in Council. This ministerial 
power creates a great deal of 
uncertainty and instability at the 
end of the 0MB process, and it 
should be repealed. The Minister 
has a number of other powers 
that allow adequate expression of 
the provincial interest. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

16. The Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning: 

(a) Continue to have the 
authority to approve 
plans and plan amend- 
ments of regional govern- 
ments, counties, separat- 
ed municipalities, cities 
in the North, planning 
boards, and planning 
authorities. This approval 
power includes the ability 
to modify plans and plan 
amendments. 

(b) Continue to, where no 
regional or county plan 
exists, have the authority 
to approve plans, plan 
amendments, and plans 
of subdivision of local 
municipalities, and the 
Planning Act be amended 
to give the Minister the 
authority to charge an 
administrative fee for 
this function. 



17. The Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning, as well 
as other ministers, be permit- 
ted to appeal any municipal 
planning decision within the 
same timeframe, and subject 
to the same rules, as other 
objectors. 

18. The Planning Act be amend- 
ed to give the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning the following 
authority: 

(a) The Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning be authorized 
to impose an interim 
control order on any area 
or site where there is a 
provincial interest that 
will not otherwise be 
protected, effective for up 
to one year and renewable 
for no more than one year, 
pending development of 
a provincial policy to 
address the provincial 
interest at issue. Notice 
must be given to affected 
parties within 30 days, 
and an appeal to the 
Ontario Municipal Board 
may be filed within 

45 days of notification. 

(b) The Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning be authorized 
to place a zoning order 
on any site or area with- 
out local zoning controls 
where there is a provin- 
cial interest that will not 
otherwise be protected. 
The right of appealing 
such orders to the 
Ontario Municipal Board 
should be retained. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
46 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



(c) The Minister's powers to 
remove delegated author- 
ity from municipalities 
continue, and the Minister 
be given additional 
authority to withdraw 
assigned consent powers. 

(d) The authority of the 
Minister to issue declara- 
tions of provincial inter- 
est and the associated 
authority of Cabinet to 
confirm, vary, or rescind 
decisions of the Ontario 
Municipal Board — as set 
out in sections 17, 22, and 
34 of the Planning Act — 
be repealed. 



Administration of 
Provincial Planning 

How can plan approval and 
review be delivered efficiently by 
the province? It is unlikely that 
funds for new provincial staff 
will be found, and the 
Commission assumes that these 
tasks must be performed within 
existing staff complements, or 
even with reduced complements. 
Thus, excellent use must be made 
of the limited staff available — a 
challenging task since there are 
currently complaints about the 
time taken for provincial review 
and approval. 

The following proposals are 
made with a view to creating 
more effective ways of using staff 
resources for the protection of 
provincial interests, whether 
through approval or review. 

Regional Planning Review 

Staff from all provincial ministries 
should work together to ensure 
tasks are performed well. This, of 
course, is much easier said than 
done. Ministries each have their 
own mandate, and those mandates 
on occasion conflict. The proposed 
Interministerial Planning 
Committee should bring some 
coordination of policy at the 
highest levels, but if provincial 
interests are to be protected, 
coordination must occur in the 
field as well. 

Most decisions by provincial 
staff about the specific applica- 
tion of provincial policy should 
be made in the area where the 
municipality or site is located. As 
often as possible, staff in regional 
offices should be authorized to 



make decisions about the review 
and approval of plans and devel- 
opment proposals. This proposal 
represents a shift in decision- 
making. Current arrangements 
require the Minister's approval of 
municipal plans, and these pow- 
ers have not been delegated as far 
down the ladder in the Ministry 
as the field level. 

Regional offices have a good 
understanding of local circum- 
stances, and staff are readily 
accessible to local interests. The 
assumption that complex cases 
are more reasonably resolved 
further up the decision-making 
ladder is not always valid. Clear 
policy, which provides direction 
for approval decisions and 
ensures consistency across 
regions, allows the Minister to 
delegate to field staff the authori- 
ty to make decisions. The 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning should delegate plan- 
ning approval power to Ministry 
regional offices, and in a time of 
staff cut-back use all techniques 
possible to ensure this is effective. 

Obviously, there will be cases 
where advice may be sought 
from head office. These cases may 
concern matters where there is an 
emerging provincial interest, 
such as new provincial infrastruc- 
ture being planned, or where 
other "big picture" questions are 
involved. They may also involve 
situations where conflicts 
between ministries cannot be 
resolved at the field level. It will 
be important that head office 
communicate these planning 
interests to regional offices so 
regional staff can perform their 
jobs well. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

47 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



All provincial ministries 
should coordinate activities at the 
regional level. Regional planning 
review committees should be 
established, with members drawn 
from staff of the main ministries 
concerned about municipal plan- 
ning and development decisions 

— Municipal Affairs and 
Planning, Environment and 
Energy, and Natural Resources. 
In Northern Ontario, the Ministry 
of Northern Development and 
Mines should also be part of the 
committee. Each regional plan- 
ning review committee would be 
chaired by staff from MMAR 
Staff from other ministries would 
be brought in as required. 

There should be five or six 
regions established for this 
purpose, such as Southwestern, 
Central, Eastern, Northeastern, 
and Northwestern. 

One hurdle is that there is no 
common set of regional bound- 
aries used by all provincial min- 
istries. Each ministry has its own 
geographical divisions, making it 
difficult to coordinate regional 
decision-making. It is unreason- 
ably optimistic to expect those 
boundaries to be rationalized 
quickly. Instead, the key min- 
istries must agree on common 
boundaries for planning matters 

— a task that can be achieved 
without a lengthy and con- 
tentious process of boundary 
rationalization. 



Each regional planning review 
committee should also include a 
planning staff member from the 
municipalities served, chosen by 
the regional head of the Ministry 
of Municipal Affairs and Planning 
from those nominated by the 
municipalities. This individual 
would provide an excellent link 
between the provincial and 
municipal levels and ensure a 
good exchange of information 
and a knowledge of exactly what 
administrative problems exist, 
and why. He or she would work 
with the committee on process 
and evaluation matters but, to 
ensure no conflict, should not be 
involved in the actual decisions 
made. The province (through 
MMAP) should reimburse the 
municipality for the actual staff 
time involved. 

The regional planning review 
committee should be able to 
make clear to municipalities what 
is expected of them in matters sub- 
mitted for approval or comment, 
and timeframes should be agreed 
upon. The joint nature of the 
exercise should help remove the 
distance between municipalities 
and provincial staff. 

Each regional planning review 
committee should, in conjunction 
with municipalities served, estab- 
lish a screening mechanism to 
ensure that the work of assessing 
plans and applications is not 
duplicated by different ministries. 
As well, such a mechanism should 
ensure the documents for consid- 
eration are circulated only to the 
appropriate agencies/bodies. The 
screening process should enable 
municipalities to take on more 
responsibility to resolve issues 
before they go to the regional 



planning committee, and to be 
alerted to issues about which the 
province might have concerns. 

Screening criteria should 
address such matters as: defining 
when an application is "com- 
plete"; defining when min- 
istries/agencies/bodies should 
have documents circulated to 
them; and assessing the results of 
prior circulation to ministries to 
determine whether outstanding 
issues remain to be addressed. 

At the present time, a number 
of different ministries, agencies, 
and municipal departments 
review matters that are closely 
related, sometimes producing 
conflicting recommendations. 
This is the case with storm-water 
management and fish habitat 
protection, where five different 
interests are involved: the 
Ministry of the Environment and 
Energy, the Ministry of Natural 
Resources, the conservation 
authority, the upper tier, and the 
lower tier. The activities of differ- 
ent bodies dealing with the same 
issues must be coordinated. One 
ministry should be given lead 
responsibility in such cases, and 
part of that responsibility should 
be to develop a coordinated 
strategy. 



FINAL REPORT 
48 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



The Commission recommends 
tliat: 

19. To provide for improved 
administration of provincial 
review and approval respon- 
sibilities: 

(a) Regional planning review 
committees consisting of 
interested ministries be 
established, chaired by 
the staff member of the 
Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning. 

(b) Provincial plan approval 
and development review 
be delegated to the 
Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning 
staff on that committee. 

(c) A planner nominated by 
the municipalities served 
by the committee be 
assigned to it to help 
with administrative 
review, with costs paid 
by the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning. 

(d) Procedures be established, 
following consultation 
with municipalities 
served, on screening and 
on approval and review 
periods. 

20. Where responsibilities 
concerning related matters 
(such as storm-water man- 
agement and fish habitat 
protection) are distributed 
among more than one 
ministry, agency, or level of 
municipal government, one 
ministry be assigned lead 
responsibility and be required 
to develop a coordinated 
strategy. 



Permits, Licences, and 
Technical Matters 

When making decisions about 
plans and development applica- 
tions, the province has a number 
of resources at its disposal: 
provincial policies under section 
3 of the Planning Act, implemen- 
tation guidelines related to 
policies, other guidelines, and 
the ability to issue permits and 
licences. In many cases, the ques- 
tion of whether policy is being 
met will be determined by the 
extent to which standards set out 
in guidelines or required for per- 
mits and licences are met. Some 
standards are set under legisla- 
tion such as the Environmental 
Protection Act, while others have 
emerged as matters of informal 
practice to help simplify decision- 
making on complicated issues. 

Permits and licences are often 
applied for and considered as the 
development application reaches 
its most detailed stage. The sorts 
of matters that are considered 
and are well known to applicants 
and planners include: acceptable 
levels of impact on cold- and 
warm-water streams; conditions 
for access to provincial highways; 
municipal sewage and water 
capacity; drinking water quality 
and quantity for private wells; 
decommissioning of former 
industrial or contaminated sites; 
storm-water quality and quantity; 
impact on fisheries; noise and 
vibration impacts; private septics, 
including nitrate impact; habitat; 
forestry; and endangered species. 

There are several concerns 
about these matters. First, the 
standards involved should be 
well known; second, they should 



not change without notice and 
public discussion; and third, deci- 
sions about whether they are met 
should be made expeditiously. 

To make the planning process 
meaningful, fundamental 
requirements for permits and 
licences should be built into 
municipal plans. They will then 
be considered very early in the 
process. Even though all these 
matters involve questions of 
detail, there are clear provincial 
interests involved. 

Several of these issues are now 
being addressed at the provincial 
level, and procedural changes 
have been recommended to help 
expedite provincial approvals of 
permits and licences for projects 
that have received planning 
approval. As well, the draft 
Environmental Bill of Rights, 
proposed in July 1992, addresses 
questions of certainty, notice, and 
public input into the development 
and implementation of environ- 
mental policy and regulations. 
The Commission is supportive of 
both initiatives, but more needs 
to be done. Further efficiencies 
can likely be achieved by: 

• Clarifying the standards, per- 
formance criteria, and guide- 
lines to be met, including 
agreement on the methodology 
to be employed. 

• Delegating functions to 
qualified municipalities. 

• Allowing certification by 
appropriate professionals, 
and peer review. 

If certification or peer review 
is to be allowed, the criteria or 
standards and their application 
need to be clearly understood. 
At the present time, criteria are 



FINAL 



REPORT 
49 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



not always clear. Even when they 
are, there may be disputes in 
interpreting whether a specific 
proposal will satisfy the criteria 
and in determining the studies 
that may be required and the 
proper methodology for those 
studies. 

As a first step, ministries 
should set out the standards and 
criteria to be met and the 
methodology considered advis- 
able, ensuring all are well known 
and the applicant or municipality 
understands the nature of the 
tests applied. The information 
should be available through the 
offices of regional planning 
review committees. 

In cases where no firm criteria 
can be set out, the matter being 
reviewed should be outlined 
clearly so everyone understands 
the kinds of issues being decided. 

Several people have noted 
that a comprehensive manual of 
provincial permits and licences 
would be helpful. In 1992, the 
Greater Toronto Home Builders' 
Association published a useful 
guide to provincial approvals. As 
well, the Commission has com- 
piled a tentative list of provincial 
permits and licences. More work 
is needed, however, and the 
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning should regularly publish 
an up-to-date booklet on required 
provincial permits and licences. 

Where standards and criteria 
are agreed on, it should not be 
necessary for provincial staff to 
review each proposal to determine 
if it meets those standards. 
Decision-making can generally be 
left to municipalities that have 
staff qualified to make those 



decisions. Questions of liability 
are involved if decisions made 
are later found to be in error, and 
these questions should be 
addressed directly in delegation 
agreements between ministries 
and municipalities. 

Two additional techniques of 
review and approval mentioned 
in submissions are professional 
certification and peer review. The 
former method involves a profes- 
sional certifying that a certain 
proposal meets known standards 
(and assuming liability if an error 
is later found). Professional engi- 
neers perform this function for 
building structures; lawyers for 
property title. Certification is an 
appropriate method to determine 
if a proposal meets a clear and 
known standard, and it should be 
more widely used in the provin- 
cial review and approval process. 

Peer review involves a profes- 
sional conducting an independent 
review of another professional's 
conclusions. Some municipalities 
now use this approach — for 
example, the Regions of Halton 
and Waterloo — and it is found to 
be a speedy, cost-effective, and 
reasonable way of coming to con- 
clusions about complicated tech- 
nical matters where it may be 
unwise to trust a single opinion. 
Funds for the peer review almost 
always come from the proponent. 
They are paid to the municipality, 
and the municipality retains the 
independent reviewer. 



The Commission agrees that, 
in proceeding on complex mat- 
ters, peer review is a reasonable 
alternative to review by ministry 
staff. It is often a good way of 
assessing a study submitted in 
support of a specific proposal. 
Generally, the important points 
are: that the review is carried out 
by someone capable of evaluating 
the study and the implications of 
what is proposed; and that the 
review is done in an independent 
fashion, where the reviewer has 
no interest in the outcome, other 
than being as accurate as possible 
about ultimate results. 

In some cases, municipalities 
will have staff capable of ensur- 
ing that peer reviews achieve 
these objectives. In others, muni- 
cipalities will need advice and 
guidance about the funding 
arrangements with the propo- 
nent, about the individuals to be 
chosen for the peer review, and 
about the cost of the review. If 
peer reviews are to proceed as a 
method to satisfy complicated 
provincial standards, they should 
be permitted only after the 
ministry involved and the muni- 
cipality have signed a general 
agreement covering the required 
procedures. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
50 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

21. To provide for the improved 
administration of provincial 
permits, licences, and other 
technical approvals: 

(a) Ministries clarify the 
standards, performance 
criteria, and guidelines to 
be met, including the 
preferred methodology to 
be employed. 

(b) The Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning regularly pub- 
lish an up-to-date booklet 
on required provincial 
permits, licences, and 
other technical approvals. 

(c) Ministries delegate to 
qualified municipalities 
the approval responsibil- 
ities for those permits, 
licences, and other tech- 
nical approvals for which 
there are clear standards 
or criteria. The delegation 
agreements should 
include provision for 
certification by qualified 
professionals, in appro- 
priate cases, and for peer 
review of technical 
studies. 



Timeliness 

The Commission received many 
deputations suggesting a firm 
time limit be established for com- 
ments by provincial staff. Some 
suggested that, if the time limit is 
not met, then provincial approval 
should be assumed. Others sug- 
gested that provincial approval 
should not be assumed, but the 
province should be barred from 
making any comment in the future. 
A number of those who acknowl- 
edged the problem were at a loss 
for ideas for dealing with it. 

The Streamlining guidelines 
issued in 1992 by the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs suggested a 
timeframe of 90 days after screen- 
ing for "straightforward" matters. 
Many who commented to the 
Commission seemed to think this 
period was reasonable. 

The Commission believes its 
proposed administrative changes 
will result in much speedier 
processing. Many matters should 
be dealt with within 60 days, and 
most others within 90 days. 
Complex matters may require six 
months for consideration, 
depending on the amount of 
pre-consultation involved. The 
Commission recommends these 
timeframes as guidelines, but 
leaves the actual arrangements to 
the regional planning review 
committees and their discussions 
with the municipalities served. 

No penalty should be imposed 
for not meeting time lines. In 
cases where provincial approval 
is required but no decision is 
forthcoming from the province 
within six months, then an appeal 
to the Ontario Municipal Board 
should be permitted. 



Each regional planning review 
committee should regularly 
evaluate its own performance in 
adhering to policy and ensuring 
timeliness. The Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning 
should review these evaluations 
and provide provincewide assess- 
ments of the approval and review 
function in the regional offices. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

22. Regional planning review 
committees set targets for 
approving many develop- 
ment review matters within 
60 days of receipt, and most 
others within 90 days, and 
more complex matters, such 
as municipal plans, within 
six months. Where the 
province has not made a 
decision within six months, 
an appeal may be made to 
the Ontario Municipal 
Board. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
51 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



The Province as 
Information Provider 

The province should collect, 
interpret, and publish various 
kinds of useful information. 
Information provides a basis for 
determining provincial policy; it 
assists municipalities in preparing 
policies and maps required by 
provincial policies and the Planning 
Act; and it provides a base from 
which to monitor environmental 
and other indicators. 

The province should play 
several roles in this area. One 
should focus on the development 
of systems, technology, and 
frameworks of information; 
another on the collection of data 
(for example, on satellite mapping 
or well-water quality); a third on 
the maintenance of information 
systems; and a fourth on the 
sharing of information with 
municipalities. 

But information is not simply 
a provincial responsibility. 
Municipalities should also have 
responsibility for gathering local 
data as a basis for local planning 
policies and to meet provincial 
pohcies. Municipalities and the 
province should coordinate 
information-gathering to ensure 
duplication is minimized — as, 
for instance, in the case of hydro- 
geological studies, where coordi- 
nation would likely create a useful 
matrix of information. 



The province should encour- 
age research to find solutions for 
existing problems, as it once did 
in the case of septic systems. A 
number of submissions to the 
Commission stated research would 
be helpful in the areas of urban 
safety, social impact analysis, and 
energy efficiency. Most of the 
useful research will be carried out 
in universities or by the private 
sector. Provincial ministries should 
assess proposed technology and 
other proposed solutions and 
make timely decisions on what 
may be authorized and used to 
meet needs in Ontario. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

23. In fulfilling the provincial 
responsibility to provide 
information to support 
planning: 

(a) Ministries develop and 
maintain systems, tech- 
nology, and frameworks 
for data and information, 
and help coordinate 
information with 
municipalities; 

(b) Ministries promote 
research on proposed 
technology and other 
solutions related to 
planning and land-use 
matters for Ontario and 
assess and, where appro- 
priate, approve them in a 
timely fashion. 



Monitoring 

It is important that planning 
changes be reviewed at regular 
intervals, and many submissions 
to the Commission stressed the 
need for monitoring to ensure 
that decisions are consistent with 
policies and to ensure that policies 
are effective. The former is some- 
times called compliance monitor- 
ing, while the latter is called 
effectiveness monitoring. 

Monitoring systems can be 
very expensive to establish, and 
often a great deal of energy is 
spent to secure information that 
is obvious, irrelevant, or of limit- 
ed value. Giving meaning to data 
is not always easy. In many cases, 
policy is effective for a variety of 
reasons that have to do with 
other factors. Accordingly, it does 
not seem helpful to suggest that 
complicated monitoring systems 
be established. 

A number of approaches to 
monitoring have been helpful, 
but none is without limitations. 
One is to choose key indicators 
and to look at changes in those 
indicators, perhaps in relation to 
targets. The difficulty is in estab- 
lishing — and agreeing on — 
meaningful key indicators and 
targets. A second approach is to 
require municipalities to prepare 
annual reports that focus on deci- 
sions and changes in local indica- 
tors — an onerous and often 
unproductive exercise. 

A third approach is to use key 
informants to provide opinions 
based on their experience or 
expertise. The challenge here lies 
in asking the right people, and 
the right questions. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

52 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



British Columbia has recently 
published a "State of the 
Environment Report for British 
Columbia," which provides infor- 
mation on a number of indicators 
documenting current status and 
trends. 

The Commission is not in a 
position to recommend which 
approach or approaches should 
be pursued. However, monitor- 
ing must be done. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

24. The Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning, in 
conjunction with other 
ministries, institute a regular 
monitoring program on the 
compliance with and 
effectiveness of provincial 
planning policies, and that it 
be required to report at least 
every five years, providing a 
basis for the review of 
provincial planning policies. 



Education and Training 

Many submissions noted the 
importance of education. Those 
involved in planning decisions 
must be informed about new 
planning techniques, research, 
and practice, and the province 
has an important role to play in 
this area. 

For many years the province 
has sponsored training programs 
for clerks and planning adminis- 
trators. This training is not to 
make the individuals planners, 
but to better equip them in their 
administrative functions. The 
province should continue to 
support these activities, either 
through offering this training 
directly or by ensuring that funds 
are available for clerks and plan- 
ning administrators to receive 
such training from others. 

Well-informed local councillors 
also represent an important 
resource. A number of councillors 
told the Commission they would 
benefit significantly from know- 
ing more about planning. In the 
past, seminars were made 
available by the province for new 
councillors. These seminars 
should be reinstituted by the 
province for a modest fee. 



A third approach is the annual 
one-day conference sponsored by 
field offices of the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs. The 
Commission attended a number 
of these conferences throughout 
the province, and was impressed 
not only with the large atten- 
dance by councillors, municipal 
staff, consultants, and others, but 
also with the careful attention 
given to a range of speakers on 
municipal matters. Field offices 
should be encouraged to continue 
sponsoring these events, and 
appropriate funds should be pro- 
vided. Given the popularity of 
these conferences and the educa- 
tional experiences they provide, 
consideration should be given to 
sponsoring them twice a year. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

25. The Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning 
continue to sponsor or 
support training programs 
for clerks and planning 
administrators, to sponsor 
training seminars in planning 
for new councillors, and to 
encourage field offices in the 
Ministry to hold semi-annual 
conferences on planning and 
other municipal issues; and 
that appropriate funding be 
made available for these 
activities. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
53 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



Grants and Subsidies 

The province has been involved 
in two kinds of grant programs to 
assist local planning: community 
planning grants, and planning 
administration grants for Northern 
Ontario. The total amount granted 
in the 1992/93 fiscal year under 
these programs was slightly less 
than $1.35 million. 

The Community Planning 
Grant Program was established in 
1975 to help municipalities of less 
than 15,000 produce planning 
documents and develop local 
planning administration. The 
population limit has since been 
removed. 

About $20.4 million was dis- 
tributed between 1975 and 1989 
to more than 500 municipalities 
and planning boards. The 
Ministry of Housing contributed 
$850,000 in 1989/90 and 1990/91 
to the Community Planning 
Grant Program to help fund 
municipal housing statements. In 
1991/92, a total of $1 million was 
spent. A Cabinet moratorium has 
been declared on this program, 
and spending in the 1992/93 fiscal 
year was held to $1.01 million to 
fulfil commitments already made. 

Planning Administration 
Grants have been provided to 
planning boards in Northern 
Ontario to assist with land-use 
planning in unorganized territo- 
ries. This program started in 
1977, and its annual budget has 
ranged from $250,000 to $485,000. 
All planning boards incorporating 
unorganized territory are eligible 
for grants. Grants are based on a 
complicated formula of number 
of households, size of the unorga- 
nized area, and powers given to 



the board. The amount spent in 
the 1992/93 fiscal year was 
$325,000, spread among the 18 
eligible planning boards; $400,000 
is allocated for 1993/94. 

Special grants from different 
ministries are sometimes made 
available for special projects, such 
as the grant toward the Halton 
Region Urban Structure Review. 
(The amount and scope of these 
special grants are not included in 
any calculations here.) 

There is no specific program 
under which watershed or 
sub-watershed plans are funded. 
However, grants by the Ministry 
of Natural Resources totalled 
$1.25 million in 1992/93 and 
funded 21 watershed planning 
projects at a 50 percent subsidy 
rate. The allocation for 1993/94 
has been tentatively set at 
$2 million. 

Provincial planning grants, 
although not representing a lot of 
money, have been effective in 
helping municipalities develop 
planning documents and 
implement provincial policies. 

Cost of Planning 

The total spent by municipalities 
for all planning activities and 
administration in 1991/92 was 
$173 million, which in the scheme 
of things is not a large figure. 
Planning, after all, is the 
method by which we attempt to 
design the communities in which 
we will live. Architects fill a 
comparable role when they think 
about how a building might be 
built and advise on options. 
Architects may charge up to 
10 percent of the cost of construc- 
tion — and most people think 



that is money well spent. 

Using that analogy for plan- 
ning, we should consider how 
planning expenditures relate to 
expenditures on public and 
private construction works. 

The data from several cities 
and counties indicate that plan- 
ning expenditures vary from 2 to 
7 percent of municipal capital 
expenditures, and from 0.2 to 0.5 
percent of the value of building 
permits issued. Private developers 
themselves probably also spend at 
least that amount. But even with 
these figures added together, it 
would be difficult to say this level 
of expenditure is extravagant. 

It costs less to plan well than 
to pay for the costs of not plan- 
ning. "Not planning" means that 
decisions made today without 
forethought and analysis may, in 
a few years' time, create problems 
that prove extremely expensive 
— such as the need to provide 
water and sewage services when 
septics have failed, to restore a 
river or stream that has been 
polluted, or to overly subsidize 
public transit. 

The processes being recom- 
mended by the Commission, 
including public involvement, are 
directed at ensuring that plan- 
ning studies themselves are done 
efficiently. Like everything else, 
good planning has far less to do 
with the number of dollars 
thrown at the process than with 
the commitment of the partici- 
pants to find good answers to 
problems. 



FINAL REPORT 
54 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



Provincial Grant Program 

The provincial government 
should have a reasonable 
planning-grant program which 
focuses on provincial priorities 
and supplies money that, 
although limited, can make a 
difference in planning at the 
municipal level. Such a program 
should have three priorities. 

Many counties do not have 
county plans, and the highest 
priority should be support for the 
production of a first municipal 
plan at the county level. Grants 
should not exceed half the cost of 
any particular study, since it is 
important that the plan belong to 
the county. Provincial funding 
should help in the prompt creation 
of these plans, since it is important 
to get them in place quickly. 
(It should be noted that counties 
with plans have already received 
grants from the province.) A total 
annual allocation of at least 
$1 million should be considered 
for such grants. 

The second priority should be 
grants to planning boards in 
Northern Ontario for developing 
first plans and for support of 
ongoing administration in the 
unorganized areas within plan- 
ning boards. There should be no 
net loss of funding to planning 
activities in Northern Ontario. 
An annual allocation of at least 
$600,000 is suggested. 

The third priority for provin- 
cial financial support should be 
watershed planning, available to 
all municipalities. Support 
should be directed toward water- 
shed and sub-watershed studies 
where development pressures are 
greatest, or where natural indica- 



tors show serious change is occur- 
ring and should be addressed. 
Several conservation authorities 
which had undertaken watershed 
studies advised the Commission 
that money was not the most 
daunting problem. The difficult 
task is getting municipalities to 
agree to watershed planning; 
once that is achieved, the financial 
hurdles seem much less signifi- 
cant to all concerned. In any case, 
substantial funds are simply not 
available from the province. The 
total annual allocation suggested 
by the Commission for watershed 
studies is at least $1.5 million, 
and such funds should be distrib- 
uted in ways that help lever more 
funds. 

To ensure that municipalities 
are able to do high-quality and 
effective planning, some financial 
support from the province is 
imperative. Many submissions 
argued the need for increased 
financial resources for local 
municipal planning. Although 
provincial assistance for local 
municipal planning would be 
useful, the Commission believes 
substantial funds are simply not 
available from the provincial 
treasury; hence, the need for 
innovative ways of using what- 
ever funds can be secured at the 
municipal level, such as through 
upper-tier and joint-planning 
mechanisms. 



Subsidies 

Provincial subsidies and grants 
should support and be consistent 
with provincial policy statements 
made under section 3 of the 
Planning Act. This point is not 
new. The Ontario Round Table on 
Environment and Economy, for 
example, recommended in its 
September 1992 report that all 
provincial subsidies and grants 
be reviewed to ensure that finan- 
cial programs do not encourage 
urban sprawl. 

Making subsidy and grant 
programs consistent with policies 
is not an easy task. Programs 
have been in place for many 
years, they often have several 
worthwhile (if competing) pur- 
poses, and they are lodged deep 
within ministries. The amounts 
involved in "inconsistent" pro- 
grams are difficult to estimate. 
For instance, do subsidies to 
transit authorities in low-density 
communities encourage low- 
density development, or are they 
a necessary support for transit 
usage? And to what extent does 
the property tax system affect 
development forms? Responses 
to such questions may involve 
eliminating inconsistent programs 
or reviewing the conditions 
under which subsidies and grants 
are made. 

The Interministerial Planning 
Committee should be given the 
task of reviewing ministerial 
grant programs for consistency 
with the comprehensive set of 
provincial policy statements. This 
review should not interfere with 
the continued flow of grants and 
subsidies during the review, and 
it should not involve itself in 



FINAL REPORT 
55 



THE PROVINCIAL ROLE 



decisions about individual 
applications. The IPC should be 
asked to report regularly to the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning on progress made on 
the review, with a final reporting 
date of not later than one year 
after adoption of a comprehen- 
sive set of provincial planning 
policies. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

26. The province provide grant 
programs to assist counties 
without county plans in 
developing them, in the 
amount of at least $1 million 
annually; to assist planning 
boards in Northern Ontario 
in developing plans and pro- 
viding planning services in 
unorganized areas, in the 
amount of at least $600,000 
annually; and to assist with 
watershed studies, in the 
amount of at least $1.5 mil- 
lion annually. 

27. The Interministerial 
Planning Committee under- 
take a review to ensure that 
provincial grant and subsidy 
programs support provincial 
policy statements, and report 
to the Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning within 
one year of the adoption of 
such statements. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
56 



5 

Planning and 

Aboriginal 

Communities 



There are 126 First Nations in 
Ontario, affiliated with 193 
reserves. In addition, there are 
four First Nations settlements not 
on reserves, as well as many 
other Aboriginal communities; 
about 80 percent of Ontario's 
Aboriginal population does not 
live on reserves. (For the purposes 
of this report. Aboriginal commu- 
nity includes First Nations, 
non-status Aboriginal, and Metis 
settlements and areas.) Of the 
province's Aboriginal communi- 
ties, about one-fourth are located 
in Southern Ontario and three- 
fourths in Northern Ontario. 
There are 72 outstanding land 
claims filed in Ontario by First 
Nations, which apply to Crown 
as well as to private lands. 

In 1991, the Ontario govern- 
ment and representatives of First 
Nations signed a statement of 
political relationship, which 
acknowledges the inherent right 
of First Nations to be self-govern- 
ing within the framework of the 
Canadian Constitution. The 



Commission, in its work (includ- 
ing this Report), has reflected the 
Ontario position that First Nations 
should be treated as governments 
in their own right, rather than as 
special-interest groups, stake- 
holders, or third parties. 

Many Aboriginal communities 
are adjacent or otherwise close to 
municipalities, and some are 
actually within a municipality. 
Given this proximity, municipali- 
ties and Aboriginal communities 
may have interests in shared 
natural features such as a water 
body or wetland, or they may 
share infrastructure such as roads 
or water supplies. They may also 
wish to cooperate on planning for 
economic development and 
employment opportunities. 
Land-use and development prob- 
lems can arise as a result of 
circumstances such as the 
following: 



• Development in municipalities 
or planning areas that affects 
reserve lands or lands owned 
or occupied by Aboriginals, 
or vice-versa. Examples 
would include a pit or quarry, 
landfill, or residential or 
industrial development. 

• The absence of coordinated 
planning or a lack of agree- 
ment concerning the develop- 
ment and maintenance of 
shared infrastructure such as 
boundary roads or water or 
sewer facilities. 

• Development that adversely 
affects shared natural features 
such as a water body or 
wetland. 

• In a municipality or planning 
area, development on lands 
on which Aboriginals have an 
interest, such as a burial site 
or other sacred place. 

• In a municipality or planning 
area, planning and develop- 
ment on lands on which there 
is a formal claim by 
Aboriginals, or on lands 
considered to be traditional 
lands. 

A good planning process can 
help resolve these kinds of issues 
in a mutually satisfactory way. 
Consultation, and in some cases 
joint-planning, will be needed, 
along with the authority to act on 
the understanding or the plans 
that result. 



FINAL REPORT 

57 



PLANNING AND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES 



Consultation and joint- 
planning between the provincial 
government and First Nations 
have so far dealt with Crown 
land. One example is the interim 
measures agreement between the 
province and the Nishnawbe-Aski 
Nation (NAN) in Northern 
Ontario, which requires notifica- 
tion to First Nations of government 
policies and proposals. Conflicts 
are reviewed by a tripartite 
interim measures group and 
recommendations are made to 
the federal, provincial, and NAN 
governments. A limited number of 
First Nations/provincial interim 
planning boards have also been 
established, among them the 
Windigo and Shibogama boards 
north of Sioux Lookout, and the 
board established under the 
Wendaban Stewardship 
Agreement in the Temagami area. 

The emphasis in the current 
arrangements is on the 
co-management of Crown lands 
in the interests of both First 
Nations and the province, as 
reflected in the membership of 
the interim planning boards: half 
First Nations, half provincial. 
Although notification of and con- 
sultation with First Nations are 
part of these initiatives, there is 
no requirement or even a general 
provincial policy to notify 
Aboriginal communities of the 
development or sale of publicly 
owned land. 



Some municipalities and First 
Nations — North Bay and 
Nipissing First Nation, for 
instance — have used agreements 
to address their common concerns, 
but such examples are rare. In 
general, little communication 
seems to exist between muni- 
cipalities and Aboriginal commu- 
nities on matters of land-use 
policies and development 
proposals. When exchanges take 
place, they are mostly informal 
and between staff, rather than 
between governing bodies. 

The current Planning Act does 
not address the resolution of 
local, provincial, and Aboriginal 
community-planning and devel- 
opment concerns. No formal 
mechanisms exist that allow 
municipalities and Aboriginal 
communities to plan for shared 
infrastructure or to resolve 
concerns about the impact of 
development. 

As the shape and scope of 
Aboriginal self-government 
continue to develop, the Planning 
Act and other legislation should 
provide opportunities for muni- 
cipalities to work together with 
Aboriginal communities in 
addressing planning and devel- 
opment questions. Legislation 
should provide opportunities for 
joint-planning arrangements 
between municipalities or plan- 
ning boards and Aboriginal 
communities. Such arrangements 
could foster a mutual under- 
standing of the benefits and 
costs of development. Without 
prejudicing land claims, joint- 
planning could benefit both 
municipalities and Aboriginal 
communities. 



Requirements in the Planning 
Act for notification by municipali- 
ties make no specific reference to 
Aboriginal communities. For 
minor changes such as rezoning, 
municipalities must notify land 
owners within 120 metres of the 
site of the application. If reserves 
or Aboriginally owned land falls 
within this distance requirement, 
notice is sent. Notice of more 
significant planning actions must 
be sent to local, provincial, and 
federal agencies and to muni- 
cipalities within one kilometre, 
but Aboriginal communities are 
not included in this list. 

When provincial approval of 
municipal plans or development 
applications is required, Aboriginal 
communities are notified if 
provincial officials determine 
reserve or Aboriginal lands "have 
an interest in the approval"; 
federal and provincial agencies 
dealing with First Nations' 
concerns are notified if they are 
considered to have "an interest." 

In matters of land-use 
changes on reserve lands, little 
communication from Aboriginal 
communities to municipalities 
seems to take place. These lands 
are held in trust for First Nations 
and are considered to be "federal" 
and, therefore, outside the 
jurisdiction of municipal policies 
and by-laws. A number of 
submissions requested that just 
as municipalities should provide 
notice to Aboriginal communities, 
those Aboriginal communities 
should be required to notify 
municipalities of planning matters 
within the Aboriginal community. 
Issues of notification by First 
Nations on reserves cannot be 



FINAL 



REPORT 

58 



PLANNING AND ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES 



addressed, however, because the 
Planning Act does not apply to 
reserve land. Notification could 
be established by agreement 
between First Nations and either 
the province or municipalities. 

Land claims are generally 
considered to be a matter resolved 
by federal, provincial, and 
Aboriginal interests. In general, 
municipalities have little knowl- 
edge of claims and negotiations 
and rarely take land claims into 
account in the course of their 
planning activities. At the same 
time. Aboriginal communities 
often fear municipal approval of 
development activity may 
adversely affect land claims. Both 
municipalities and representatives 
of First Nations suggested to the 
Commission that municipalities 
should be notified of claims and 
be advised of, or have the oppor- 
tunity to observe, negotiations on 
claims. 

The following recommenda- 
tions would implement these 
suggestions. They should be 
considered as interim steps, 
without limiting opportunities 
for other solutions to be dis- 
cussed or established as 
Aboriginal self-government 
evolves. 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

28. A protocol or agreement be 
developed at the provincial 
level so that notice of devel- 
opment proposals or changes 
in use or tenure of provin- 
cially owned lands would be 
given to First Nations, non- 
status Aboriginal, and Metis 
settlements and areas. 

29. The Planning Act be amended 
to authorize municipalities 
and planning boards to enter 
into agreements with First 
Nations and Aboriginal 
organizations regarding 
joint-planning, development, 
details of notification, servic- 
ing, and other matters within 
municipal jurisdiction. This 
authorization should expli- 
citly note that outstanding 
land claims are not prejudiced 
because of such agreements. 

30. Requirements in the 
Planning Act to notify an 
owner or a municipality, or a 
provincial or federal agency 
that has a relevant interest, 
be amended to specifically 
include First Nations, non- 
status Aboriginal, and Metis 
settlements and areas. 

31. The province notify muni- 
cipalities of land claims that 
affect their jurisdictions. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

59 



6 

Municipal 

Plan-making 



Municipalities undertake most of 
the land-use planning in Ontario, 
so it is important to address 
municipal planning activities in 
considerable detail. This chapter 
outlines reforms to two aspects of 
municipal planning: decision- 
making structures, and plan- 
making. The Commission's 
proposals attempt to respect 
Ontario's diversity and the wide 
differences in planning practice 
and the capability to plan. They 
are made with a recognition that 
the Commission's mandate does 
not extend to municipal 
restructuring. 



Decision-making 
Structures 

Ontario has 831 municipalities. 
Two tiers of government cover 
most of Southern Ontario. At the 
upper tier are 27 counties and 
12 regions; at the lower tier are 
numerous towns, townships, and 
villages, and some cities. In 
addition, 21 separated cities and 
towns and one separated town- 
ship are located geographically in 
16 counties, but are separate from 
the county political structure. 

Two-thirds of counties do not 
have official plans; neither do 
two of the province's fastest- 
growing regions, York and Peel. 
Some 70 percent of municipalities 
have a population of less than 
5000, and consequently have 
limited resources to undertake 
planning. 

In Northern Ontario, half of 
the 800,000 residents live in five 
cities and the Regional 
Municipality of Sudbury; most 
of the rest live in 180 small 
municipalities, the majority of 
which have fewer than 5000 
residents. Twenty-two planning 



boards cover some municipalities 
and unorganized areas. 

Some 50,000 people live in 
areas without municipal organi- 
zation, although 60 local services 
boards provide some of those res- 
idents with such services as fire 
protection, arenas and recreation, 
and street lighting. In addition, 
there are 250 local roads boards. 
None of these local boards 
provides planning services. 

There are also more than 
200 Aboriginal communities in 
Northern Ontario, including First 
Nations, non-status Aboriginal, 
and Metis settlements. 

Municipal planning arrange- 
ments and structures in Ontario 
are diverse. All regions have 
planning staff and a strong plan^ 
ning function, although, as noted, 
two regions do not have plans. In 
Southern Ontario, ten counties 
have developed a county plan; 
eight other counties have a plan- 
ning department but not a plan; 
and the remaining nine counties 
have neither planning staff nor a 
plan. Separated municipalities all 
have plans, but most undertake 
planning independent of 
surrounding counties and muni- 
cipalities. Northern Ontario has 
no counties, although there are a 
variety of structures: regional 
government in Sudbury; planning 
boards in other areas; and stand- 
alone municipalities. 

In an attempt to simplify ter- 
minology, the Commission has 
decided to use the terms "upper 
tier" to describe regions and 
counties, and "lower tier" to 
define the municipalities within 
regions and counties. (The 
Commission attempted to find 



FINAL REPORT 
60 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



other words — one submitter 
noted that "tiers are not enough" 
— but none seemed to spark 
widespread agreement or 
support.) 

In this Report, then, the term 
"upper-tier municipahty" means 
any county, or a regional, metro- 
poHtan, or district municipality. 
The term "region" includes the 10 
regions, the District Municipality 
of Muskoka, and the Municipality 
of Metropolitan Toronto. The 
roles and requirements of upper- 
tier municipalities also apply to 
separated municipalities, cities in 
the North, planning boards, and 
planning authorities. A "lower-tier 
municipality" is any city, town, 
village, or township within a 
county or a regional, metropolitan, 
or district municipality, that has 
representation on its respective 
upper-tier council. 

Upper-Tier and Lower-Tier 
Planning 

The management of change at the 
municipal level requires planning 
for broad issues, such as the pro- 
tection of the natural environment 
and resources and the provision 
of infrastructure needed to support 
growth and change. As well, 
details within these broad issues 
should be addressed. 

Environmental issues, general 
questions of economic and social 
change, and transportation and 
infrastructure planning all require 
a broad approach to planning. It 
is important that this broad plan- 
ning perspective be located within 
a governmental structure that has 
the capacity to undertake and 
follow through on it. 



The Commission does not 
have a mandate to address the 
restructuring of municipal 
government, and thus it must 
look to existing structures to 
perform these functions. 

Within the current municipal 
system, the upper-tier government 
— that is, the county or the 
region — is generally the place to 
plan for the broad issues. Counties 
and regions are physically large 
enough to plan for natural features 
and functions and to provide the 
perspective needed to address 
infrastructure questions and set- 
tlement patterns. They are able to 
address general questions of 
economic growth in larger areas, 
rather than just in specific locales. 

Good planning requires 
skilled practitioners and an 
appropriate administrative sup- 
port structure. The pooling of 
resources from individual muni- 
cipalities helps counties and 
regions create a strong adminis- 
trative framework. Combined 
with the broad planning 
approach, this pooling permits 
counties and regions to take over 
many approval functions now 
exercised by the province. 

The matters that need to be 
addressed in broad plans are: 

• the application of provincial 
policies to the regional con- 
text in a manner that resolves 
conflicts between those 
policies; 

• the planning and coordina- 
tion of regional infrastructure, 
including transportation, 
water, sewage treatment, 
waste, open space, and 
educational, health, and social 
facilities; 



• the establishment of urban 
and rural settlement patterns, 
including location and overall 
staging; 

• the general nature and 
distribution of population, 
employment, and housing, 
including the supply and 
affordability of housing 
across the region; 

• regional economic and social 
issues, other regional respon- 
sibilities, and interregional 
and intermunicipal issues; 
the protection of natural 
features and systems; 
the protection of the quality 
and quantity of ground and 
surface water; 
the protection of quality 
agricultural areas; 
the protection of renewable 
and non-renewable natural 
resources; 

energy and water use and 
conservation opportunities; 
issues of special regional 
interest; and 

the establishment of a process 
to monitor change and the 
effectiveness of the plan. 

Submissions to the 
Commission suggested additional 
matters to be addressed in the 
broad plan, but the Commission 
feels the list is sufficiently 
comprehensive to include the full 
range of matters; for instance, 
waste management would be 
considered part of "other regional 
responsibilities." 



FINAL 



REPORT 
61 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Currently, most counties have 
no authority over water and 
sewage infrastructure. If the 
upper tier is given responsibility 
for establishing settlement 
patterns and for lot creation, it 
makes sense to locate these infra- 
structure responsibilities at the 
upper-tier level. This is the 
arrangement in Oxford County, 
where the county owns infra- 
structure systems and the lower 
tier operates and manages them 
under contract. Legislation 
should be amended to enable 
counties, with the agreement of 
local municipalities, to deal with 
water and sewage. It is recog- 
nized that, in many cases, water 
and sewage will in practice 
continue to be handled by lower 
tiers. County planning should not 
be contingent on counties taking 
over these functions, although 
upper-tier planning would be 
more effective if such were to be 
the case. 

Separated municipalities and 
cities in the North are outside an 
upper-tier structure, and thus 
they must plan for these broad 
issues as though they were 
upper-tier municipalities, as well 
as plan for the detailed matters. It 
will be very difficult for separat- 
ed municipalities to address the 
broad issues on their own: they 
must do it in conjunction with 
neighbouring municipalities. One 
important question, discussed 
later in this chapter (in the section 
on separated municipalities), is 
how to ensure a reasonable plan- 
ning relationship between sepa- 
rated municipalities and their 
surrounding areas. 



Once the broad context is 
established in the upper-tier plan, 
matters of a more local nature 
must be addressed. Such matters 
include: 

• the detailed pattern of land 
use, density, and mix of uses 
within the context of the 
broad plan; 

• the distribution of open space 
and parks; 

• recreation; 

• natural features and systems; 

• the character of the communi- 
ty, including heritage, 
streetscape, and physical 
design; 

• the supply and affordability 
of housing in the municipali- 

ty; 

• zoning, site plans, and other 
tools to regulate develop- 
ment; 

• energy and water use and 
conservation opportunities; 

• contaminated and hazardous 
sites; 

• issues of special local interest; 
and 

• other local responsibilities. 

The broad plan should be pre- 
pared by the upper tier; the local 
plan by the lower tier. However, 
as noted earlier, while this 
arrangement seems a simple 
enough concept, it becomes com- 
plicated in a real-world situation. 

Some submissions argued 
that upper-tier planning means 
"top-down" planning, and that 
successful planning is done on a 
"bottom-up" basis. They pro- 
posed that upper-tier planning 
should really emerge from, and 
be dependent on, local municipal 
plans. 



The Commission agrees that 
good planning occurs when there 
is participation by those affected 
by decisions; "bottom-up" plan- 
ning makes sense. But when the 
issues involved extend beyond a 
single municipality, it is important 
to use a structure that covers a 
larger area and can take a larger 
perspective. A broad approach 
should involve the public as much 
as the more local approach does. 

The broad perspective and 
the local perspective are both 
important. In some cases, the 
differences between the two are 
clear, as for instance with regional 
and local roads. In other cases, 
the differences are not as clear, as 
for instance with economic devel- 
opment. But to avoid duplication 
and minimize overlap, their dif- 
ferences must be kept in mind. 

Some submissions argued 
that the actual distribution of 
planning responsibilities between 
upper and lower tiers should be 
left to the particular governments 
involved, to reflect local desires. 
The Commission strongly dis- 
agrees. There must be some 
minimum requirements to ensure 
broad issues are addressed by the 
government with the size and 
scope to deal with matters such 
as natural features, natural 
functions, and infrastructure. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending that the upper tier not 
be permitted to delegate to local 
municipalities its responsibilities 
for preparing plans on broad 
issues. The manner in which these 
responsibilities are carried out 
will obviously vary from place to 
place, and cooperation will be a 
key to successful planning. 



FINAL REPORT 
62 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Some submissions urged that 
lower tiers be required to adopt a 
plan. However, it is important 
that a variety of arrangements be 
permitted. There are situations 
where municipalities with limited 
growth and resources will be 
adequately served by plans at the 
upper tier. In other situations, the 
lower and upper tiers may agree 
that planning can best be under- 
taken only at the upper-tier level. 
Thus, although it is important 
that local issues be addressed, it 
would be undesirable to require 
that all local tiers must plan. For 
instance, in the Regional 
Municipality of Sudbury and in 
Oxford County, all planning is 
done by the upper tier, an eco- 
nomically and administratively 
efficient arrangement that seems 
to serve the interests of both tiers. 
In the Region of Waterloo and 
Huron County, plans are done at 
both levels. The Planning Act 
should be flexible enough to 
accommodate these different 
arrangements — and others — to 
ensure that broad and local plan- 
ning occur across the province. 
Where there are complicated 
issues, lower-tier planning will be 
very important. 

To facilitate good planning, a 
clear and reasonable distribution 
of planning responsibilities must 
exist between the upper and 
lower tier. 



The Commission is recom- 
mending that the best arrangement 
for the distribution of planning 
responsibilities is: 

• Upper tiers develop a broad 
plan. 

• Lower tiers develop local 
plans for the municipality or 
for one or more neighbour- 
hoods, districts, or areas in 
the municipality. 

• Lower-tier plans conform to 
upper-tier plans and be con- 
sistent with provincial policy. 

As noted in Chapter 7, Lot 
Creation and Development 
Control, the Commission is 
proposing that upper tiers gener- 
ally be responsible for lot creation, 
although delegation of consent- 
granting authority to lower tiers 
could occur in some limited 
situations; lower tiers would be 
responsible for the details of 
zoning, site-plan control, and 
minor variances, except where 
they decide to transfer these 
responsibilities to the upper tier. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

32. The P/flw«mgAcf be amended 
to require that regions, coun- 
ties, separated municipalities, 
cities in the North, and plan- 
ning boards prepare and 
adopt a municipal plan con- 
taining goals and policies 
which would: 

(a) apply provincial policies 
to the regional context in 
a manner that resolves 
any conflicts among 
those policies; 



(b) plan and coordinate 
regional infrastructure, 
including transportation, 
water, sewage treatment, 
waste, open space, and 
educational, health, and 
social facilities; 

(c) establish urban and rural 
settlement patterns, 
including location and 
overall staging; 

(d) address the general 
nature and distribution 
of population, employ- 
ment, and housing, 
including the supply and 
affordability of housing 
across the region; 

(e) address regional econom- 
ic and social issues, other 
regional responsibilities, 
and interregional and 
intermunicipal issues; 

(f) protect natural features 
and systems; 

(g) protect the quality and 
quantity of ground and 
surface water; 

(h) protect quality agricultural 

areas; 
(i) protect renewable and 

non-renewable natural 

resources; 
(j) address energy and water 

use and conservation 

opportunities; 
(k) address issues of special 

regional interest; 
(1) establish a process to 

monitor change and the 

effectiveness of the plan. 

33. The Planning Act he amend- 
ed to specify that upper tiers 
may not delegate responsi- 
bility for preparing plans on 
broad issues to lower tiers. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
63 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



34. Lower-tier municipalities 
continue to be permitted to 
develop local plans for the 
municipality or for one or 
more neighbourhoods, 
districts, or areas in the 
municipality. 

35. The Planning Act be amended 
to enable lower-tier plans to 
address, within the context of 
the broad plan, the following 
matters: 

(a) the detailed pattern of 
land use, density, and 
mix of uses; 

(b) distribution of open 
space and parks; 

(c) recreation; 

(d) natural features and 
systems; 

(e) character of the commu- 
nity, including heritage, 
streetscape, and physical 
design; 

(f) the supply and afford- 
ability of housing in the 
municipality; 

(g) zoning, site plans, and 
other tools to regulate 
development; 

(h) energy and water use 
and conservation oppor- 
tunities; 

(i) contaminated and 
hazardous sites; 

(j) issues of special local 
interest; and 

(k) other local 
responsibilities. 



36. The Planning Act be amended 
to require that lower-tier 
plans conform to upper-tier 
plans and be consistent with 
provincial policy. 

37. The Planning Act be amended 
to require that where there is 
no lower-tier plan, the 
upper-tier, planning board, 
or planning authority plan 
address the matters listed in 
Recommendation 35 as well 
as Recommendation 32. 
Separated municipalities and 
cities in the North would be 
required to address the 
requirements in both 
recommendations. 

38. The Municipal Act be 
amended to permit counties, 
with the agreement of local 
municipalities, to be respon- 
sible for water and sewage. 



Planning Authorities 

The Commission received a 
number of submissions about the 
difficulty — some argued impos- 
sibility — of county planning in 
certain areas. Inequity of local 
representation on county councils, 
along with differences in interest 
because of the distribution of set- 
tlement patterns and development 
opportunities, makes county 
planning very difficult. For 
instance, a number of municipali- 
ties in the vicinity of Highway 
401 in Eastern Ontario are eager 
to plan (indeed, they do so now), 
but would find it very difficult to 
be subject to a county planning 
process. Apart from county 
restructuring, which is not within 
the Commission's mandate, what 
can be done? 

As an alternative to county 
planning, it is possible to consider 
a form of planning authority to 
do broad planning. Local muni- 
cipalities should be permitted to 
join together to create a planning 
authority that would function as 
an upper tier with respect to 
planning matters. The authority 
would have power to create and 
adopt plans dealing with broad 
issues, as well as to exercise 
upper-tier planning powers. 
Since the idea of the planning 
authority is advanced for the 
purpose of ensuring that broad 
issues are addressed, the arrange- 
ment should not be allowed in 
areas where there already is a 
county plan or where one is being 
prepared. 



FINAL REPORT 
64 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



The following criteria should 
apply to planning authorities: 

• They should have a combined 
population of not less than 
20,000, or include no fewer 
than six municipalities. 

• No lower-tier municipality 
should be split between 
planning jurisdictions. 

• The area covered by the plan- 
ning authority should include 
the whole of an area served 
by public water and sewage 
services, including a separated 
municipality. It is recognized 
that because of powers 
already delegated to some 
separated municipalities, this 
requirement may present 
tough choices for municipali- 
ties, but it makes little sense 
to permit an innovative struc- 
ture that does not create the 
area necessary to deal with 
broad planning issues. 

The membership of a plan- 
ning authority should consist of 
councillors appointed by local 
councils on a basis of representa- 
tion by population. The establish- 
ment of a planning authority 
would require the approval of 
affected county councils and of 
the Minister of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning. 

Administrative arrangements 
will have to be worked out to 
ensure municipalities that are 
part of a planning authority do 
not make planning decisions 
about, or be required to pay for, 
planning matters within the 
remainder of the county. The 
county would continue to be 
required to have a plan for the 
municipalities not in a planning 
authority. 



It is recognized that the plan- 
ning authority is a somewhat 
extraordinary proposal. It does, 
however, respond to planning 
needs where existing structures 
do not. The planning authority, 
once established, could be consid- 
ered an upper tier for planning 
purposes. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

39. The Planning Act be amended 
to permit local municipalities, 
with the consent of the 
affected counties and of the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning, to establish a 
planning authority to exer- 
cise planning powers similar 
to a county, provided: 

(a) it covers a population of 
not less than 20,000, or 
includes no fewer than 
six municipalities; 

(b) no municipality is split 
between planning 
jurisdictions; 

(c) the area covered by the 
planning authority 
includes the whole of an 
area served by public 
water and sewage 
services, including a 
separated municipality if 
one is part of the serviced 
area; 

(d) the affected counties do 
not have, and are not 
preparing, a county plan. 

Membership on the authority 
will consist of councillors 
appointed by local councils 
on a basis of representation 
by population. 



Separated Municipalities 

There are no general legislated 
relationships between separated 
municipalities and surrounding 
areas. The challenge is to coordi- 
nate planning activities between 
them. 

Problems are particularly 
acute in the urban fringe — that 
buffer zone around each city 
where developments have an 
impact on services such as water, 
sewage, and transit. One can 
point to examples where these 
cross-boundary issues are effec- 
tively resolved, often because of 
local political history and person- 
alities. But too many examples 
can be cited of unhappy relation- 
ships marked by a lack of trust 
and cooperation. 

The key is ongoing joint-plan- 
ning, and the recommendation 
for planning authorities is one 
response to this issue. Proposals 
made later in this chapter 
describe more informal structures 
for joint-planning. Those separat- 
ed municipalities not part of a 
planning authority should notify 
all adjacent municipalities and 
counties (and vice-versa) of all 
proposals and plans, including 
amendments to existing municipal 
plans, that have a cross-boundary 
impact. Joint advisory committees, 
established for general discussion 
of these matters, would prove 
helpful. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
65 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Strong Lower Tiers 

In some parts of Ontario, lower- 
tier municipalities have well- 
developed planning programs to 
ensure complex local issues are 
addressed. These municipalities 
are generally well-funded and 
have been doing planning for a 
long time. Any new planning 
system should encourage these 
arrangements to continue. 

Some submissions interpreted 
the two-tiered planning structure 
as one where the important deci- 
sions are taken by the upper tier, 
and little but fussing with detail 
is left to the lower tier. Other 
submissions viewed it as "top- 
down planning." Neither is the 
intention of the Commission's 
recommendations. 

The decisions reached in the 
broad plan settle the broad plan- 
ning issues like settlement patterns 
and infrastructure, but they do 
not determine the local planning 
issues. The upper-tier plan identi- 
fies constraints and context. The 
lower-tier plan sorts out how to 
make good use of opportunities 
to develop liveable communities 
in that context, and within those 
constraints. Several submissions 
suggested the upper-tier plan 
should be a "policy" plan, the 
lower a "community" plan. The 
"community" aspect of the 
description fits, but not the 
"policy" aspect. The Commission 
believes both plans will deal with 
policy. 



Acknowledging the different 
planning arrangements across the 
province, the Commission is not 
recommending that lower tiers be 
required to adopt a municipal 
plan. But for obvious reasons, the 
local issues must be addressed, 
whether by the lower tier or the 
upper tier. In a municipality where 
development issues are complex, it 
will be most important that the 
lower tier have a strong planning 
program, and a carefully con- 
structed, resilient plan. 

The skill and talent available 
at these lower tiers should not be 
overlooked in addressing broad 
planning questions. Upper-tier 
planners should take every 
opportunity to involve lower-tier 
planners in planning processes 
around the broad issues. 
Arrangements should be worked 
out to share research and analysis. 
The whole planning process 
should be a cooperative venture, 
where plan formulation becomes a 
shared opportunity, even though 
it is a formal responsibility of the 
upper tier. This is particularly 
important in urban areas, where 
the concerns and decisions of one 
local municipality easily spill over 
to affect another. The exact 
arrangements followed will vary 
from area to area, even though in 
each case the broad plan remains 
an upper-tier responsibility. 

In many cases, interest in 
planning and the development of 
a planning culture are first 
developed at the lower tier. The 
necessity of planning for broader 
issues often becomes clear when 
local issues are being dealt with; 
hence, the need to ensure strong 
planning around local issues. 



Communication will play an 
important role in ensuring that 
upper and lower tiers coordinate 
their activities. Lower tiers should 
be required to circulate to upper 
tiers all plans and plan-amend- 
ment proposals and development 
applications when such proposals 
and applications are received and 
to give notice when final disposi- 
tions have been made. This 
requirement may vary by agree- 
ment between the levels. Upper 
tiers should be required to circu- 
late to all lower tiers plans and 
plan-amendment proposals and 
applications for lot creation when 
first made, and to give notice 
when final dispositions are made. 
Further recommendations about 
notification are made in 
Chapter 8, Public Involvement. 

The upper tier must resist the 
tendency to become embroiled in 
detail, just as the province must 
resist this tendency in its relation- 
ships with regional and county 
governments. The upper tier has 
legitimate interests that are best 
addressed at the plan stage, rather 
than at the development-applica- 
tion stage. Each tier must respect 
its legislated planning duties and 
mandated responsibilities. 



FINAL REPORT 
66 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Planning in the North 

For the most part, cities in the 
North already have strong plan- 
ning arrangements. These cities 
should be treated like separated 
municipalities in the South. The 
Regional Municipality of Sudbury 
is a regional government. The 
concerns in this section are with 
arrangements for planning outside 
these areas. 

The most important need is 
for planning processes and struc- 
tures to have a strong local base, 
creating the capability to make 
development decisions locally 
and the ability to address broad 
planning questions. Because local 
economies are often fragile, com- 
munities should first address 
strategic questions to help chart a 
course of action that encourages a 
strong local economy and a 
supportive community. Strategic 
planning will be particularly use- 
ful in this regard. Planning in the 
North must also address many of 
the same issues that other 
communities in Ontario must 
deal with, such as settlement 
patterns and the environment. 
Unlike in Southern Ontario, 
many northern municipalities 
find themselves abutting unorga- 
nized areas, where there are no 
municipal decision-making 
structures and the province 
administers development control 
functions and building code and 
zoning regulations. But planning 
must take place wherever there is 
development activity or expected 
activity — whether or not the 
area is organized. At the same 
time, planning should take into 
account watersheds, so that nat- 
ural features and functions may 



be protected. Inevitably, however, 
municipal boundaries rarely 
respect the location or scope of 
natural features and functions. 
New planning structures must be 
capable of assuming planning 
and development control respon- 
sibilities in unorganized areas. 
A large part of the North is 
Crown land, which the Ministry 
of Natural Resources administers 
and manages. 

Strengthening Existing 
Structures 

Some municipalities and planning 
boards in the North respond well 
to the planning needs set out 
above. Some, because of financial 
limitations or small size, have 
problems. Unorganized areas 
outside of planning boards are 
without local planning. 

Five criteria for a better plan- 
ning system in the North are: 

1. It should be able to address 
broad planning issues. 

2. It should ensure local input 
and take into account local 
needs and conditions. 

3. It should be adequately 
staffed and funded. 

4. It should have the capacity to 
plan for unorganized areas 
and administer those plans. 

5. It should have the capacity to 
approve lot creation. 

Of course, the new planning 
system must also be open, timely, 
efficient, comprehensive, and fair. 

The key to a better system is 
to build on existing local struc- 
tures. Existing planning boards 
should be used as a base and 
enlarged where appropriate. The 
Commission is recommending 
that new plarming boards be 



established or existing ones 
expanded, where necessary, to 
ensure a broad scope for address- 
ing large issues. Planning board 
jurisdiction should include 
municipalities and adjacent unor- 
ganized areas to ensure coordina- 
tion of decisions within and just 
outside municipal boundaries. 
Planning boards also permit the 
coordination and pooling of 
limited municipal resources. 

One planning board should be 
established for each area where 
municipalities and unorganized 
areas share common interests and 
settlements are within the same 
"sphere of influence." Boundaries 
should be defined through a 
consensual local process and 
approved by the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning. 

As well, planning areas 
should not be so large that board 
members and the public are 
required to travel excessively 
long distances to attend regular 
meetings. 

The areas of board jurisdiction 
should, wherever possible, reflect 
a watershed or sub-watershed 
boundary to enable planning for 
the protection of natural features 
and functions. Consideration 
should also be given to boundaries 
for school boards, economic 
development committees, and 
other local organizations. As 
much as possible, planning board 
boundaries should be co-terminus. 
Aligning planning areas and 
other administrative boundaries 
would assist in the coordination 
of community services. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
67 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



In some situations, because of 
the remoteness of a community, a 
planning area may be small in 
population and size. Although in 
these situations the community 
will not benefit from the sharing 
of talent and resources, there 
seems no other reasonable 
method of dealing with distance 
and remoteness, which are facts 
of life in the North. 

Where Crown land is within 
or adjacent to a municipality or 
a planning board's area, the 
Ministry of Natural Resources 
must be required to inform the 
board of proposals for that land 
and engage in a public planning 
process. A planning board's juris- 
diction should not extend to 
Crown land. 

Planning Board Responsibilities 

Planning boards should have 
three general functions and 
responsibilities: 

1. preparing a plan addressing 
broad issues; 

2. lot creation; and, 

3. in unorganized areas, zoning, 
site-plan control, and build- 
ing code administration. 

The board may also develop 
strategic plans for the planning 
area. Plans created by planning 
boards must address matters sim- 
ilar to those in the broad plans of 
counties and regions. However, 
planning boards are not county 
or regional governments and do 
not have jurisdiction over infra- 
structure, social programs, and 
facilities. The board should be 
planning for these matters, but it 
will have to work with muni- 
cipalities and provincial ministries 
and agencies. 



To ensure comprehensiveness, 
the board's plan should: 

• apply provincial policies to 
the planning area and resolve 
any conflicts among those 
policies; 

• address infrastructure issues 
for the area, including trans- 
portation, water, sewage 
treatment, waste, open space, 
and educational, health, and 
social facilities; 

• establish urban and rural 
settlement patterns, including 
location; 

• address the general nature and 
distribution of employment 
and housing, including the 
supply and affordability of 
housing across the region; 

• address area economic and 
social issues, and interregional 
and interjurisdictional issues; 

• protect natural features and 
systems; 

• protect the quality and 
quantity of ground and 
surface water; 

• protect agricultural areas; 

• protect renewable and non- 
renewable natural resources; 

• address energy and water use 
and conservation 
opportunities; 

• address issues of special 
regional interest; and 

• establish a process to monitor 
change and the effectiveness 
of the plan. 



Within the context of the 
broad plan, further details will be 
required on matters such as: 

• the detailed pattern of land 
use, density, and mix of uses; 

• the distribution of open space 
and parks; 

• recreation; 

• natural features and systems; 

• the character of the communi- 
ty, including heritage, 
streetscape, and physical 
design; 

the supply and affordability 
of housing in the area; 
energy and water use and 
conservation opportunities; 
zoning, site plans, and other 
tools to regulate development; 
contaminated and hazardous 
sites; 

issues of special local interest; 
and 
other local responsibilities. 

These details should also be 
addressed in the board's plan, 
unless individual municipalities 
agree to prepare municipal, area, 
or neighbourhood plans for this 
purpose. The board may prepare 
and approve an area or neigh- 
bourhood plan for an unorganized 
area. All detailed plans must con- 
form to the board plan, and be 
approved by the board. 
Municipalities should continue to 
administer zoning and develop- 
ment approval, except where 
they decide to transfer these func- 
tions to the planning board. 

Representatives from muni- 
cipalities should be appointed to 
planning boards by councils. 
Since planning boards are not just 
advisory, but make decisions, 
these appointees must be elected 
councillors. Unorganized areas 



FINAL REPORT 
68 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



present a larger, but not impos- 
sible, challenge. Elections for 
school board members are held in 
unorganized areas, so there is no 
reason why elections for planning 
board positions could not be held 
as well. Anyone who could quali- 
fy as a candidate for a municipal 
council should be eligible to 
stand for election to the board. 
Until legislation is passed to 
permit elections, representatives 
should continue to be appointed 
by the Minister of Municipal 
Affairs. The Minister should fill 
vacancies within three months of 
receiving recommendations from 
planning boards. 

Generally, representation 
should be proportional to the 
number of electors. Each muni- 
cipality, regardless of population, 
should have at least one represen- 
tative. The unorganized portion 
of the planning area should be 
similarly represented. 

The chair of the board should 
be elected by the board from 
among board members. Board 
membership should generally not 
exceed 15 people. 

Adequate staffing and 
resources lie at the heart of com- 
prehensive, consultative planning. 
Although few municipalities will 
be able to afford one full-time 
planner, the pooling of resources 
from several municipalities and 
unorganized areas, as suggested 
here, may present the best alter- 
native. Several boards may find it 
advantageous to share the exper- 
tise of a planner. The province is 
expected to play a strong role 
advising boards. 



There are four possible 
sources of funding for planning: 
municipalities, the province, 
application fees, and unorganized 
areas. Boards should obtain funds 
from municipalities out of the 
general levy. In unorganized 
areas, boards should be permitted 
to levy and collect funds in the 
same manner as boards of educa- 
tion or, with the consent of the 
province, levy an annual house- 
hold fee. Planning boards should 
be able to set permit and applica- 
tion fees. Funding shares from 
municipalities and unorganized 
areas should be pro-rated by 
assessment or population. 
As discussed in Chapter 4, The 
Provincial Role, the province 
should continue to provide plan- 
ning grants to planning boards. 

The board should set its own 
annual budget. Local representa- 
tion on the board should general- 
ly ensure that the budget is 
acceptable to local authorities. 

Two concerns have been raised 
by residents of unorganized 
areas: the relationship of the 
planning board to local services 
or roads boards; and the prospect 
of unorganized areas being 
brought into a formal planning 
structure that is likely to be domi- 
nated by municipal interests. 

Regarding the first, local 
services and roads boards should 
continue to operate independently 
from planning boards, dealing 
with their own limited areas of 
responsibilities. However, any 
service expansion should be in 
conformity with applicable 
planning board plans. 



The second concern is focused 
on a fear that nearby municipali- 
ties will have a significant say in 
the planning of unorganized 
areas, possibly at a cost to resi- 
dents there, and that municipal 
interest could lead to annexation. 
Although local municipal inter- 
ests will clearly play more of a 
role in planning unorganized 
areas, having decisions made 
locally is more appropriate than 
the province administering these 
areas without local plans. Under 
the planning board model, areas 
will be allowed a reasonable 
degree of input into local deci- 
sions; and, as a counterweight to 
possible annexation proposals, 
the election process is a good 
vehicle for the expression of 
unorganized-area interests. 
Further, the suggested funding 
arrangement will not cause an 
undue load to fall on residents of 
unorganized areas. 

The relationship between 
Aboriginal communities and 
municipalities is addressed in 
Chapter 5, Planning and 
Aboriginal Communities. Briefly, 
the Commission suggests intro- 
ducing more appropriate 
procedures for notification to 
Aboriginal communities by plan- 
ning boards and municipalities; 
and authorizing planning boards 
and municipalities to enter into 
agreements with Aboriginal 
communities. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
69 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Next Steps 

Establishing the geographic juris- 
diction of planning boards is 
important if the boards are to 
function with the support of local 
communities. The Commission 
has suggested several criteria for 
determining areas, including: 
spheres of influence; travel time; 
local choice; watersheds; and 
other administrative boundaries. 
Multi-stakeholder committees 
— at least one for the Northeast 
and one for the Northwest — 
should be appointed by the 
Minister, following consultation 
with municipal and other organi- 
zations from the North, to make 
recommendations on planning 
board areas. These committees 
should be appointed as quickly 
as possible after this Final Report 
is submitted. The committees 
should be asked to make their 
recommendahons within six 
months. 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

40. To provide for more local 
decision-making on planning 
matters in the North: 

(a) In Northern Ontario, 
except for cities and the 
Regional Municipality of 
Sudbury, planning areas 
be established to include 
municipalities and unor- 
ganized areas that share 
common interests and are 
within the same sphere 
of influence. Planning- 
area boundaries should 
generally be based on 
natural boundaries such 
as watersheds, and 
should reflect relevant 
administrative boundaries 
such as school boards and 
economic development 
areas. 

(b) The Planning Act be 
amended to provide that 
members of planning 
boards are appointed by 
municipal councils from 
among their members, 
and elected from 
unorganized areas. 
Representation should 
generally be proportional 
to electoral population. 
Funding shares from 
municipalities and unor- 
ganized areas should be 
pro-rated by assessment 
or, with the approval of 
the province, by an 
annual fee or levy. 



(c) The Planning Act be 
amended to require that 
planning boards are 
required to prepare plans 
and that the planning 
duties and responsibilities 
of planning boards are 
similar to those of upper 
tiers. 

(d) The Planning Act be 
amended to provide that 
the approved planning 
board plan applies to all 
municipalities and unor- 
ganized areas within the 
planning area, and that 
for unorganized areas, 
planning boards be given 
responsibility for zoning, 
site-plan control, and 
building code 
administration. 

(e) The Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning establish com- 
mittees from Northern 
Ontario to make recom- 
mendations on the loca- 
tion and boundaries of 
planning areas, and to 
report within six months. 

(f) Where Crown land is 
within or adjacent to a 
municipality or a plan- 
ning board's area, the 
Ministry of Natural 
Resources be required to 
inform the board of 
proposals for that land 
and engage in a public 
planning process. 

(g) Local services boards and 
roads boards continue to 
administer services and 
roads in unorganized 
areas. 



FINAL REPORT 
70 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Plan Approvals 

The Commission came to the 
conclusion that the most effective, 
straightforward, and least adver- 
sarial manner of ensuring consis- 
tency with provincial policy is to 
require provincial approval of the 
plans and plan amendments of 
upper tiers, separated municipali- 
ties, cities in the North, planning 
boards, and planning authorities. 
For similar reasons, the 
Commission concluded that after 
the province has adopted a 
comprehensive set of policy state- 
ments, upper tiers with plans 
should have the authority to 
approve lower-tier plans and 
plan amendments. This approval 
authority would include the 
authority to modify plans and 
plan amendments. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

41. Once the province has 

adopted a comprehensive set 
of policy statements, the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning delegate to 
regions and counties with 
plans the authority to approve 
lower-tier plans and plan 
amendments. The delegated 
approval authority would 
include the authority to 
modify the plan or plan 
amendment. 



Upper Tiers Without Plans 

Neither the Region of York nor the 
Region of Peel has plans at the 
regional level, although both are 
now undertaking major planning 
exercises to prepare them. It is 
understood that both regions 
intend to adopt plans in 1994. 
Given the amount of growth 
occurring in these areas, these 
regions should be required to 
adopt plans on schedule. Until 
that occurs, the province should 
continue to approve lower-tier 
plans and plan amendments. If 
plans are not in place by the end 
of 1994, the province should 
impose appropriate sanctions 
which relate directly to powers 
that are difficult to exercise 
without a plan. Sanctions could 
include limits on capital borrow- 
ing, ineligibility for certain condi- 
tional grants, and removal of 
authority for upper-tier lot levies 
and delegated approvals. 

It is important that counties 
and planning boards take on 
planning responsibilities to deal 
with development decisions 
within their jurisdictions. If coun- 
ties and planning boards without 
municipal plans do not develop 
and adopt plans within five years 
of adoption of the new provincial 
policies, the province should 
have the authority to charge for 
the administration of plan and 
development approvals. As well, 
the province should consider 
imposing the sanctions described 
above. Until county and planning 
board plans are adopted, the 
province should continue to 
approve lower-tier municipal 



plans, plan amendments, plans 
of subdivision, and plans of con- 
dominium, and no further 
approvals should be delegated to 
counties and planning boards 
without those plans. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

42. Upper-tier municipalities 
currently without plans be 
required to prepare and 
adopt plans, and that: 

(a) If plans have not been 
adopted by the councils 
of the Regions of York 
and Peel by the end of 
1994, the province impose 
sanctions such as limits 
on capital borrowing, 
ineligibility for certain 
conditional grants, and 
removal of authority for 
upper-tier lot levies and 
delegated approvals. 

(b) If plans are not adopted 
by counties and planning 
board areas within five 
years of the adoption of 
the new provincial 
policies, the province 
consider imposing 
sanctions as described in 
Recommendation 42(a). 

(c) Until county and 
planning board plans are 
approved, the province 
maintain approval 
authority for municipal 
plans, plan amendments, 
plans of subdivision, and 
plans of condominium, 
and that no further 
delegation occur. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
71 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Plan-making 



Planning policies are set out in 
plans, and plans establish the 
context for change. To formulate 
a reasonable plan for the foresee- 
able future, good planning must 
consider a number of interrelated 
factors. It should foster an under- 
standing of the existing situation, 
outline a general vision of where 
the municipality should be 
headed, analyse factors important 
to the municipality in reaching 
that vision, and then choose 
among options to reach a final 
plan. Good planning should 
ensure that interrelated factors 
are reasonably understood so 
projections for the future are 
realistic. 

The processes employed for 
planning are exceptionally 
important for its success. Since 
planning is about community 
building, resource use, and 
protection of the natural environ- 
ment for the long term, those 
affected and interested should be 
included in the discussion and 
decision-making processes. 

This section discusses 
municipal plans and sets some 
parameters for how best to 
prepare plans that help muni- 
cipalities shape their future. 



Strategic Planning 

To set the stage for comprehensive, 
helpful planning, all murucipalities 
should be encouraged to look at 
larger issues that affect them and 
to chart a path to follow in the 
foreseeable future. Strategic 
planning can provide vision and 
guidance for many objectives, 
including the formulation of 
municipal, sectoral, and corporate 
plans. It can encourage public and 
private partnerships, provide a 
strong sense of municipal identity, 
and give local residents some 
idea of where the municipality is 
headed. 

Both upper-tier and lower-tier 
municipalities should be encour- 
aged to develop a strategic plan 
and review it at appropriate 
times. 

A strategic plan differs from a 
municipal plan. It sets priorities 
for initiatives the municipality 
wishes to take and focuses on 
ways in which the municipality 
might influence other players. It 
provides coherence for municipal 
policies and actions. It should be 
a pro-active document that grap- 
ples with big questions and helps 
to harness energy to seek their 
answers. 



A strategic plan should meet 
three objectives: 

1. It should address economic, 
environmental social, and other 
issues important to the 
community. These issues will 
differ from place to place, and 
the plan should attempt to 
focus on regional and local 
issues in a realistic way. 
Addressing these issues may 
involve attention to matters 
that will be considered in 
greater detail in the municipal 
plan; for example, transporta- 
tion, housing, or infrastructure. 

2. It should involve the public. The 
strategic plan exercise should 
be seen as an opportunity for 
council and municipal staff to 
work with the community, 
including business and 
community leaders, as well as 
with public agencies such as 
boards of education. Common 
goals and objectives should 
be identified so a course of 
action can be agreed upon and 
resources used cooperatively. 

3. The plan should be brief and easy 
to understand. A strategic plan 
should be intelligible to those 
it is meant to serve — 
residents, business people, 
and other interests in the 
community. It should be in 
plain, non-technical language 
and produced in a form that 
can be inexpensively and 
widely circulated. 



FINAL REPORT 

72 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Strategic plans should be 
authorized, legitimized, and 
encouraged. Since a strategic plan 
is broader than a municipal plan 
in that a strategic plan can 
involve actions and undertakings 
by a wide variety of interests, it 
should be a separate document, 
not part of the municipal plan. 
It should be adopted by council 
resolution, but not be legally 
enforceable. It should not be 
subject to appeal to the Ontario 
Municipal Board. Where the 
municipality wishes to give legal 
authority to goals, policies, and 
options articulated in the strategic 
plan, those items should be 
incorporated into the municipal 
plan. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

43. The Planning Act be amended 
to permit municipalities and 
planning boards and author- 
ities to prepare and adopt 
strategic plans that address, 
in a pro-active way, economic, 
environmental, social, and 
other issues important to a 
community. A strategic plan 
should not be legally 
enforceable. 



Municipal Plans 

The Planning Act enables muni- 
cipalities and planning boards to 
prepare and adopt official plans. 
The word "official" denotes the 
distinction between an operative 
plan, which has been approved, 
and one that is still draft and 
unapproved. It would, however, 
be much more appropriate to use 
a name that indicates where the 
plan comes from, and who owns 
it; i.e., the municipality. Hence, 
the Commission suggests use of 
the generic term "municipal 
plan," which refers to a plan pre- 
pared and adopted by an upper- 
or lower-tier municipality, a 
separated municipality, a city in 
the North, a planning board, or a 
planning authority. The plan's 
specific name should indicate its 
precise origin, identifying itself as 
a regional plan, a county plan, a 
city plan, a planning board plan, 
and so forth. 

Municipal plans should have 
clearly defined legal status. They 
play an essential role in imple- 
menting provincial policy, 
addressing broad and local 
issues, and defining development 
options and conditions. 

A "municipal plan" should be 
defined as "an approved docu- 
ment containing goals, objectives, 
and policies established primarily 
to manage and direct physical 
change and the effects on the 
social, economic, and natural 
environment of the municipality 
or a part thereof, or an area that is 
without municipal organization." 



A wide assortment of official 
plan documents and land-use 
planning policies are now in 
effect around Ontario. They vary 
by age, content, and usage. To 
help municipalities plan effective- 
ly and monitor the results of their 
plans with reasonable consistency, 
clarification is needed concerning 
underlying principles, content, 
and the processes of preparing 
plans and land-use policy 
documents. 

Principles and Content 

The municipal plan must address 
matters covered by provincial 
policy and other matters clearly 
identified in legislation. The mat- 
ters covered must be comprehen- 
sive to ensure interrelationships 
are fully understood, although 
obviously some factors will be 
more significant to some muni- 
cipalities than to others. To 
provide certainty and direction, 
the matters that must be 
addressed and the process that 
should be used should be set out 
in the Planning Act. The following 
summarizes the provisions to be 
included: 

1. Municipal plans must be con- 
sistent with provincial policy 
under the Planning Act. 

2. Municipal plans must contain 
goals and policies on, but 
not limited to, the respective 
matters set out for upper 
and lower tiers in 
Recommendations 32 and 35. 

3. Municipal plans must include 
maps or descriptions of 
matters noted in provincial 
policies under the Planning 
Act. 



FINAL REPORT 

73 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



4. Municipal plans must be 
based on studies of existing 
conditions and future projec- 
tions. Plans must be oriented 
to both the change expected 
and the future desired, in the 
medium term and the long 
term, and they must contain 
goals for the future. 

5. The municipal planning 
process must include a review 
of alternatives regarding such 
matters as growth, settlement 
patterns, and infrastructure, 
and of the net effects of those 
alternatives on the natural, 
social, cultural, and economic 
environment. 

6. The geographic basis on 
which an issue is analysed 
must be appropriate, even 
when that basis extends 
beyond the jurisdiction of the 
municipality. For example, 
the implications of land-use 
and settlement decisions on 
water quality and quantity 
should be assessed on a 
watershed or sub-watershed 
basis; and for those regarding 
natural features, on an appro- 
priate ecosystem basis. What 
is "appropriate" is a. matter 
that should be addressed as 
part of any study. 

7. Where it is apparent to a 
municipality that issues rea- 
sonably involve more than 
one jurisdiction, policies must 
be developed jointly. 

8. The steps followed in prepar- 
ing and adopting municipal 
plans or policies, including 
the alternatives considered, 
must be documented. 



9. In preparing plans, there 
must be full public consulta- 
tion, and all plans, policies, 
and documentation must be 
available to the public. 

Many of these above principles 
are discussed in more detail 
elsewhere in this Report, where 
appropriate recommendations 
are made. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

44. The Planning Act he amended 
to define "municipal plan" 
as "an approved document 
containing goals, objectives, 
and policies established 
primarily to manage and 
direct physical change and 
the effects on the social, 
economic, and natural envi- 
ronment of the municipality 
or a part thereof, or an area 
that is without municipal 
organization." 

45. The Planning Act he amended 
to require that municipal 
plans include maps or 
descriptions of matters noted 
in provincial policies. 



The Process of Planning 

Comprehensive Planning 
Process 

Land-use planning has a major 
impact on the natural environ- 
ment. Many submissions pointed 
out that the natural environment 
has not been protected in the 
planning process, and protection 
of the environment has often 
been treated as an "add-on." 
These concerns led some to turn 
to the Environmental Assessment 
Act for a process that assesses 
impacts on the natural environ- 
ment as well as on the social and 
economic environment. 

The planning process under 
the Planning Act needs to be 
strengthened and clarified so ques- 
tions of impact on the natural envi- 
ronment are dealt with in a pro- 
active fashion as a matter of course. 

To ensure that municipal plans 
and major plan amendments are 
fairly assessed for their impact on 
the social, economic, and natural 
environment, certain steps should 
be followed. 

First, prior to the preparation 
of any plan or a general, area, 
neighbourhood, or other major 
plan amendment, a report should 
be prepared for public review 
and considered by council. Such a 
report should contain: 

• a general description of the 
purpose of the proposed plan 
review; 

• the general scope of the pro- 
posed plan review, including 
studies to be undertaken; 

• proposals for public consulta- 
tion and participation by 
interested agencies; and 

• the proposed timetable for plan 
preparation and consideration. 



FINAL REPORT 

74 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Second, the preparation of 
any plan or a general, area, neigh- 
bourhood, or other major plan 
amendment must include the 
following steps: 

1. Identify problems, priorities, 
needs, opportunities, and 
objectives. 

2. Identify the criteria by which 
to evaluate different options 
and alternatives. 

3. Identify reasonable options 
(including the "do nothing" 
option) consistent with 
provincial policy, and 
describe their effects on the 
social, economic, and natural 
environment and their effec- 
tiveness in meeting objectives. 

4. Prepare alternative-plan con- 
cepts on selected options and 
compare and assess them 
using the criteria in Step 2 to 
determine which concepts 
best meet objectives in Step 1. 

5. Select and refine a preferred 
plan. 

6. Establish monitoring systems 
and contingency approaches. 

This process need not be 
followed for minor plan amend- 
ments, which are discussed later 
in this chapter. 

All steps in the process should 
be documented and reports made 
available to interested parties. 
Public involvement should be 
required throughout the process. 

It is recognized that councils 
never have quite enough infor- 
mation; it is almost impossible to 
know enough details about all 
options, and there is never 
enough time or money to satisfy 
everyone. Despite such limits, the 
proposed planning process offers 
a fair and reasonable means for 



looking at needs, alternatives, 
and environmental impacts. 

Several submissions expressed 
concerns that the proposed plan- 
ning process could require the 
creation of excessive alternatives 
to meet these steps, involving 
great cost and significant delay. 
It is clearly important that alter- 
natives considered be reasonable 
and consistent with provincial 
policy. Further, this proposed 
process — which several muni- 
cipalities indicated is similar to 
their own — should be required 
only for municipal plans and for 
general, area, neighbourhood, or 
other major plan amendments. 

In the hierarchy of plans and 
policies, lower-tier plans nest in 
and conform to upper-tier plans, 
which must be consistent with 
provincial policies. At each level, 
the range of alternatives that 
should be considered can be 
determined by referring to plans 
and policies at the next level up. 
Because conclusions reached in 
plans at a higher level govern 
analysis at a lower level, alterna- 
tives that were rejected at the 
upper level do not have to be 
considered at the lower level. 
Thus, provincial plans and 
policies provide both a frame- 
work for upper-tier plans and the 
criteria that the upper tier uses to 
evaluate alternatives. Upper-tier 
plans in turn provide a frame- 
work for lower-tier plans. 

Reasonable alternatives and 
options, including mitigation 
measures, should be addressed at 
an appropriate level of detail. 
This means consideration should 
be given to how goals can be 
achieved in different ways. The 



best way to proceed must be 
determined on that basis. 

Objections to and disputes 
about the process and its out- 
come should be considered first 
by the body making the plan. 
After final decisions have been 
made, appeals on any of these 
matters may be made to the 
Ontario Municipal Board. The 
Commission is recommending 
this process be included in legis- 
lation. The legislation should also 
state that plans which have gone 
through this process should not 
then be subject to the provisions 
of the Environmental Assessment 
Act. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

46. The Planning Act be amended 
to require that, prior to the 
preparation of any plan or a 
general, area, neighbourhood, 
or other major plan amend- 
ment, a report be prepared 
for public review and 
considered by council, 
containing: 

(a) a general description of 
the purpose of the pro- 
posed plan review; 

(b) the general scope of the 
proposed plan review, 
including studies to be 
undertaken; 

(c) proposals for public 
consultation and 
participation by interested 
agencies; and 

(d) the proposed timetable 
for plan preparation and 
consideration. 



FINAL REPORT 

75 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



47. The Planning Act be amended 
to require that the preparation 
of any plan or a general, area, 
neighbourhood, or other 
major plan amendment 
include the following steps: 

(a) Identify problems, priori- 
ties, needs, opportunities, 
and objectives. 

(b) Identify the criteria by 
which to evaluate options 
and alternatives. 

(c) Identify reasonable 
options (including the 
"do nothing" option) 
consistent with provincial 
policy, and describe their 
effects on the social, 
economic, and natural 
environment and their 
effectiveness in meeting 
objectives. 

(d) Prepare alternative-plan 
concepts on selected 
options and compare and 
assess them using the 
criteria in Step (b) to 
determine which concepts 
best meet objectives in 
Step (a). 

(e) Select and refine a 
preferred plan. 

(f) Establish monitoring 
systems and contingency 
approaches. 

48. Legislation be amended to 
provide that plans and plan 
amendments which are 
approved under the compre- 
hensive planning process 
described in recommenda- 
tions 46 and 47 not be subject 
to the provisions of the 
Environmental Assessment 
Act. 



Plan Amendments 

One of the most significant prob- 
lems with current official plans is 
that they are constantly being 
amended. They provide little cer- 
tainty, and the fact they change 
regularly means they cannot 
function as guides to the future. 
Too often, the official plan is 
merely a complicated device for 
controlling site-specific develop- 
ment and adds considerable time 
to the development-review 
process. Many members of the 
public are reluctant to invest time 
and energy in official plan 
processes when they know the 
plan has little permanence. 

Municipal plans should func- 
tion in the same way as municipal 
budgets. A budget outlines how 
spending will occur in the com- 
ing year (or years, in the case of 
capital budgets). Budgets set 
priorities for municipalities and 
for the public, and, recognizing 
the unforeseen, they contain a 
small contingency account. 
Further, they are reviewed 
periodically to determine if they 
continue to meet needs. 
Municipal plans should fulfil the 
same kind of role, over a longer 
timeframe, providing direction to 
private and municipal develop- 
ment decisions. 

The key lies in making 
reasonable provision for growth 
and change. A plan must contem- 
plate the future, and be able to 
accommodate desired change 
without undergoing constant 
plan amendments. 



Some plan amendments are 
matters of detailed interpretation 
of existing plans, and others are 
minor amendments that confirm 
the general direction of the plan. 
Some amendments are major, and 
their proposals challenge basic 
assumptions of the plan; examples 
include a change in urban bound- 
aries, the introduction of major 
new infrastructure such as a 
rapid transit line or a new trunk 
sewer, or a substantial change in 
use or density in an area seen as 
stable. To ensure reasonable 
certainty during the life of a plan, 
municipalities may choose to 
consider a major plan amend- 
ment application that challenges 
the basic assumptions of the plan 
only as part of a general plan 
review. In these cases it would 
not be reasonable for a muni- 
cipality's planning program to be 
held hostage to a land owner 
who uses the application process 
to override legitimate political 
decisions. Municipalities should 
be reasonably expected to uphold 
the principles of their municipal 
plan. 

Municipalities should be 
permitted to indicate that such an 
application is premature, and that 
it will not be considered until the 
next general plan review. 
Legislation should also permit 
municipalities to reject such an 
application without substantial 
study on the grounds that such 
applications challenge the basic 
assumptions underlying the plan. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

76 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



The important distinction 
between the two kinds of amend- 
ments lies in the range of the 
matters to be considered and the 
breadth of the studies required. 
Major amendments require a 
much more extensive process, as 
noted above, including the identi- 
fication of needs and alternatives. 

In the Draft Report, the 
Commission proposed more com- 
plicated arrangements to ensure 
the municipal plan achieved 
greater certainty over time and 
was not constantly subject to sub- 
stantial changes. Those proposals 
received some support for 
intention, but much criticism in 
respect to detail. The proposals 
set out above provide more clarity 
about the matter, and respond to 
the criticisms without creating a 
straitjacket that prevents change 
and innovation. 

It is recognized that studies to 
support either minor or major 
plan amendments are often 
undertaken by the applicant, and 
that the municipality often relies 
on such initiatives. The important 
task in these cases is ensuring 
that all the relevant issues are 
addressed in a competent and 
comprehensive manner. Where 
many of the background planning 
studies have been prepared by 
the applicant, the municipality 
remains obliged, if it wishes to 
proceed, to determine the issues 
to be addressed, and to ensure 
they are dealt with in a reason- 
able fashion and that appropriate 
consultation occurs. 



Many submissions expressed 
concern about the amount of time 
that planning takes at the muni- 
cipal level. General planning 
studies can take a year or two, or 
more. Indeed, many municipali- 
ties find a general plan review 
extends over the life of more than 
one council. It is unrealistic to 
attempt to set a provincewide 
parameter for such studies, but 
some timeframes are necessary. 
The Commission is recommending 
that at the outset of a plan review 
or major amendment process, the 
municipality report on the expect- 
ed timeframe for the review. This 
report and its recommended 
timeframe should be subject to 
public discussion. 

The processing of minor plan 
amendments require more 
certainty. Section 22(1) of the 
Planning Act permits a request 
for referral to the 0MB if a muni- 
cipality has not considered an 
application within 30 days. There 
are a number of problems with 
this 30-day time limit. One is the 
question of when an application 
is "complete": 30 days can be 
spent in simply resolving this 
issue. Another is that applications 
often lead to negotiations between 
the applicant and staff, not allow- 
ing any reasonable decision to be 
made within the timeframe. A 
third is that public notification 
and consultation cannot take 
place within a month, since the 
current Act requires 30 days 
notice. Fourth, given municipal 
meeting schedules, workloads, 
and other priorities, it is almost 
impossible to get an application 
before council in that short a 
period. 



The Commission is recom- 
mending that the Act be amended 
to provide a right to appeal to the 
Ontario Municipal Board if a 
municipality has not made a final 
decision on a plan amendment 
application within six months of 
the filing of a complete applica- 
tion. To deal with situations where 
municipalities decide to ignore 
applications, the Commission fur- 
ther recommends that, where a 
municipality is not taking effective 
action to respond to an applica- 
tion, with the exception of an 
application for major plan 
amendment, an applicant may 
appeal to the Board 90 days after 
filing a complete application. In 
such cases, the Board will circu- 
late the matter to the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning, 
and permit the Ministry to be a 
party to any proceedings. As 
noted in Chapter 9, Conflicts, 
Disputes, and Appeals, the Board 
will be able to deal with the mat- 
ter in a number of ways, including 
referring it back to the municipal- 
ity subject to specified conditions. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

49. The Planning Act be amended 

to provide that: 

(a) Municipalities may reject, 
without substantial study, 
any application for a 
major plan amendment, 
that is, an amendment 
which challenges basic 
assumptions in the muni- 
cipal plan. Alternatively, 
municipalities may defer 
consideration of any 
application for a major 
plan amendment until a 
general plan review. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

77 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



(b) Where a municipality has 
not made a final decision 
on a plan amendment 
application within six 
months of filing a com- 
plete application, an 
applicant may appeal to 
the Ontario Municipal 
Board. 

(c) Where a municipality is 
not taking effective action 
to respond to an applica- 
tion, with the exception 
of an application for 
major plan amendment, 
an applicant may appeal 
to the Ontario Municipal 
Board 90 days after filing 
a complete application. 



Planning on a Watershed Basis 

In keeping with proposed provin- 
cial policies, municipalities should 
consider the natural environment 
when planning for change. The 
Commission has made proposals 
for policy about the protection of 
natural features and functions. 
One very important natural 
resource readily measured in both 
quality and quantity is water, and 
paying close attention to water 
quality and quantity is important 
in ensuring the natural environ- 
ment is adequately protected. 

Water not only is a natural 
feature, but is also a key link in 
the natural system. It must be 
studied as a system. It makes little 
sense to look at one small section 
of a river without also looking at 
what is upstream and what is 
downstream; hence, the idea of 
doing studies on a "watershed" 
basis, or carrying out watershed 
studies. 

With regard to development 
and change affecting water, the 
Planning Act should require that, 
in preparing plans, municipalities 
must develop policies based on 
watershed considerations. 

The core concern of watershed 
studies is water and the interrela- 
tionship of water with other 
features: water and land, water 
and habitat, water and vegetation, 
and so forth. For some, these 
myriad concerns are summed up 
as "the ecosystem," so that plan- 
ning on a watershed basis is very 
similar to ecosystem planning. 
But surface-water and ground- 
water quality and quantity are at 
the heart of watershed studies. 



Watershed studies help muni- 
cipalities by providing informa- 
tion on constraints, opportunities, 
and approaches for land-use 
development and change. As sev- 
eral developers noted, watershed 
studies help resolve some of the 
problems that emerge in the 
development process. Watershed 
studies should address the 
following matters: 

• quality and quantity of sur- 
face water and groundwater 
for developed areas of the 
municipality and other areas 
likely to undergo change; 

• flooding and natural hazards; 

• shorelines, marinas, and 
lakefill; 

• tree cover; 

• erosion control; 

• drainage plans and storm 
water; 

• wetlands, recharge areas, and 
natural features; 

• remediation of water systems 
and natural features; 

• aquatic resources, including 
fisheries. 

In some cases, municipalities or 
conservation authorities may 
include other matters, such as 
wildlife and forestry. 

The differences between 
watershed and sub-watershed 
studies are equivalent to the 
differences between studies for 
broad and local plans. Generally, 
watershed studies cover a larger 
area and are less detailed than 
sub-watershed studies. The former 
often helps determine where 
growth might be directed; the 
latter often helps determine how 
development is accommodated. 
But the distinction is not always 
obvious. 



I 
I 



I 



FINAL REPORT 

78 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



There is not enough money 
available to undertake compre- 
hensive watershed or sub-water- 
shed studies across the province. 
Where little development activity 
or pressure exists, the effects of a 
limited amount of development 
on water can be assessed on a 
general basis with the informa- 
tion available. Mitigation can be 
dealt with on a site-specific basis 
using an environmental impact 
study. 

But where a considerable 
amount of development activity 
or a large-scale development is 
proposed, the impacts — and 
cumulative impacts — must be 
assessed, and a watershed or 
sub-watershed study will be 
necessary. The two conditions 
that should require watershed or 
sub-watershed studies are: 
changes in or concerns about 
levels of water quality and 
quantity; and /or pressures for 
development and change. With 
the advice of conservation 
authorities (where they exist), 
upper tiers should identify which 
studies need to be undertaken 
first. Where there is no upper-tier 
plan, these decisions will be 
made by the affected lower tiers. 

It is anticipated that, in many 
situations, municipalities will 
turn to conservation authorities 
to provide advice on priorities 
and to prepare watershed studies 
and recommendations. 
Conservation authorities already 
have a strong track record for 
studying and attempting to 
protect the health of watersheds. 
This experience and expertise 
should be used in preparing 
watershed studies and 



recommendations, in helping 
mesh the local concerns of muni- 
cipalities with broader concerns 
for the natural environment, and 
for studying the long-term 
implications of changes. 

Municipalities are the bodies 
that make decisions about plans. 
Conservation authorities should 
be given a clear mandate and 
authority to prepare watershed 
studies and provide inventory, 
analysis, and recommendations 
on watershed and sub-watershed 
policies. Where no conservation 
authority is in place, watershed 
studies will have to be undertaken 
by municipalities, with the help of 
the Ministry of Natural Resources. 
Where very large rivers and 
water bodies are involved, the 
province will be expected to play 
an important role in these studies. 

Although the Association of 
Conservation Authorities of 
Ontario and some other groups 
argued that municipalities should 
be required to adopt plans 
prepared by conservation author- 
ities, a number of authorities 
disagreed. One noted that "a 
conservation authority's role is to 
undertake studies and provide 
recommendations. It is not this 
authority's ambition to acquire a 
planning approval role. We view 
our role as that of coordinators 
and advisors on watershed 
management issues." The 
Commission is recommending 
that municipalities, rather than 
conservation authorities, make 
decisions on plans and policies 
relating to development. 



These proposals provide an 
enhanced role for conservation 
authorities. It is recognized that 
financial and representational 
links between conservation 
authorities and county councils 
should be improved in order to 
establish strong links between 
watershed studies and upper-tier 
plans. The Ministry of Natural 
Resources, the Association of 
Conservation Authorities of 
Ontario, and the Association of 
Municipalities of Ontario should 
review the relationship between 
conservation authorities and 
county councils. 

The cost of not basing policies 
on watershed studies is enormous 
if assessed in terms of undesirable 
outcomes and the cost of remedi- 
ation — closed beaches, a decline 
in biota including fish, and new 
and replacement sewage and 
water services. The funding of 
the studies will also be a concern, 
yet one need not wait for large 
sums to be allocated. Rather, 
studies should be done within the 
funding available. Some innova- 
tive approaches will be required; 
for example, making good use of 
well-informed local environmen- 
tal and naturalist groups, and 
deciding to focus first on the 
sub-watershed areas facing the 
greatest pressure for change. 
Some conservation authorities 
have found private funding to 
help pay for studies. 



FINAL REPORT 
79 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



In Southwestern Ontario, 
some conservation authorities 
have been given the authority to 
issue water-taking permits under 
the Ontario Water Resources Act. 
The Ministry of the Environment 
and Energy may wish to consider 
extending this authority to other 
conservation authorities or to 
upper-tier municipalities, as 
appropriate. This arrangement 
may provide greater clarity for 
sorting out responsibilities for 
water quantity and management. 
There may be a need to clarify the 
mandates of conservation author- 
ities to deal with ecosystem-pro- 
tection matters within the existing 
fill, construction, and alteration- 
to-waterway regulations. 

Finally, under the Conservation 
Authorities Act, the appeal of a 
number of regulatory decisions of 
a conservation authority is to the 
Mining and Lands Commissioner. 
Several submissions suggested 
that section 28(5) of the 
Conservation Authorities Act be 
amended to provide, instead, an 
appeal to the Ontario Municipal 
Board, so that consistency with 
provincial and municipal policies 
could be considered. Although 
this suggestion seems reasonable, 
there appears to be no compelling 
reason for the change to be made 
at this time. 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

50. To incorporate watershed 
considerations into the plan- 
ning process, the Planning 
Act be amended to require 
that: 

(a) In preparing plans with 
regard to development 
and change affecting 
water, municipalities 
prepare and adopt policies 
based on watershed 
considerations; and 

(b) Watershed or sub-water- 
shed studies be under- 
taken in cases where 
there are changes in or 
concerns about levels of 
water quality or quantity 
and/or where there are 
pressures for develop- 
ment and change. 

(c) With the advice of con- 
servation authorities, the 
upper tier identify which 
studies need to be under- 
taken first. Where there 

is no upper-tier or it is not 
planning, these decisions 
will be made by the 
affected lower tiers. 

(d) Conservation authorities 
carry out such studies 
and provide inventory, 
analysis, and recommen- 
dations to municipalities. 
Where no conservation 
authority is in place, 
watershed studies will be 
undertaken by muni- 
cipalities, with the help 
of the Ministry of 
Natural Resources. 



(e) Watershed studies focus 
on surface-water and 
groundwater quality and 
quantity. They should 
generally address the 
following matters: 
(i) quality and quantity 
of surface water and 
groundwater for 
developed areas of 
the municipality and 
other areas likely to 
undergo change; 
(ii) flooding and natural 

hazards; 
(iii) shorelines, marinas, 

and lakefill; 
(iv) tree cover; 
(v) erosion control; 
(vi) drainage plans and 

storm water; 
(vii) wetlands, recharge 
areas, and natural 
features; 
(viii) remediation of water 
systems and natural 
features; 
(ix) aquatic resources, 
including fisheries. 

51. The Ministry of Natural 
Resources, the Association of 
Conservation Authorities of 
Ontario, and the Association 
of Municipalities of Ontario 
review the relationships 
between conservation 
authorities and county 
councils. 



FINAL REPORT 

80 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Environmental Impact Studies 

There has been a growing 
recognition of the need to assess, 
before decisions are made, the 
impact on the natural environment 
of both plans and development 
projects. The Commission is rec- 
ommending a planning process 
to ensure that in decisions about 
municipal plans and major plan 
amendments, impacts on the 
natural environment are assessed 
at the same time as impacts on 
the social and economic 
environment. 

Recommended provincial 
policies prohibit development in 
certain significant natural features. 
Recommended policies also 
provide that development may be 
permitted on lands adjacent to 
these features (and in other areas) 
only if no adverse effects result 
on the features and functions of 
these areas. The Commission is 
recommending that these areas 
be identified in the municipal 
plan, and that when a develop- 
ment application is submitted, 
an environmental impact study 
(EIS) be prepared to assess that 
application. 

The objectives of an EIS are: 
to prevent or minimize adverse 
impacts of a proposed develop- 
ment on the natural environment; 
to ascertain the potential impact 
on the natural environment of a 
proposed development; and to 
ensure that mitigating measures 
are undertaken where develop- 
ment occurs. 

Although not limited to the 
following, the EIS must include: 



(a) a description of the existing 
natural environment that will 
be affected or that might 
reasonably be expected to be 
affected, directly or indirectly; 

(b) the environmental effects that 
might reasonably be expected 
to occur; 

(c) alternative methods and mea- 
sures for mitigation of potential 
environmental effects of the 
proposed development; and 

(d) a monitoring plan to measure 
the potential effects on the 
environment. 

An EIS will be required for 
proposals in the following areas: 

• lands adjacent to a significant 
ravine, river, stream, or natur- 
al corridor, or to the habitat of 
endangered, threatened, and 
vulnerable species, or to 
provincially significant 
wetlands in the Great Lakes - 
St. Lawrence Region; 

• lands adjacent to significant 
woodlots south of the northern 
boundary of the District 
Municipality of Muskoka, and 
the counties of Haliburton, 
Hastings, Lennox and 
Addington, Frontenac, and 
Lanark. 

• in the Boreal Region, provin- 
cially significant wetlands 
and adjacent land; 

• those parts of areas of natural 
and scientific interest, 
recharge areas, significant 
wildlife habitat, and shorelines 
where development is not 
prohibited; 

• land adjacent to lakes, rivers, 
and streams; and 

• where development is 
proposed that may affect fish 
habitat. 



Municipalities may also set 
out in their municipal plans other 
circumstances in which environ- 
mental impact studies are 
required. A number of municipal- 
ities have established policies in 
their plans that set out such 
circumstances, along with other 
situations where EISs may be 
required after screening for 
potential adverse effects on the 
environment. The City of Ottawa 
recently adopted such policies for 
a municipal environmental 
evaluation process. 

The EIS should form part of 
the background information to be 
submitted as part of an application 
for development and should be 
evaluated by the municipality 
and commenting agencies as part 
of the regular approval process 
for applications. Municipal coun- 
cils may not make final decisions 
on development applications 
until any required EIS is available. 

Where change is proposed 
which involves infrastructure 
subject to an environmental study 
report and where an environmen- 
tal impact study is required, the 
two should be coordinated to 
ensure no duplication, and a sin- 
gle study meeting both require- 
ments should be undertaken. A 
recommendation to this effect is 
made in Chapter 7, Lot Creation 
and Development Control. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

52. To establish requirements 
for environmental impact 
studies, the Planning Act be 
amended: 



FINAL REPORT 
81 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



(a) To provide that applicants 
for development involv- 
ing subdivisions and 
consents, development 
permits, and rezoning be 
required to prepare an 
environmental impact 
study (EIS) where 
required by provincial 
policies. 

(b) To authorize municipali- 
ties to establish additional 
circumstances in which 
an EIS may be required. 

(c) To provide that the 
content of an EIS include, 
without being limited to: 
(i) a description of the 

existing natural 
environment that will 
be affected or might 
reasonably be expect- 
ed to be affected, 
directly or indirectly; 
(ii) the environmental 
effects that might 
reasonably be 
expected to occur; 
(iii) alternative methods 
and measures for mit- 
igation of potential 
environmental effects 
of the proposed 
development; and 
(iv) a monitoring plan to 
measure the potential 
effects on the natural 
environment, 
(d) To provide that a muni- 
cipal council may not 
make final decisions on 
development applica- 
tions until any required 
EIS is available. 



Joint-Planning 

Municipalities often share com- 
mon concerns, such as water bod- 
ies, other natural features, and 
infrastructure, and in many cases 
the decisions of one municipality 
directly affect another. In these 
situations, municipalities should 
be encouraged to undertake joint- 
planning. This may occur 
through formal mechanisms such 
as upper-tier governments and 
planning boards and authorities, 
or through provincial area plans 
and conservation authorities. But 
further mechanisms will also be 
needed. 

Section 8(2) of the Planning 
Act now permits municipalities to 
establish a joint-planning advisory 
committee and enter into 
agreements on all aspects of the 
joint endeavour, including cost- 
sharing, committee structures, 
and timetables. This provision 
has been rarely used. 

It is hoped municipalities will 
agree among themselves about 
how to do joint-planning. Where 
municipalities are unable to 
agree, the Planning Act should 
allow any municipality believing 
joint-planning should occur to 
apply to the Ontario Municipal 
Board for mediation. If the medi- 
ation fails, the Board should be 
authorized to order a joint-plan- 
ning structure and a cost-sharing 
arrangement. 

The Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning could also 
play a role in bringing municipal- 
ities together for joint-planning. 

The Ministry of Natural 
Resources has recently established 
several Lake Management units, 
which relate to large shorelines. 



It may be helpful if that Ministry 
were to bring together municipal- 
ities touching on larger water- 
sheds in order to coordinate 
analysis and response to common 
problems. It has been suggested 
that pilot projects be made of the 
eastern shore of Georgian Bay, 
and around Lake Simcoe. These 
might provide opportunities to 
combine interest in broader 
watershed studies, land use, 
recreational boating, and water- 
use planning. The Ministry of 
Natural Resources should be 
asked to explore this opportunity. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

53. The Planning Act be amended 
to provide that where muni- 
cipalities are unable to agree 
on joint-planning, any 
municipality may apply to 
the Ontario Municipal Board 
for mediation. If the media- 
tion fails, the Board should 
be authorized to order a 
joint-planning structure and 
a cost-sharing arrangement. 

54. The Ministry of Natural 
Resources consider estab- 
lishing pilot projects that 
bring together municipalities 
on the eastern shore of 
Georgian Bay and along the 
Lake Simcoe shoreline to 
coordinate analysis and 
response to common prob- 
lems. Such projects could 
include watershed studies, 
water-use planning, and 
recreational boating. 



I 



FINAL REPORT 

82 



MUNICIPAL PLAN-MAKING 



Monitoring and Plan Review 

As noted earlier, the Commission 
is recommending that the 
Planning Act require municipali- 
ties with plans to establish moni- 
toring systems. Policies about 
how monitoring will occur 
should be set out in the munici- 
pal plan. 

Monitoring should look at 
two matters: the effectiveness of 
policies in achieving municipal 
objectives; and the review of 
change in the municipality. 
Upper and lower tiers should 
cooperate to ensure an efficient 
information-gathering process 
that avoids duplication. 

The outcome of monitoring 
has been referred to as "state of 
the environment" or "state of the 
community" or "municipal moni- 
toring" reports. In monitoring, 
municipalities identify and select 
key indicators relevant to their 
local environments — natural, 
social, cultural, and economic — 
and then establish procedures for 
monitoring them. Indicators 
chosen should be ones that are 
currently measured or that could 
be measured at reasonable cost. 
Monitoring should enable muni- 
cipalities to recognize and under- 
stand the cumulative effects of 
what, individually, may seem to 
be insignificant and unrelated 
decisions. 

The monitoring report must 
be prepared at least every five 
years and will be an important 
consideration in a municipality's 
decision on whether its municipal 
plan needs to be reviewed. It is 
important that plans be responsive 
to changing circumstances, and 
monitoring will help provide the 



relevant information. Section 
26(1) of the Planning Act currently 
requires a special meeting of 
council at least every five years to 
determine the need for a review 
of the plan. This provision should 
remain in place, and the monitor- 
ing report should be available at 
this meeting. 

Municipalities may find that 
the introduction of a program to 
install monitoring devices over a 
number of years is both cost- 
effective and very helpful. In 
Wellington County, the county, 
the City of Guelph, and the 
Township of Puslinch have agreed 
on a groundwater monitoring 
system. New subdivisions are 
required to provide a monitoring 
well at no cost to the municipali- 
ties, and in less than five years 
the municipality has managed, at 
very little public cost, to establish 
an effective device for monitoring 
surface and sub-surface water 
quahty and quantity. Monitoring 
should not simply be seen as the 
interpretation of available data; 
municipalities should be imagi- 
native in devising systems to 
gather useful data over the 
coming decades. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

55. The Planning Act be amended 
to require that municipalities 
prepare monitoring reports 
at least every five years, 
identifying and selecting key 
indicators. The monitoring 
reports will be one basis for 
the consideration by the 
municipality of the need to 
review its municipal plan. 



FINAL REPORT 
83 



7 

Lot Creation and 

Development 

Control 



Plans embody a vision for the 
future and provide a context for 
development activity. It is largely 
through development that plans 
get implemented. It is essential 
that municipalities have effective 
mechanisms to review and regu- 
late development proposals to 
ensure that new buildings and 
structures conform to the muni- 
cipality's plan and meet various 
technical requirements. These 
development control mechanisms 
must also ensure due process to 
protect the interests of the appli- 
cant and the public. This chapter 
addresses the key aspects of 
implementation: lot creation and 
development controls. 

Lot creation is often the pre- 
condition for development, and 
mechanisms to regulate the cre- 
ation of lots are outlined in the 
following section. 

The Commission has conclud- 
ed that the two existing adminis- 
trative systems — subdivision and 
consents — should be maintained. 



but is recommending changes in 
information requirements and the 
delegation of authority. 

A variety of mechanisms used 
to regulate land use and building 
form are discussed in the second 
major section of the chapter, 
development controls. 

Lot Creation 

The ability to create new lots is, 
in the eyes of many, one of the 
most important powers available 
to local decision-makers. In many 
municipalities, the creation of a 
lot is the precondition for devel- 
opment, and the members of land 
division committees and commit- 
tees of adjustment occupy very 
important positions in their com- 
munity. Thus, it is no surprise 
that the section of the Draft 
Report which attracted by far the 
most attention was the one 
proposing changes to procedures 
and authorities for creating lots. 



Existing Legislation 

There are two administrative pro- 
cedures for creating new lots: 
plans of subdivision, and consent 
(severance). Plans of subdivision 
are normally required for creating 
three or more lots from a parcel 
of land, while the consent proce- 
dure is generally used to create 
only two to four new lots. The 
Planning Act does not specifically 
direct which procedure should 
apply in any given case. While 
matters to be evaluated in appli- 
cations for consent are similar to 
those for plans of subdivision, the 
potential impacts of subdivisions 
are generally greater because of 
their size and the number of lots 
involved, and a more rigorous 
assessment is required. 

The number of individual lots 
created in rural areas by consents 
has increased dramatically over 
the past decade. As well, to avoid 
the more complicated and time- 
consuming process required for 
subdivision approval, some mun- 
icipalities have used the consent 
procedure to create subdivisions 
of large numbers of lots. In both 
cases, concerns have been raised 
about the effects of approving so 
many lots on an individual basis 
without the degree of scrutiny 
associated with the subdivision 
approval process. 

At present, plans of subdivi- 
sion must be approved by the 
Minister or by a municipality that 
has been delegated the Minister's 
approval powers. Subdivision 
approval has now been delegated 
to all regional municipalities; to 
the counties of Huron and 
Oxford; to the separated cities of 
Belleville, Brantford, Brockville, 



FINAL 



REPORT 

84 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



Kingston, North Bay, 
Peterborough, Sauh Ste. Marie, 
and Timmins; and to the town of 
Orangeville. These delegations, 
set out in regulations under the 
Planning Act, outline conditions 
that councils must comply with, 
including circulation of applica- 
tions to a number of provincial 
ministries and agencies. In some 
situations, such as in the regional 
municipalities of Waterloo, 
Halton, and Hamilton- 
Wentworth, the authority to deal 
with subdivision applications has 
been further delegated by the 
regional council to the regional 
planning commissioner, so subdi- 
visions are decided on by staff, 
not by council. 

The Planning Act assigns 
responsibility for granting con- 
sents to regions, counties, and 
separated municipalities, and to 
cities in the North. In the case of 
towns, townships, and villages, 
and unorganized areas in the 
North, consent-granting authori- 
ty rests with the Minister. 

Regions, counties, and sepa- 
rated municipalities, and cities in 
the North, may, with the 
approval of the Minister, further 
delegate these powers. Regions 
or counties may delegate to a 
land division committee, to staff, 
or to a local municipality; and a 
local municipality may subdele- 
gate to a committee of adjustment 
or to staff. Separated municipali- 
ties and cities in the North may 
delegate to a committee of adjust- 
ment or to staff. The Minister 
may delegate consent-granting 
powers to planning boards in the 
North, or to towns, villages, and 
townships in the North. The use 



of these powers of delegation has 
resulted in considerable variety 
in the bodies that have consent- 
granting authority across the 
province. For instance, 20 of 39 
regions and counties have dele- 
gated consent-granting authority 
to 144 lower-tier municipalities. 
This has resulted in considerable 
fragmenting of accountability. 
Concerns have been raised about 
the exercise of this authority, and 
no new delegation of consent- 
granting authority to lower-tier 
municipalities has occurred in 
almost five years. In fact, one 
county recently took back consent 
approval from five local muni- 
cipalities. 

Applications for plans of sub- 
division must meet the require- 
ments of section 51(2) of the Act. 
They must contain information 
on such matters as the availabili- 
ty and nature of domestic water 
supplies, the nature and porosity 
of the soil, and the availability of 
municipal services. The bound- 
aries of the area to be subdivided 
must be certified by an Ontario 
land surveyor. In considering 
both draft plans of subdivision 
and consents, regard must be had 
to the "health, safety, convenience 
and welfare of the present and 
future inhabitants" of the local 
municipality and to a number of 
other matters set out in section 
51(4). Although less information 
is required for applications for 
consents, the legislative require- 
ments for the two procedures are 
similar in principle. In practice, 
however, consent applications are 
often not scrutinized as rigorous- 
ly as those for subdivision. This 
has been partly attributable to the 



fact that there have been different 
approval authorities involved 
and different levels of circulation 
to review agencies. Since con- 
sents are expected to be less com- 
plex, they usually receive less 
intense review than plans of sub- 
division. 

The Planning Act does not 
require notice to the public or to 
abutting landowners for either 
type of application. Applications 
for subdivisions are often accom- 
panied by applications for 
amendments to the official plan 
or zoning by-law, and it is 
through the notification provi- 
sions for these changes that the 
public usually finds out about 
applications for subdivisions. 

Although notice is not 
required for plans of subdivision, 
appeals may be made by anyone 
at any time before draft approval 
has been given. If the application 
is refused, an appeal may be 
made only by the applicant. 
Concerned citizens have no right 
of appeal after draft approval is 
granted. 

Although public notice of 
consent applications is not 
required under the Act, approval 
authorities must give notice to 
anyone submitting a written 
request to receive notice. Only the 
applicant, the Minister, agencies, 
or persons who have received 
notice of the decision may appeal 
to the Ontario Municipal Board. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
85 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



Response to the 
Commission's Draft 
Proposal 

The Commission, in its Draft 
Report, proposed that there be one 
system of lot creation in Ontario 
and that the responsibility initially 
be lodged at the upper tier. The 
Draft Report proposal was based 
on the assumption that subdivision 
approval would be delegated to all 
upper-tier governments with 
approved plans. Upper tiers would 
then be able to deal with all appli- 
cations in a more timely fashion, 
and consistency of interpretation 
could be assured. The need for two 
separate systems would then dis- 
appear. The Commission also pro- 
posed subsequent delegation of lot 
creation to lower-tier municipali- 
ties under certain circumstances. 

The Commission's proposal for 
one system of lot creation engen- 
dered a considerable amount of 
comment. The organizations and 
municipalities in favour stated 
that combining the consent and 
subdivision processes was logical 
and made administrative sense. 
Many stated that lodging lot 
creation at the upper tier dealt with 
concerns that the decision-makers 
might not always be impartial 
when considering their neigh- 
bours' applications, particularly in 
smaller municipalities. Although 
advocating one set of rules for lot 
creation, most of those in favour 
of one system of lot creation did 
suggest that the upper tiers be 
allowed to establish a simplified 
process to create one or two lots. 

Many other organizations and 
municipalities raised a number of 
concerns with the Commission's 
proposal. Some concerns centred 



on the fear that severances would 
have to go through the lengthy 
process that subdivisions now go 
through, especially in areas where 
provincial approval is required. 
(The Commission, however, had 
always intended that upper tiers 
could set up different administra- 
tive arrangements, including a 
simpler process for simpler appli- 
cations.) Another concern was the 
possible removal of delegated 
consent authority from local 
municipalities, land division 
committees, and committees of 
adjustment. Concerns were also 
raised about the cost and delay in 
registering plans of subdivision. 
There have in the past been back- 
logs, but the Mirustry of Corisumer 
and Commercial Relations is 
streamlining the process and now 
finds that, on average, it takes six 
weeks to review a file and identi- 
fy necessary requisitions required 
from the applicant's lawyers or 
surveyors. In general, it appears 
that the complexity of the appli- 
cation — not whether it is a sub- 
division or a consent — is the 
primary factor governing the 
time for registration. 

A number of municipalities 
suggested that a needed improve- 
ment would be more timely 
responses from provincial 
agencies. To deal with the poten- 
tial abuse of the consent process, 
it was suggested, the require- 
ments for consent applications 
must be tightened. Many said 
that if appropriate planning poli- 
cies were in place (for example, to 
prevent groundwater contamina- 
tion), local municipalities should 
be permitted to exercise consent 
authority. 



Improvements to 
Subdivision and Consent 
Systems 

The Commission has concluded 
that the two existing administra- 
tive systems for lot creation — 
the plan of subdivision and the 
consent procedure — should be 
retained, provided both address 
the necessary range of issues. 

Some submitters suggested 
that a better distinction in the leg- 
islation is needed to direct which 
applications fit within which 
administrative procedure. For 
instance, some submitters argued 
that the consent procedure 
should be used only if fewer than 
a set number of lots are involved, 
such as five lots. However, setting 
a number limit does not stop 
someone from making multiple 
applications to create more lots. 
In fact, in situations where land is 
already fully serviced, creating a 
larger number of lots through a 
consent procedure may not be 
inappropriate. Conversely, creat- 
ing only a few lots through a plan 
of subdivision may be the better 
method if the municipality 
wishes to secure a road or other 
municipal service. 

Many submitters raised the 
issue of whether sections 50(5) 
and 50(7) of the Planning Act, 
dealing with part-lot control, 
would continue in force. The 
Commission is recommending 
that this authority would be 
retained. 

Current legislation requires 
"general" conformity to official 
plans. Many submitters com- 
mented that the word "general" 
allows decision-makers to 
approve matters which in fact do 



FINAL 



R 

86 



E P O R T 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



not really conform. Since this 
word creates uncertainty, it should 
be deleted. The Commission is 
recommending that the Planning 
Act be amended to require that 
plans of subdivision and consents 
be consistent with provincial 
policy, and conform to municipal 
plans. 

The concerns that need to be 
addressed when creating lots — 
whether by consent or by plan of 
subdivision — are the same. They 
differ only in respect to potential 
impacts resulting from the 
number of lots involved or the 
public interests to be secured. The 
Commission is recommending 
that the general legislative 
requirements be the same for 
applications for subdivision and 
for consent. As well, the matters 
to be dealt with in considering 
applications should be the same. 
The administrative procedures 
used and the level of studies 
needed to meet these requirements 
could vary, depending on the 
scale of development and the 
issues involved. For example, 
studies will vary according to 
whether the land is serviced, 
whether environmental features 
are present, whether it is shore- 
line property, and so forth. 

The consent procedure is the 
subdivision of one parcel of land 
into two lots, and the cost of 
requiring a survey with the 
application is often significant in 
relation to the risk involved in the 
application being approved. 
Accordingly, it seems unfair to 
require a survey to accompany 
the application for a consent. 
That survey can be supplied, if 
the consent is approved, before 



registration. Therefore, with 
respect to surveys, the current 
requirements of the Planning Act 
should continue. 

Issues of need and alternative 
locations do not have to be exam- 
ined in a review of an application 
that conforms to plans. Where 
required by provincial and 
municipal policies and plans, 
applications will be accompanied 
by an environmental impact 
study as described in Chapter 6, 
Municipal Plan-making. 
Decisions must not be made on 
applications until such studies 
are available. 

The Act should continue to 
include provisions which state 
that if conditions for a consent 
have not been met within one 
year, then the consent is deemed 
to be refused. Until 1983, legisla- 
tion provided that if conditions in 
a plan of subdivision were not 
met within three years, then the 
draft approval of the subdivision 
would lapse. The ability to termi- 
nate draft plan approval of a 
subdivision is important in cases 
where there are constraints on 
infrastructure. Some municipali- 
ties now include such provisions 
in subdivision agreements, and 
this authority should be clarified 
in legislation. In addition, amend- 
ments should permit draft 
approval to be terminated if 
conditions are not met by a time 
established in the draft approval. 

A reasonable period of time 
for a municipality to process an 
application for a plan of subdivi- 
sion is six months, and for a con- 
sent application, three months. If 
a decision has not been made 
within six months of submission 



of a complete application for a 
plan of subdivision, or within 
three months of submission of a 
complete application for a consent, 
an applicant should be able to 
appeal to the Ontario Municipal 
Board. Where a municipality has 
not taken effective action to 
respond to an application for a 
plan of subdivision, an applicant 
should be able to appeal to the 
Board 90 days after submitting a 
complete application. 

Delegation 

In a planning system where the 
province has articulated its poli- 
cies in policy statements and is 
responsible for approving the 
broad plans of upper tiers, 
separated municipalities, cities in 
the North, planning boards, and 
planning authorities, the respon- 
sibility for lot creation should rest 
with those municipal govern- 
ments responsible for issues of 
settlement patterns, infrastruc- 
ture, and general concerns about 
the natural environment. 

The Planning Act gives sub- 
division approval authority to the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
enables that authority to be 
delegated to a municipality only 
"on the request of the municipal 
council." In order to place 
responsibility for subdivision 
approvals on the municipalities 
that have the capacity to deal 
with them, once a comprehensive 
set of planning policies has been 
adopted, the Minister should 
delegate subdivision approval 
authority to, all those upper tiers, 
separated municipalities, cities in 
the North, planning boards, and 
planning authorities that have 



FINAL 



REPORT 

87 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



approved plans and are advised 
by a qualified planner (defined as 
a planner who can appear as an 
expert planning witness before 
the Ontario Municipal Board). 
The Planning Act should be 
amended to enable the Minister 
to undertake this delegation by 
order and to not require a resolu- 
tion of council before effecting 
the delegation. The Minister 
should also have the authority to 
charge municipalities an adminis- 
tration fee in those cases where 
the Minister continues to be 
responsible for subdivision 
approval. 

Applications for plans of 
subdivision involve questions of 
development control and detail, 
which are usually exercised by 
the lower-tier municipality. 
Several submissions asked the 
Commission to force the upper 
tier to delegate subdivision 
approvals to the lower tier, both 
in recognition of the relationship 
between subdivisions and devel- 
opment control and to prevent 
duplication in the administration 
of subdivision applications. 

Because of the broader issues 
involved, particularly servicing 
and the natural environment, the 
Commission is recommending 
that upper tiers not be permitted 
to delegate control over subdivi- 
sions to lower tiers. That power 
should remain with the upper 
tier, either with council or with 
staff, as council decides. 

Although upper tiers should 
retain the responsibility for sub- 
division approval, there will be a 
need for coordination of activities 
between the upper and lower 
tiers. Lower tiers do not have 



approval authority, but they are 
often actively involved in work- 
ing with an applicant before the 
upper tier gets involved. 

Different upper and lower 
tiers have worked out a number 
of administrative arrangements 
around subdivision approval. 
These arrangements include: 
upper-tier circulation and holding 
of any necessary meeting; lower- 
tier circulation and holding of the 
necessary meeting, with the 
lower tier making recommenda- 
tions to the upper tier; and dupli- 
cation by the upper tier of the 
process undertaken by the lower 
tier. In some cases, decisions are 
made entirely by upper-tier staff; 
in others, by upper-tier council 
on the recommendation of staff. 

To avoid duplication, it will 
be very important to ensure that 
the two levels of government 
coordinate their activities. The 
two levels should agree on which 
one will be responsible for circu- 
lation of the subdivision applica- 
tion; which one will provide 
public notice and hold the meet- 
ing where public comment takes 
place; and how the interests of 
the other are reasonably 
expressed and protected in the 
process. It would be unfortunate 
if the two levels vied with each 
other on processing and circula- 
tion to the detriment of applicants 
and the public. The actual 
arrangements should be worked 
out between the two levels. It is 
not appropriate for the province 
to dictate what this relationship 
will be. 



Under the Planning Act, 
consent authority is assigned — 
that is, given directly to — 
regions, counties, separated 
municipalities, and cities in the 
North. This authority should also 
be given to planning boards and 
planning authorities. As noted 
earlier, this authority can be dele- 
gated to others. From time to 
time, concerns have been raised 
about the manner in which deci- 
sions are made by either the body 
assigned the consent authority, or 
the body to which the authority 
has been further delegated. 

At the present time, the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs has 
no authority to withdraw the 
assigned consent-granting 
authority away from an upper 
tier, a separated municipality, or a 
city in the North. The legislation 
does enable the Minister to with- 
draw his or her approval of a 
delegation of this authority to a 
local municipality, and this 
authority should continue. In 
addition, the Planning Act should 
be amended to give the Minister 
the authority to revoke assigned 
consent-granting authority. 

The revocation of authority 
should occur only when a series 
of decisions are not consistent 
with provincial policy or do not 
conform to the municipal plan. In 
exercising this authority, the 
Minister must set out the condi- 
tions under which the municipal- 
ity or board would regain consent 
authority. 

The Minister should have the 
authority to charge municipalities 
for the cost of administering the 
approval function for plans of 
subdivision and consents. These 



FINAL REPORT 

88 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



charges should not extend to 
cover the cost of the review 
function of the Ministry. 

Although the Commission is 
recommending that, except where 
already delegated, consent- 
granting authority remain at the 
upper tier, there may be some 
limited situations in which 
consent-granting authority could 
in the future be delegated to a 
lower tier. The Commission is 
recommending that, with the 
approval of the Minister, respon- 
sibility for consent applicants 
may be delegated by the upper- 
tier municipality to lower-tier 
municipalities where: 

1. upper- and lower-tier plans 
have been adopted under the 
comprehensive set of provin- 
cial policy statements, and the 
lower-tier plan is in conformity 
with the upper-tier plan; and 

2. the lower tier is advised by a 
qualified planner (a "qualified 
planner" being one who can 
appear as an expert planning 
witness before the Ontario 
Municipal Board); and 

3. any conditions set by the 
upper tier are met. 

Whether at the upper- or 
lower-tier level, decisions about 
lot creation could be made by the 
responsible municipal council; or 
that council may delegate that 
power to a committee appointed 
by council as is now the case, or, 
to a municipal official. Appeals 
on lot-creation decisions should 
be able to be made to the Ontario 
Municipal Board by anyone. 
Recommendations about notice 
and appeals are made in 
Chapter 8, Public Livolvement. 



As noted, consent-granting 
authority has already been dele- 
gated to lower tiers, land division 
committees, and committees of 
adjustment, in many cases. That 
delegation should continue, as 
long as the upper tier is assured 
its responsibilities are being exer- 
cised in a reasonable manner; 
where they are not, the upper 
tier's ability to withdraw that 
delegation should continue. 

Given the importance of lot 
creation, public notification of 
applications and an opportunity 
for comment should become stan- 
dard practice. Recommendations 
on both matters are found in 
Chapter 8. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

56. The two existing administra- 
tive systems for lot creation 
— plans of subdivision and 
consents — be maintained. 
In addition, the current pro- 
visions of the Planning Act 
dealing with part-lot control 
should continue in force. 

57. The Planning Act provisions 
regarding plans of subdivi- 
sion and consents be 
amended: 

(a) To require both plans of 
subdivision and consents 
to be consistent with 
provincial policy and to 
conform to municipal 
plans. 



(b) To establish the same leg- 
islative requirements for 
both plans of subdivision 
and consents with respect 
to information to be 
provided in applications, 
and matters to be dealt 
with in considering 
applications. 

(c) To provide that draft sub- 
division plan approval 
may be terminated by the 
municipality if the condi- 
tions of draft approval 
are not met within a time 
established as a condi- 
tion of draft approval. 

(d) To provide that if a 
municipality has not 
decided on a completed 
application for a plan of 
subdivision six months 
after receiving it, or for a 
consent three months 
after receiving it, the 
applicant may appeal the 
matter to the Ontario 
Municipal Board. Where 
a municipality is not tak- 
ing effective action on an 
application for a plan of 
subdivision, an applicant 
may appeal to the 
Ontario Municipal Board 
90 days after filing a com- 
plete application. 

58. The current requirement for 
boundary surveys to be sub- 
mitted with applications for 
plans of subdivision, and the 
current exemption from this 
requirement for consent 
applications, be maintained. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
89 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



I 



59. The responsibility for lot 
creation generally reside 
with the body responsible 
for the broad plan and, to 
this end, the Planning Act be 
amended: 

(a) To enable the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning, by order, after 
adoption of a comprehen- 
sive set of planning 
policies, to delegate 
responsibility for sub- 
division approval to 
upper-tier municipalities, 
separated municipalities, 
cities in the North, plan- 
ning boards, and planning 
authorities, provided 
they have a municipal 
plan and are advised by a 
qualified planner (that is, 
a planner who can appear 
as an expert planning 
witness before the 
Ontario Municipal 
Board); and to provide 
that this authority may 
not be delegated to lower 
tiers. 

(b) To assign the authority to 
grant consents to planning 
boards and authorities as 
well as to upper-tier 
municipalities, separated 
municipalities, and cities 
in the North; and to 
enable the Minister to 
withdraw this assigned 
consent-granting 
authority where there is 
evidence that the 
authority is not being 
properly carried out. 



(c) To give the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning the authority to 
charge municipalities an 
administrative fee where 
the Minister exercises 
approval authority for 
subdivisions and 
consents. 

(d) To provide that upper-tier 
municipalities may 
delegate consent-granting 
authority to lower-tier 
municipalities, on the 
approval of the Minister, 
where: 

(i) upper- and lower-tier 
plans have been 
adopted under the 
proposed comprehen- 
sive set of provincial 
policy statements and 
the lower-tier plan is 
in conformity with 
the upper-tier plan; 
and 
(ii) the lower tier is 

advised by a qualified 
planner (that is, a 
planner who can 
appear as an expert 
planning witness 
before the Ontario 
Municipal Board); 
and 
(iii) any conditions set by 
the upper tier are met. 

The authority of the Minister 
to revoke such delegation 
and to return consent- 
granting authority to the 
upper tier should be 
maintained. 



60. Where consent-granting 
authority has already been 
delegated to lower-tier 
municipalities, such delega- 
tion continue, provided the 
upper tier is satisfied its 
responsibilities are being 
exercised in a responsible 
way. The authority for the 
upper tier to withdraw 
delegated responsibility 
should continue. 



Development Control 

Development controls are the 
tools used to implement policies 
in a plan. They ensure that devel- 
opment proposals conform to the 
plan and that plan policies can 
actually be enforced. 

Since they apply to particular 
proposals, development controls 
by their very nature deal with 
questions of detail. The broader 
questions have already been 
addressed in municipal plans and 
no longer are up for debate when 
a development proposal is being 
considered. The variety of devel- 
opment control tools available to 
municipalities are discussed 
below. 

Zoning 

Zoning is the most common 
method of development control 
used by municipalities. Zoning 
by-laws permit specified uses, 
and they prohibit any uses not 
permitted. 

One issue that a number of 
submissions dealt with is the idea 
of "inclusive zoning"; that is, 
requiring that certain uses, such 
as affordable housing, be required 
to be provided in communities. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
90 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



Zoning, however, cannot require 
that certain uses occur; the nature 
of zoning is to exclude rather 
than include. Legislation can, 
however, prohibit certain uses 
from being prohibited. In 1989, 
the province legislated that 
municipal zoning could not dis- 
tinguish between related and 
unrelated people living in the 
same house; and currently, the 
province is proposing legislation 
to prevent zoning from prohibit- 
ing a second unit in a house. 

Other submissions suggested 
a different approach to the same 
concern: that the Ontario Human 
Rights Code be specifically 
invoked to ensure no one is 
prohibited from living in any 
community. The Ontario Human 
Rights Code applies throughout 
Ontario. Specifically making ref- 
erence to the Code in planning 
matters probably does nothing to 
enhance its applicability. 

Some submissions urged that 
the Commission permit muni- 
cipalities to put a sunset provision 
or time limit on site-specific 
rezonings. If the project is not 
underway within two or three 
years after a site-specific rezoning 
had been granted, they argued, 
the rezoning should cease to take 
effect and the original zoning 
would again be applicable. A 
sunset provision for rezoning 
does not seem supportable. If the 
rezoning conforms to policy and 
the municipal plan, why should it 
not remain in effect? 

Another point raised with the 
Commission was the manner in 
which zoning instruments are 
used. Some suggested the 
Commission recommend that 
municipalities be required to 



permit residents to work from 
their homes. The Commission 
believes this could be addressed 
in policy, but suggests it is better 
left to individual municipalities 
to determine what home occupa- 
tions might be permitted, and 
subject to what conditions. Some 
wondered if municipalities might 
not be better off regulating the 
bulk and height instead of the 
density or permissible floor area 
of buildings. Setting conditions 
for bulk and height, they argue, is 
a better control over how a build- 
ing will sit on a site and relate to 
its neighbours than having densi- 
ty zoning. However, zoning is 
just as capable of regulating the 
latter as the former. It is a matter 
of municipal choice. 

In the same vein, some sub- 
mitters suggested that many 
municipalities have gone over- 
board in the amount of detail 
loaded into the zoning by-law, 
making it difficult to do much of 
anything without requiring a 
minor variance or rezoning. They 
wanted "as-of-right zoning," 
which would permit changes 
such as intensification of main 
streets without the need for 
rezonings. This, too, is a matter of 
municipal choice. Municipalities 
are empowered to create zoning 
designations that permit change. 
Indeed, although recent fashion 
has been to impose zoning which 
as much as possible reflects exist- 
ing built form and uses so that 
changes to structures and uses 
are not possible without council 
approval, the zoning by-laws of 
30 years ago allowed a consider- 
able amount of change to take 
place without municipal 
approval. Municipalities might 



well be advised to have a lighter 
touch, but this is not a matter for 
legislation to address. 

Rezonings must conform with 
the municipal plan. Applicants 
should expect such applications 
to be dealt with expeditiously, 
except when they accompany a 
municipal plan amendment. 

Current legislation states that 
if a rezoning application is not 
dealt with in 30 days, an appeal 
may be made to the Ontario 
Municipal Board. For the same 
reasons noted in Chapter 6, 
Municipal Plan-making, for plan 
amendment applications, it is 
very difficult for a council deci- 
sion to be made on a rezoning 
application in this period. The 
Commission is recommending 
this period be 90 days. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

61. The Planning Act be amended 
to provide that if a muni- 
cipality has not decided on a 
rezoning application within 
90 days of receiving a com- 
pleted application, the 
applicant may appeal the 
matter to the Ontario 
Municipal Board. 



FINAL REPORT 
91 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



Water Zoning and 
Regulations 

The uses permitted on land and 
the ways in which they are man- 
aged can have a significant effect 
on water. The uses that occur on 
water can have just as significant 
an effect on land, and should be 
controlled in the same manner. 
Municipalities should have the 
power to address these issues. 
A number of distinct water 
and boating uses may require 
regulation to protect other 
boaters, users of adjacent land, 
and the natural environment. 
These include anchorage, 
swimming, racing, and protected 
wilderness. However, there are a 
number of jurisdictional compli- 
cations that must be addressed. 

All navigation in Canada, 
including recreational boating, is 
controlled by the Canada Shipping 
Act. While the federal interest is 
mostly in commercial shipping 
and safety, the Boating Restriction 
Regulations under that Act per- 
mits control over speed, water- 
skiing, and the use of power boats. 

If a municipality wishes to 
impose a speed limit on a stretch 
of water, it must apply to the 
Ministry of Natural Resources. 
The Ministry of Natural Resources 
then negotiates with federal 
officials, and after federal review 
a decision is made. 

The whole subject of water 
use and zoning is relatively new, 
and the opportunities for action 
are only now being explored. The 
various interests — the federal 
government, the province, 
municipalities, cottagers, boaters, 
marina operators — will have to 
work together to determine how 



numerous objectives can be 
resolved at one time to protect the 
natural heritage while providing 
varied recreational experiences. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

62. To provide for more local 
regulation of waterways in 
the province: 

(a) The province begin nego- 
tiations with the federal 
government to delegate 
the administration of the 
regulation of recreational 
boating to the province, 
similar to the current del- 
egation of the adminis- 
tration of some sections 
of the federal Fisheries 
Act. 
(b) The ministry responsible 
for recreational boating 
consult with the 
Association of 
Municipalities of Ontario, 
affected municipalities, 
cottager associations, 
boating associations, and 
others, to discuss admin- 
istrative arrangements 
regarding requests for 
speed limits, signage, 
and general implementa- 
tion, including effective 
policing, 
(c) The province begin nego- 
tiations with the federal 
government to amend 
appropriate legislation to 
permit municipalities to 
plan for and place appro- 
priate water-use designa- 
tions on inland water 
bodies. 



Streetscape and Physical 
Design Guidelines 

Design guidelines help create 
coherence of physical form and 
predictable and pleasing relation- 
ships between buildings, streets, 
and landscapes. Streetscapes 
from previous centuries convey 
the feeling that the buildings 
were designed with common 
principles in mind. Many 
observers have noted this quality 
about European cities or even 
blocks of 19th century commer- 
cial and housing developments in 
Canadian cities and towns. 

While site-plan control helps 
municipalities exercise control 
over the form of specific building 
proposals, design guidelines are a 
method of establishing policy 
direction over general building 
form in a defined area. Their use 
has recently attracted considerable 
attention. Andres Duany and 
Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, the 
designers of Seaside in Florida 
and numerous other new com- 
munities in the United States and 
Canada, including a large devel- 
opment site in Markham, 
Ontario, base much of their plan- 
ning emphasis on design controls 
rather than use or density The 
controls they recommend deal 
with building placement (they 
emphasize setbacks and build-to 
lines); height; location of parking; 
and location of permitted 
balconies and stoops. In the 
United Kingdom, planner Leon 
Krier, who has designed a new 
community being developed by 
the Prince of Wales, advocates a 
similar approach. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
92 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



The Planning Act currently 
authorizes site-plan control to 
deal with the details of individual 
buildings, but it does not recog- 
nize design guidelines that specify 
common parameters for groups 
of buildings on the same street. 

Design guidelines describe, 
within a defined district such as a 
section of the downtown, the 
desired relationship of buildings 
to one another and to the street, 
with reference to location and 
bulk. The simplest design controls 
are setbacks from street-lines and 
build-to lines, and height. Both 
can be implemented through 
zoning. Setbacks are important to 
ensure some uniformity in the 
manner in which streets and 
public open space is designed; for 
instance, there is a significant 
difference between the feel of a 
commercial street where parking 
is allowed between the sidewalk 
and the front of buildings, and 
one where buildings are located 
at the edge of the sidewalk. 
Height is important because of its 
effects on sunlight, wind, and 
view-planes. Other provisions 
could be used such as angular 
planes, which would Hmit height 
according to angles measured 
from street-lines; or slanted and 
straight roof-lines. Again, these 
can be secured by zoning. 
Matters of further detail can be 
secured through site-plan control. 



To ensure design guidelines 
are known, they should be stated 
in a municipal, area, or neigh- 
bourhood plan. The development 
of design guidelines for a district 
proposed for intensification 
would provide an excellent 
opportunity for public debate on 
general design questions. The 
guidelines can be implemented 
through municipal plan policies, 
zoning, and site-plan control. No 
extra development control tools 
are needed. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

63. Municipalities be encouraged 
to prepare, with full public 
consultation, design guide- 
lines for defined districts, 
and include them in a 
municipal, area, or neigh- 
bourhood plan. Design 
guidelines would be imple- 
mented through zoning and 
site-plan powers already 
available to municipalities. 



Site-Plan Control 

Whereas design guidelines set 
out the principles for structures 
in defined districts, site-plan con- 
trol deals with individual projects 
on a site-by-site basis. Current 
site-plan control provisions per- 
mit municipalities to designate 
areas in official plans where 
applicants, prior to obtaining a 
building permit, must enter into 
agreements regarding such 
matters as the siting of structures, 
ingress and egress, utilities, and 
landscaping. Site-plan control 
agreements are the last stage of 
development approval. 

The intent of site-plan control 
was to permit council to deal 
with the placement of buildings 
on the lot. As developments have 
grown in scale, with significant 
impacts on the street and neigh- 
bouring properties, such matters 
have become increasingly impor- 
tant. In exercising their powers, 
many councils have attempted to 
extend their authority to include 
architectural detail and colour. In 
the rush for final approval, 
developers have often held their 
tongues and agreed to things 
they considered both unnecessary 
and not permitted by legislation. 

Site-plan matters are questions 
of detail, and the current Planning 
Act does not contain provision for 
public involvement. Negotiation 
of site-plan agreements is gener- 
ally left to staff. Many site-plan 
cases deal with minor, non-con- 
tentious matters that are easily 
resolved between the staff and 
the developer. 

Some submitters suggested 
that public notification for site 
plans should be a requirement of 



FINAL 



REPORT 
93 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



the Planning Act. However, many 
large projects are subject to 
rezoning and will require public 
notification and discussion, 
where many site-related issues 
can be raised and resolved. These 
processes should ensure that the 
public is involved in most 
matters of major public interest. 

There may, however, be cases 
where rezoning is not required, 
but where the issues raised at the 
site-plan stage are significant 
enough that staff alone cannot be 
expected to resolve them. Public 
comment and political debate 
may be useful in these situations. 
Some councils now use procedures 
where opportunities for public 
comment and council debate are 
provided. Rather than recom- 
mending that public notification 
be required, the Commission 
recommends leaving to councils 
the question of whether the pub- 
lic is involved in the exercise of 
site planning, and under what 
circumstances. The Planning Act 
should be amended to permit 
councils to develop policies and 
procedures for how and when 
public input into site-plan review 
occurs. 

Some submissions noted that 
municipalities take the opportu- 
nities provided by site-plan 
control to require applicants for 
plan amendments and rezonings 
to submit detailed plans with the 
application for plan amendment 
or rezoning. Before spending 
money on details, applicants 
often prefer settling the general 
questions of what is to be permit- 
ted. It was suggested that the 
solution to this problem would be 
a two-stage site-plan application. 



The first stage, as planning 
parameters are being settled, 
would require only small 
amounts of design information; 
the second stage, once plans and 
zoning had been agreed to, 
would require detailed drawings 
of buildings. 

But this division is hard to 
enforce in the real world, and a 
two-stage process would likely 
lead only to further confusion, 
with neither time nor money 
saved by the applicant. In short, 
the issue is mainly one of reason- 
able municipal demands and 
coordination of review processes. 

Site-plan controls must be 
consistent with provincial policy 
and conform to municipal policy, 
and zoning by-laws. As a method 
of achieving public objectives, 
some municipalities have found 
undertakings (non-registered 
agreements) from developers to 
be as effective as registered site- 
plan agreements — and speedier. 
This procedure should be 
explored by municipalities. 

Under the current legislation, 
an applicant may appeal to the 
Ontario Municipal Board if a 
decision has not been made within 
30 days of a site-plan application's 
being received or if the applicant 
is not satisfied with any of the 
requirements made by the muni- 
cipality. This right of appeal 
should be maintained. 

Legislated authority for site- 
plan agreements should be 
widened to include other matters 
of an operational nature. These 
matters include on-site require- 
ments to deal with off-site 
impacts; any requirement regard- 
ing phasing, infrastructure, or 



other matters authorized by 
provincial or municipal pohcy 
(for example, an agreement on 
the provision of affordable hous- 
ing or clean-up of contaminated 
sites); conditions necessary for 
environmental protection and 
restoration, including storm-water 
management, site alterations, 
monitoring, and noise; and finan- 
cial arrangements, including 
letters of credit. 

Section 41(8) of the Planning 
Act requires that regions and 
counties be consulted about site- 
plan matters and be given a 
reasonable opportunity to enter 
into agreements with the appli- 
cant regarding regional or county 
road matters, including requiring 
land dedication for future road 
widenings. A number of muni- 
cipalities noted that this section 
should be broadened to permit 
regions and counties to impose 
conditions for public transit. The 
Commission agrees. 

It has also been suggested 
that counties and regions should 
be able to include other site-plan 
matters in agreements. The 
Commission feels it is important 
to distinguish clearly the roles of 
upper and lower tiers in site-plan 
control and avoid duplication or 
conflict. Since site-plan matters 
are primarily matters of detail 
related to development control, 
site-plan control should continue 
to be the responsibility of the 
lower tier, except where all devel- 
opment control responsibility has 
been transferred to the upper tier. 

The Commission in its Draft 
Report recognized the consider- 
able debate about whether council 
should control the colour of 



FINAL REPORT 

94 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



buildings, the types and textures 
of materials, and /or architectural 
detail. One submission noted: 
"The public is affected by ugly or 
inconsistent buildings and 
streetscapes and by startling 
changes in the character of built 
form. People complain, object to 
and appeal such matters ... Fifty 
years ago there was no need for 
design guidelines or codes. The 
vernacular governed and every- 
one knew what to expect and 
accepted what would be built. 
Change was evolutionary rather 
than revolutionary. Now, in 
contrast, we are in an era of 
architectural statements, corpo- 
rate images, "power" buildings, 
"power" houses, and, in general, 
buildings that are designed to 
command the attention or respect 
of the passer-by." 

A number of submissions 
argued council should have the 
ability to control the colour of 
buildings, the materials in which 
they would be clad, window 
openings, and other matters of 
architectural design. 

For obvious reasons, it is 
reasonable to exercise this control 
over existing buildings designated 
pursuant to the Ontario Heritage 
Act; such buildings have already 
been selected for special attention. 
The Commission has no intention 
of recommending changes to this 
existing control on existing 
buildings. 

But the Commission has con- 
siderable doubt that similar 
controls should extend to other 
existing buildings and to new 
buildings. As already noted, 
municipalities are encouraged to 
adopt design guidelines for 



districts where it is important to 
achieve consistency between 
buildings on a street. But that 
power should not go so far as the 
municipality telling applicants 
what colours must be used, what 
material will be employed, or 
how doors and windows are to 
be designed. Few homeowners 
would support council dictating 
the colours of house trim, and 
whether or not aluminum or 
wood siding would be permitted. 
Council should not be permitted 
to set rules on these matters for 
other owners. Council can 
attempt to negotiate such matters, 
but should not have the power to 
impose its ideas unwillingly on 
the applicant. 

As another submission noted: 
"Design, like art, is ... something 
we should not try to control." 
Design guidelines provide 
adequate protection to the public 
interests, along with current 
provisions of site-plan control, 
even for buildings in prominent 
locations. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending that current provisions 
of site-plan approvals not be 
expanded to include colour, 
texture, type of materials, win- 
dow detail, construction details, 
architectural detail, and interior 
design. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

64. The site-plan control 
provisions of the Planning 
Act be amended: 



(a) To authorize municipali- 
ties and planning boards, 
in cases where the council 
or board decides to permit 
public consultation in the 
site-plan process, to 
develop procedures for 
how and when public 
input into site-plan 
review occurs. 

(b) To widen the authority 
for site-plan agreements 
to include: 

(i) on-site requirements 
to deal with off-site 
impacts; 

(ii) any requirement 
regarding phasing, 
infrastructure, or other 
matter authorized by 
the municipal plan 
and provincial 
legislation; 
(ill) conditions necessary 
for environmental 
protection and 
restoration, including 
storm-water manage- 
ment, site alterations, 
monitoring, and 
noise; 

(iv) financial arrange- 
ments, including 
letters of credit. 

(c) To authorize regions and 
counties to impose condi- 
tions for public transit 
purposes. 

65. Current provisions of site- 
plan control not be expanded 
to include colour, texture, 
type of materials, window 
detail, construction details, 
architectural detail, and 
interior design. 



FINAL REPORT 
95 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



Development Permits 

In some Canadian jurisdictions, 
development is reviewed under a 
development permit system, as 
an alternative to site-specific zon- 
ing and site plans. In these situa- 
tions, council sets the general 
policies of acceptable develop- 
ment in designated districts, and 
the details are determined by 
staff in negotiation with the 
applicant. This process resolves 
detail in a speedy manner, helps 
tailor development to the condi- 
tions and peculiarities of the site 
on which it is located, and ensures 
that stated public objectives are 
met. This process does not deal 
with lot creation. 

Unlike the site-plan control 
process, the development permit 
process allows details of density 
and use, as well as matters of 
physical form, to be included in 
negotiations conducted by staff. 
Thus, in a development permit 
system, council must set limits on 
the discretion to be exercised by 
staff with respect to density and 
use. As well, design guidelines, 
into which new structures must 
generally fit, must be established. 

An important question is the 
extent to which the public 
becomes involved after council 
sets policies about design 
guidelines and the limits of staff 
discretion. On the filing of an 
application, Vancouver requires 
the posting of a drawing of the 
proposed project on the site, with 
appropriate telephone numbers 
to call for information. The plan- 
ning staff handling the applica- 
tion are often identified as well. 
Applications are rarely referred 
to council, but are handled by a 



staff committee in consultation 
with a small review committee 
appointed by council and consist- 
ing of individuals with an interest 
in development and design. 

Adapting this system to the 
Ontario milieu may require some 
experimentation, but the similari- 
ties to processes for design guide- 
lines and site-plan control seem 
quite clear. 

In essence, the development 
permit system might be charac- 
terized as one where the policies 
— general densities and uses, and 
design guidelines — are set by 
council, and the details are then 
worked out on a site-by-site basis 
between the applicant and the 
staff, with some public input. 
Processes for site-specific rezoning 
and site-plan control would not 
be needed, so the potential for 
saving time is considerable. For 
some Ontario municipalities, 
such an approach has much to 
offer. The Commission is recom- 
mending that municipalities be 
allowed to adopt a development 
permit system. 

A committee should be 
appointed by council to advise 
the staff committee dealing with 
applications. The committee 
should represent a broad range of 
interests such as developers, com- 
munity leaders, and individuals 
with an interest in design. 

Public involvement should be 
limited to two instances beyond 
the general debate on the guide- 
lines adopted. In the first, follow- 
ing notice of an application, there 
would be comment to staff and 
the appointed committee. In the 
second, if a development permit 
moves from the purview of the 



staff committee to be debated by 
council, comment would be 
pursuant to policy adopted by 
council. Notification of applica- 
tions and notification of decisions 
should be the same as for rezon- 
ings, described in Chapter 8, 
Public Involvement. Appeals 
should be permitted to the 
Ontario Municipal Board on 
development permit decisions. 
The key is ensuring that no 
duplication exists between the 
development permit system and 
other development control 
systems. In districts where 
development control is in place, 
the traditional rezoning, minor 
variance, and site-plan process 
should not be available as a 
method of controlling and autho- 
rizing development applications. 
One system excludes the other. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

66. The P/fl«mng Act be amended 
to permit a municipality to 
adopt a development permit 
process for any district in a 
municipality, and to delegate 
permit approvals to staff, 
provided the municipality: 
(a) has adopted in the 

municipal plan develop- 
ment permit districts 
defining densities, uses, 
design guidelines, and 
other requirements — 
such as environmental 
impact study require- 
ments — for the affected 
part of the municipality; 
and 



FINAL 



REPORT 
96 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



(b) has appointed an advisory 
committee consisting of 
members representing a 
broad range of interests, 
such as developers, 
community leaders, and 
individuals with an 
interest in design, to 
advise staff on develop- 
ment permit applications; 
and 

(c) has adopted a policy out- 
lining conditions under 
which development per- 
mit applications will be 
considered by council 
rather than by staff. 

67. The Planning Act be amended 
to provide that appeals of 
development permit 
decisions be made to the 
Ontario Municipal Board. 

If a municipality has not 
decided on a development 
permit application within 90 
days of receiving a completed 
application, the applicant 
may appeal the matter to the 
Ontario Municipal Board. 

68. In districts where the 
development permit process 
is in place, the traditional 
rezoning/site-plan approval 
process should not apply. 



Sewage and Water 
Allocations 

In some municipalities, where 
sewage and water capacities are 
limited, allocations have been 
made to developments that seem 
unlikely ever to proceed, blocking 
other opportunities for new 
development. A sunset provision 
should be included in subdivision 
agreements so that the allocation, 
if not used, may be recalled and 
re-allocated. If these rules are set 
in policy and known in advance, 
developers can then plan within 
them. A fair process is important 
for the success of these 
arrangements. 

Accordingly, the Commission 
is recommending that legislation 
permit council to establish in the 
municipal plan sunset provisions 
on sewage and water allocations. 
As a transitional matter, the legis- 
lation should provide that in 
cases where an allocation was 
made before this new legislation 
was passed or before council has 
established policies pursuant to 
the new legislation, such alloca- 
tions cannot be taken away until 
at least 12 months after the 
municipality has adopted such 
policies. 

An owner losing a sewage or 
water allocation should have the 
right to appeal the withdrawal of 
the allocation to the Ontario 
Municipal Board. 

Municipalities should also 
have the authority to reserve 
capacity for a reasonable amount 
of development that might pro- 
ceed without plan of subdivision, 
such as minor infill and second 
units. 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

69. The Planning Act be 
amended: 

(a) To authorize municipali- 
ties to establish in the 
municipal plan sunset 
provisions on sewage 
and water allocations; 
and that the legislation 
provide, as a transitional 
matter, that allocations 
made before the legisla- 
tion is passed may be 
withdrawn no sooner 
than 12 months after the 
municipality has adopted 
policies pursuant to the 
legislation. 

(b) To provide that any 
owner losing a sewage or 
water allocation has the 
right to appeal the with- 
drawal of that allocation 
to the Ontario Municipal 
Board. 

(c) To authorize municipali- 
ties to reserve sewer and 
water capacity for a 
reasonable amount of 
development that might 
proceed without plan of 
subdivision, such as 
minor infill and second 
units. 



FINAL REPORT 
97 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



Bonusing and Density 
Transfers 

Bonusing is the awarding of extra 
density or development rights in 
return for specified public bene- 
fits. Ad hoc, site-by-site bonusing 
generally has not worked well, 
and the public does not like it: it 
smacks of "let's make a deal" 
planning. Planners complain they 
are put in the unenviable position 
of being questioned on whether 
they negotiated a good enough 
deal. Ad hoc bonusing makes a 
mockery of certainty in planning, 
and it should not be allowed. 

However, council should be 
authorized to set general policies 
permitting bonuses in defined 
districts in return for stated public 
benefits, provided a proposal 
meets clear criteria set by council. 
Policies must establish the maxi- 
mum bonus that can be achieved, 
and the public benefits for which 
a bonus may be given. If these 
details are known to everyone, 
bonusing can be a useful plan- 
ning tool for the municipality, 
since it is a way of obtaining 
public benefits that might not 
otherwise be secured. 

Transfer of density refers to 
arrangements where density 
rights are removed or reduced 
from one site (and an appropriate 
agreement is registered on title) 
and transferred to another. These 
arrangements, while rare, can pro- 
duce public benefits in cases of 
large developments. For example, 
transfers have been helpful in 
protecting historic buildings and 
securing open space. 



But, as with bonusing, policies 
must be set in advance and not 
case-by-case. Council should be 
authorized to permit any transfer 
of density if the municipal plan 
states the policies outlining the 
purposes and criteria of such 
transfers — and establishes geo- 
graphical limits for development 
districts within which transfers 
can occur. Municipalities must 
have the ability to secure 
obligations by agreement. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

70. The Planning Act be amended 
to clarify that: 

(a) Municipalities be autho- 
rized to permit bonuses in 
defined districts in return 
for stated public benefits, 
provided the municipal 
plan establishes the max- 
imum bonus that can be 
achieved and the public 
benefits for which a 
bonus may be given. 

(b) Municipalities be autho- 
rized to permit any trans- 
fer of density if the 
municipal plan states the 
policies outlining the 
purposes and criteria of 
such transfers, and estab- 
lishes geographical limits 
for development districts 
within which transfers 
may occur. 



Site Alterations 

Many submissions expressed 
concern about the limited powers 
available to prevent an owner from 
removing vegetation on a site, or 
from radically changing contours. 
Such actions not only have a signif- 
icant impact on local natural sys- 
tems (including changes to storm- 
water flow and impacts on rivers 
and streams), but also can alter the 
character of an area in quite pro- 
found ways. While the ownership 
of property clearly implies the abil- 
ity to use and make alterations to 
that property, it should be subject 
to reasonable controls. 

Municipalities are in the best 
position to set appropriate controls 
and to ensure they are enforced. 
Controls will vary from place to 
place. Controls on site alteration 
in cottage country will be different 
from those in farming communi- 
ties. What is needed in some 
parts ofihe municipality will not 
be needed elsewhere in the same 
municipality. 

Municipalities need compre- 
hensive powers to control alter- 
ations of sites, whether grading, 
dumping, tree-cutting, or 
removal of materials like peat. 
Control over topsoil removal is 
addressed through the Topsoil 
Preservation Act and amendments 
have been proposed to the Trees 
Act to give municipalities addi- 
tional controls over tree-cutting; 
but what is required is a more 
general authority. 

Issues that must be addressed 
include identifying the kinds of 
activities that should be controlled 
and determining how to prevent 
destruction in advance of new 
controls and effective remedies. 



FINAL REPORT 

98 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



To ensure destruction does 
not take place in anticipation of 
new site-alteration by-laws, 
municipalities should be permit- 
ted to set controls without prior 
notice — provided notice imme- 
diately follows the decision and 
that opportunities for public 
debate and possible reconsidera- 
tion are then available. 

Further, the municipality 
should be assured power of entry 
to inspect sites. Often, site alter- 
ations take place out of public 
view, and entry onto the site will 
be necessary to determine what is 
happening. 

Any person should be allowed 
to apply to the courts for injunc- 
tive relief in cases where it seems 
unauthorized site alterations are 
about to occur. In cases where 
court-imposed fines are not a suf- 
ficient method to restore sites, the 
municipality should be assured it 
has the ability to restore the site 
itself and levy costs on the prop- 
erty taxes. Authority similar to 
that under section 31 of the 
Planning Act to remedy breaches 
of maintenance and occupancy 
by-laws should be available to 
municipalities once the authority 
over site alterations is established 
and the power of entry for 
inspection is clear. 

Councils will make use of the 
powers suggested here in differ- 
ent ways and to different degrees. 
The powers being suggested are 
discretionary, not mandatory. 
And, as suggested, the municipal- 
ity should be permitted to impose 
different site-alteration standards 
and controls in different parts of 
the municipality. 



Controls should not be permit- 
ted to interfere with alterations 
authorized under the Drainage 
Act, or with farm tile drainage or 
other normal farming practices. 
Representations that utilities and 
railways be exempted from site- 
alteration control were made to 
the Commission, but there seems 
no good reason to provide a 
provincewide blanket exemption, 
given the amount of land owned 
by railways and hydro companies 
across the province. Municipalities 
will be able to work out reasonable 
arrangements suitable to all 
interests. 

The ability to control site 
alterations should rest with the 
lower-tier government, since it is 
the one most involved in the 
details of implementation. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

71. To provide municipalities 
with general authority to 
regulate site alterations, the 
Planning Act and other 
applicable legislation be 
amended: 

(a) To permit municipalities 
to regulate tree-cutting, 
vegetation removal, 
changes in elevation, 
placement and removal 
of fill, and removal of 
peat. The controls should 
not apply to alterations 
authorized under the 
Drainage Act or to farm 
tile drainage or other 
normal farming practices. 



(b) To permit municipalities 
to designate districts and 
apply different levels of 
site-alteration control to 
different districts, pro- 
vided policies for each 
are spelled out in the 
municipal plan or 
appropriate by-law. 

(c) To permit municipalities, 
in order to control tree- 
cutting and other site 
changes in anticipation 
of new rules, to set 
interim controls in a 
district without prior 
public notice, provided 
notice immediately 
follows the decision and 
opportunities for public 
debate and reconsidera- 
tion are then made 
available. 

(d) To permit municipalities 
to enter the property for 
the purpose of inspections 
to ensure compliance 
with municipal by-laws. 

(e) To provide adequate 
penalties and remedies 
for breach of site- 
alteration by-laws, 
including injunctive 
relief, and including the 
ability to restore the site 
and recover costs for 
restoration. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
99 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



Minor Variances 

As discussed in Chapter 9, 
Conflicts, Disputes, and Appeals, 
the Commission is recommending 
that appeals from decisions on 
minor variances to zoning by-laws 
be heard by the municipal council, 
not the Ontario Municipal Board. 
This recommendation is made 
with the understanding that 
interest in minor variances is very 
local in nature, and disputes 
should be resolved locally. This 
change will ensure that appellants 
can be heard as quickly as council 
deems, rather than having to wait 
the considerable amount of time 
now needed to arrange a Board 
hearing. 

More than 90 percent of deci- 
sions are not appealed, however, 
and, as a number of submissions 
observed, it seems unfortunate 
that the vast majority of decisions 
should have to be delayed for 
30 days to determine if an appeal 
will be made. The notice of deci- 
sion will not be the first time 
interested parties hear of the 
matter — notification of the 
application is given to those in 
the area before a committee of 
adjustment hearing occurs. In sum, 
an appeal period of 14 calendar 
days from notification of the 
decision should provide adequate 
opportunity for parties to 
determine if they wish to appeal. 
As well, the Commission proposes 
to increase the 10-day notice 
period for committee of adjust- 
ment hearings to 14 days. 
Recommendations on these 
matters are found in Chapter 9. 



Hearings and decision-making 
processes of committees of 
adjustment should be conducted 
completely in public, as indicated 
in Chapter 8, Public Involvement. 
A number of submissions indicat- 
ed dissatisfaction that some 
committees held public hearings, 
but then discussed and made 
decisions in private. 

One submission urged that 
the Planning Act be amended to 
make it clear that committees of 
adjustment be permitted to deal 
with minor variances of use. As 
councils become more particular 
about the precise nature of some 
uses — some councils distinguish 
among barber shops, hairdressing 
salons, and beauty parlours — 
and as uses have a habit of slight- 
ly changing their focus as they 
respond to the market, it is 
important that some mechanism 
be readily available to authorize 
minor changes in use. 

The Commission proposed in 
its Draft Report that, to speed the 
processing on some defined 
minor variances, staff be permitted 
to decide on them. There was 
considerable opposition to this 
proposal, which is not being 
recommended. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

72. Legislation be amended to 
clearly authorize committees 
of adjustment to consider 
minor variances of use. 



Development Standards 

Development standards are the 
detailed municipal requirements 
that developers must follow as 
they implement specific projects. 
They are of provincial interest for 
two reasons. First, they can have a 
substantial impact on the form of 
development and on the natural 
environment, and thus are related 
to the implementation of provin- 
cial policies. Second, the extra 
costs incurred if standards are 
higher than necessary can be 
significant across the province. 

Some standards can accent 
and augment sprawl and discour- 
age reasonable compactness. 
Some can require expenditures 
for what many call "gold-plated 
standards," which result in higher 
housing prices. And in some cases, 
the developer has no reasonable 
recourse to fight an unreasonable 
standard imposed late in the 
development process. 

The province should focus 
attention on such questions as: 
what risk should the standard be 
designed to bear? how uncommon 
an occurrence should the standard 
be expected to meet? should local 
storm-water systems be built to 
handle the worst storm expected 
over 10 years or 25 years? should 
cul-de-sacs be wide enough to 
accommodate an aerial fire truck 
for turnarounds? 

While the province should 
not set development standards to 
which municipalities must adhere, 
it should advise municipalities 
and the development industry of 
standards it considers reasonable, 
recognizing that conditions vary 
across the province. What works 
in Metro Toronto may not work 



FINAL 



REPORT 
100 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



in North Bay or Bayfield. 

Development standards 
should be based on the following 
general principles: 

• The standards should be 
consistent with provincial 
policies and conform to 
municipal plans and, in 
particular, should respect and 
protect significant natural and 
cultural features. 

• Standards that rely on natural 
processes to resolve potential 
problems are preferred over 
technical intervention. 

• Standards should contem- 
plate and encourage compact 
development and make 
efficient use of land. 

• Standards based on recre- 
ational and social- and health- 
service levels should take into 
account changing demo- 
graphic patterns, actual use, 
and changing social values. 

• Acceptable standards should 
minimize construction, main- 
tenance, and replacement 
costs. 

Several issues need to be 
addressed. A number of muni- 
cipalities indicated they thought 
standards relating to zoning — 
setbacks, minimum frontages, 
parking requirements — were 
entirely local in nature and should 
not be addressed on a provincial 
basis. Other issues, however, are 
more technical in nature, and 
since they involve questions of 
"best practice," can fruitfully be 
addressed in a manner that will 
help inform all municipalities. It 
may be appropriate to have a 
range of standards to reflect 
geography, climate, and types of 
development across the province. 



The standards that should be 
reviewed are: 

Road and sidewalk: width of 
right-of-way; width of pavement; 
radius of cul-de-sac; width of 
boulevard; residential curb type; 
sidewalk width and whether on 
both sides of the road. 

Infrastructure: storm-sewer 
requirements; storm-surface 
drainage; necessity of storm-water 
treatment; manhole spacing; 
sewer diameter; roof drainage 
requirements; foundation drain 
requirements; sanitary and 
storm-sewer connections; water- 
main connections; trenching 
requirements; street lighting. 

Building: provision for 
manufactured homes; minimum 
residential unit size. 

Parks and recreation: plantings, 
parks, and open space; 
recreational facilities; fencing. 

In the spring of 1993, a 
committee was established by the 
Minister of Housing and the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs to 
consider development standards 
that could serve as a municipal 
guide. The committee has broad 
representation from groups and 
organizations, as was suggested in 
the Commission's Draft Report, 
with a work schedule that seems 
timely and appropriate. 

Given the initiative already 
taken by the ministries, the 
Commission does not feel it is 
appropriate to make a further 
recommendation on this matter. 



Municipal Infrastructure 

Some types of municipal infra- 
structure projects recur with 
regularity and are limited in scale 

— some road widenings, or the 
provision of some piped services 

— and common approaches can 
be used to reduce environmental 
impacts. These projects are 
currently subject to a standard 
environmental assessment proce- 
dure, the Class Environmental 
Assessment (Class EA) process 
under the Environmental 
Assessment Act. 

Class EA is a self-assessment 
process undertaken by the 
municipality. The Class EA 
document that sets up a process 
for project assessment is 
approved by the Minister of the 
Environment and Energy. 

The Class EA process outlines 
a series of steps, including require- 
ments for public input, that must 
be taken to ensure the environ- 
mental effects of the project are 
assessed. It also classifies projects 
into three schedules (A, B, and C) 
according to expected environ- 
mental impacts. Schedule A proj- 
ects are those that are limited in 
scale and have minimum adverse 
effects. These projects are consid- 
ered to be approved and are not 
subject to an individual environ- 
mental assessment. Schedule B 
projects have the potential for 
some adverse environmental 
effects, and are subject to a 
screening process to evaluate 
them. Projects with the potential 
for significant environmental 
effects must be accompanied by 
an environmental study report. 
These are known as Schedule C 
projects. 



FINAL REPORT 
101 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



Objectors may request the 
Minister of the Environment and 
Energy to "bump up" a project 
from a simple review under Class 
EA to a full-scale, individual 
environmental assessment. 

An increasing number of 
requests for bump-ups of muni- 
cipal infrastructure projects have 
been made during the past few 
years. Generally, the objectors 
claim that adequate studies of 
need and alternatives have not 
been done, and that a project may 
not be necessary if alternatives 
are pursued, There have also 
been requests for bump-ups of 
projects that, because of scale and 
impact, are thought to have been 
inappropriately placed in the 
Class EA process. The number of 
bump-up requests indicates that 
people are not confident that 
larger environmental concerns 
are being addressed. In fact, the 
bump-up procedure does not 
ensure concerns will be dealt with, 
since it is not a right of appeal, 
and most bump-up requests are 
turned down by the Minister. 

Infrastructure decisions are 
integral to the municipal planning 
process, and the confusion 
between processes under the 
Planning Ad and the Environmental 
Assessment Act leads to uncertainty 
and duplication. 

These problems must be 
addressed, and the Commission 
is recommending a number of 
changes. Establishing a procedure 
for assessing small-scale, recurring 
types of municipal infrastructure, 
lodged within the Planning Act 
and with a clearly defined appeal 
mechanism, would be an 
important step forward. 



Questions of need and alter- 
natives for road, sewer, and water 
infrastructure — both public and 
private — must be addressed by 
municipalities when they prepare 
their municipal plans. Most infra- 
structure projects are dependent 
on decisions made in the muni- 
cipal plan. As noted earlier, one 
of the main functions of planning 
is to look at such matters. 

If questions of need and alter- 
natives are dealt with in the 
municipal plan, the significant 
issue then becomes ensuring that 
the infrastructure is designed to 
have the least net impact — or, 
stated more positively, the most 
beneficial impact — on the natural 
environment. Currently, as noted, 
any review of these infrastructure 
projects is undertaken through 
the Class Environmental 
Assessment process established 
under the Environmental 
Assessment Act. Given the linkage 
between municipal planning and 
infrastructure development, it 
would make sense to move the 
review of these projects into a 
class environmental process 
under the Planning Act. 

Projects that fall into the class 
environmental process should be 
defined in the Planning Act as 
having the following characteris- 
tics: they are recurring; are similar 
in nature; are limited in scale; 
have only a predictable range of 
environmental effects; and are 
responsive to standard mitigation 
measures. Projects not meeting 
these characteristics would 
continue to be subject to the 
Environmental Assessment Act. 

To distinguish this procedure 
from Class Environmental 



Assessment under the 
Environmental Assessment Act, this 
standard procedure should be 
called the Class Environmental 
Review (Class ER). 

The requirements for under- 
taking a Class ER should be set 
out in a document — the parent 
Class ER document — that 
defines the public and private 
infrastructure at the municipal 
level that falls within the class. 
This parent document should 
also set out the matters to be con- 
sidered in developing alternative 
design and mitigation measures 
and should establish the process 
for public involvement. The par- 
ent Class ER document should be 
developed through a process that 
involves interested groups, and it 
should be approved under the 
Environmental Assessment Act by 
the Minister of the Environment 
and Energy. This document can 
then be used under the Planning 
Act, and all municipalities will 
then have a common process to 
follow in reviewing infrastructure 
design of projects fitting into 
schedules B and C. Final decisions 
about these projects should not 
be made by councils until the 
studies required by the Class ER 
process are available and consid- 
ered by council, and council is 
satisfied that the requirements of 
the Class ER have been met. 
There should be public notice of 
completion of the review and the 
study should be publicly available, 
as is now the case with Class 
Environmental Assessments. 

Where change is proposed 
that involves infrastructure subject 
to an environmental study report 
and where an environmental 



FINAL REPORT 
102 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



impact study is required, the two 
will be coordinated to ensure no 
duplication, and a single study 
meeting both requirements 
should be undertaken. 

Those who question whether 
municipalities have studied need 
and alternatives will be able to 
take their concerns to the Ontario 
Municipal Board by appealing 
the relevant municipal plan at the 
time it is being considered, or, as 
noted below, by appealing the 
applicability of the Class ER to a 
specific project. Thus, the bump- 
up provisions of the Environmental 
Assessment Act would be replaced 
by certainty of appeals under the 
Planning Act. 

Those who feel that an infra- 
structure project is wrongly con- 
sidered under a Class ER because 
it does not fit the definition of 
class, or believe the studies 
prepared are not adequate or do 
not meet the requirements of the 
Class ER process, should be 
permitted to appeal the municipal 
decision to the Ontario Municipal 
Board. If the OMB rules the project 
does not meet the definition, the 
project would be subject to the 
Environmental Assessment Act. If 
the OMB rules the studies are 
inadequate or the matter does not 
meet the requirements of the 
Class ER process, then the project 
should not be approved. 

Currently, under the Class EA 
system, the parent Class EA 
document sets out a minimum 
number of opportunities for 
public comment on projects listed 
in schedules B and C. (Projects 
fitting in Schedule A, that is, lim- 
ited and with minimum adverse 
effects, do not involve a public 



process.) Notice and public com- 
ment are required at two stages 
for projects planned under 
Schedule B. The first is the invita- 
tion to the public at the start of 
the project, and the second is a 
notice of completion. In the case 
of projects planned under 
Schedule C, there is an additional 
requirement for a public meeting, 
which usually takes the form of 
an open house. After a notice of 
completion is filed in respect of 
Schedule B and Schedule C proj- 
ects, there is currently a 30-day 
period, during which time 
further written comments may 
be received and a request for a 
bump-up can be made. Similar 
provisions for public involve- 
ment should appear in the parent 
Class ER document. The 
Commission is proposing that a 
notice of appeal to the OMB — 
instead of a request for a bump- 
up — would have to be filed 
within 30 days of the filing of a 
notice of completion. 

Because use of the proposed 
Class ER process assumes that 
questions of need and alternatives 
have been addressed in the 
municipal plan, a municipality 
should not be able to use the 
recommended Class ER process 
until it has approved a plan 
addressing the issues of need and 
alternatives. 

Some infrastructure projects 
do not fit this definition of being 
"recurring" and "limited in scale" 
— landfills and large sewage- 
treatment projects, for instance. 
These projects should continue to 
be dealt with under the 
Environmental Assessment Act, 
along with provincial and 



provincial agency undertakings. 
The opportunity to designate 
large-scale private-sector under- 
takings with major environmental 
impacts (such as incinerators and 
mines) should continue to exist. 

Concerns have been expressed 
about the processing of these 
large projects, and proposals for 
change have emerged from ongo- 
ing reviews of the environmental 
assessment process. Much can be 
accomplished through adminis- 
trative reform, such as clearly 
defining the scope of issues to be 
addressed in the hearing process. 

Questions were raised about 
the status of organizations such as 
natural gas distribution compa- 
nies, which now obtain approvals 
for piped system through the 
Ontario Energy Board. The Class 
ER process should not be required 
for any change authorized through 
the Ontario Energy Board Act. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

73. To establish an improved 
process for reviewing muni- 
cipal infrastructure projects, 
legislation be amended to 
provide that: 
(a) The environmental 

assessment and review of 
municipal infrastructure 
projects currently under- 
taken through the Class 
Environmental 
Assessment process of 
the Environmental 
Assessment Act occur 
under the Planning Act, 
through a process called 
Class Environmental 
Review. 



FINAL REPORT 

103 



LOT CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 



(b) The Minister of the 
Environment and Energy 
be authorized to approve, 
under the Environmental 
Assessment Act, a parent 
Class Environmental 
Review (Class ER) docu- 
ment for any municipal 
infrastructure defined as 
"recurring, similar in 
nature, limited in scale, 
having only a predictable 
range of environmental 
effects, and being respon- 
sive to standard mitiga- 
tion measures," and that 
this definition of class be 
included in legislation. 

(c) The parent Class ER doc- 
ument set out both the 
matters to be considered 
in developing alternative 
design and mitigation 
measures, and the process 
for public involvement 
including public notice 
and comment. 

(d) Municipal infrastructure 
projects meeting the 
characteristics set out 
above and private infra- 
structure projects defined 
in the parent Class ER 
document be approved 
under the Class ER 
process prior to final 
decisions to proceed with 
construction. 

(e) Municipal infrastructure 
projects not meeting the 
definition of class contin- 
ue to be subject to the 
Environmental 
Assessment Act. 



(f) Appeals of the Class ER 
process, including 
whether the project falls 
within the definition of 
class or concerning the 
adequacies of studies, are 
to the Ontario Municipal 
Board. The Board's juris- 
diction in these cases 
should not extend to 
questions of need and 
alternatives dealt with at 
the municipal plan stage. 

(g) Appeals to the Ontario 
Municipal Board on 
issues of need and alter- 
natives to municipal 
infrastructure be 
permitted only at the 
municipal plan stage, 
where such matters are 
reviewed. Infrastructure 
in an approved municipal 
plan need not be subject 
to a new need and alter- 
natives study when the 
plan is reviewed. 

(h) Provincial and provincial 
agency undertakings con- 
tinue to be dealt with 
under the Environmental 
Assessment Act. The 
opportunity to designate 
large-scale private under- 
takings under the Act 
would continue. 

(i) Where change is proposed 
which involves infrastruc- 
ture subject to an envi- 
ronmental study report 
and where an environ- 
mental impact study is 
required, the two be coor- 
dinated to ensure no 
duplication, and a single 
study meeting both 
requirements be under- 
taken. 



FINAL REPORT 
104 



8 

PubUc 

Involvement 



Public involvement is crucial to 
the planning process. Democracy 
relies on an informed public that 
understands processes, issues, 
rights, and obligations. 

The Commission heard 
repeatedly that involvement by 
the public substantially improves 
the quality of decisions, and that 
such decisions prove more accept- 
able to the population at large. 

But an informed and involved 
populace does not just happen — 
information must be readily avail- 
able and processes must invite 
public involvement. 

Many people told the 
Commission that local govern- 
ment is well placed and structured 
— some say best placed and 
structured — to foster meaningful 
participation. 

Some municipalities take 
strong and effective action to 
encourage informed participation 
by members of the public in local 
decisions; some use open houses 
and neighbourhood meetings. 
However, many municipalities 
adhere to minimum requirements, 
and a few are hostile to public 
knowledge of their activities. 



Experience in a number of 
municipalities has shown that the 
earlier the public is involved, the 
better the decisions are for every- 
one, including the developer. 
(Some developers find it in their 
interest to take the lead in 
discussing issues with the public.) 
The best public involvement 
happens when the municipality 
makes clear its commitment to 
such participation. Municipalities 
should be encouraged to develop 
procedures for public input that 
fit local needs and conditions and 
go beyond those set out in the 
Planning Act. 

The province has an interest in 
the issue of public involvement, 
and basic requirements should be 
spelled out in legislation. 

General principles about 
public involvement that should 
be embodied in legislation are set 
out below. 



Information 

Information is a basic requirement. 
An individual should be entitled 
to see and copy all information 
supporting applications and all 
staff reports on applications. 

Some members of the public 
have found that when they ask to 
see information about develop- 
ment proposals, they are told 
they are not permitted to make 
photocopies because the architect 
holds the copyright on the 
drawings, and any copying 
would constitute copyright 
infringement. This practice, of 
course, substantially limits the 
ability of a resident to discuss a 
proposal with neighbours, and it 
should not be condoned. 
Architects, engineers, and other 
professionals must agree when 
they submit applications that 
drawings, plans, and documents 
filed in support of those applica- 
tions can be copied for purposes 
of public information and debate. 

Sometimes a municipality is 
quite willing to make information 
available, but will charge a sub- 
stantial fee, for example $75 or 
more for a copy of a draft official 
plan. Some municipalities even 
charge members of the public for 
the agenda of council and com- 
mittee meetings, with prices as 
high as $10 for the agenda of a 
single meeting. Such charges rep- 
resent a high entry fee to debates 
about municipal planning matters 
and serve to limit public 
involvement. 



FINAL REPORT 
105 



PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 



Everyone recognizes that 
municipalities do not have 
unlimited amounts of money 
with which to publish vast 
numbers of planning documents. 
But charging high prices for basic 
information is not necessary, even 
for municipalities with limited 
funds, and should not be 
tolerated. 

One alternative approach is to 
ensure that planning documents 
are in a form, and at a length, 
which can be reproduced 
inexpensively. Current technology 
makes this very possible. If 
charges are to be made for 
documents, they should be 
nominal. 

Establishing and maintaining 
a strong municipal information 
program will involve some costs. 
These costs should be recognized 
as part of the cost of good 
planning. 

The Municipal Freedom of 
Information and Protection of Privacy 
Act sets out some basic require- 
ments about the availability of 
information. While municipalities 
should comply with this legisla- 
tion, they should not take actions 
that force residents to rely on the 
complicated and time-consuming 
procedures required to obtain 
information under this Act. 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

74. To encourage more public 
involvement in the planning 
process through the provision 
of information, the Planning 
Act be amended: 

(a) To require that all infor- 
mation, documentation, 
and staff reports in 
relation to plans and 
applications be available 
to the public. Applicants 
must agree in submitting 
applications that 
drawings, plans, and 
documents filed in 
support of those applica- 
tions can be copied for 
purposes of public 
information and debate. 

(b) To permit municipalities 
to charge only nominal 
fees for planning reports 
and documents. 



Council and 
Committee Meetings 

Council and committee meetings 
must be open to the public, and 
decision-making regarding plans 
and planning must be carried out 
publicly. 

The Municipal Act requires that 
council meetings be in public, but 
some councils attempt to get 
around this requirement by meet- 
ing as a "committee of the whole," 
or by saying that gatherings of 
council members aren't the "meet- 
ings" contemplated by the legisla- 
tion. Both are fine distinctions that 
do nothing to encourage public 
involvement in decision-making, 
and both responses should be 
discouraged. The Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs has published 
a draft paper on legislative 
changes requiring more open 
meetings, and the province should 
proceed with this legislation. 

Several submissions com- 
plained that some committees of 
adjustment make their decisions 
in private. The Commission is 
recommending that meetings of 
committees of adjustment be 
open to the public and that the 
decision-making process be 
carried out publicly. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

75. The Municipal Act be 

amended so that council and 
committee meetings, meet- 
ings of committees of adjust- 
ment, and meetings of land 
division committees be open 
to the public, and decision- 
making regarding plans and 
planning applications be 
carried out publicly. 



FINAL REPORT 
106 



PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 



Notification 

Those affected by proposed 
changes must be notified, in plain 
and simple language, in advance 
of decisions being made. 

The issue of "plain and simple 
language" should not be over- 
looked. A number of submissions 
suggested wording often was 
devised to allow lawyers to com- 
municate with lawyers, rather 
than to give the public good 
information about what was 
being considered. For example, 
property references to plan and 
lot number rather than to street 
address can confuse matters. 
Wording that attempts to cover 
all legal eventualities makes 
things more confusing. The objec- 
tive should be to convey basic 
information. 

Although it is difficult to leg- 
islate the details of "plain and 
simple" notification, the intention 
can be conveyed. The Planning 
Act should require notification in 
language that can reasonably be 
expected to be understood by 
those being notified. 

The Planning Act sets out 
requirements for notification of 
planning actions, decisions, and 
appeals. Many submissions 
requested expanded notification 
provisions. 

Several submissions com- 
plained that notice is required to 
owners, but not to tenants. 
Tenants also pay property taxes 
(through rent), and many play as 
active and interested a role in the 
community as owners. Any notifi- 
cation required for owners should 



also be given to tenants and other 
occupants, such as members of 
housing cooperatives, and 
legislation should so require. 

A number of submissions 
indicated that public involvement 
would be improved if interested 
organizations and associations 
could be assured of notification. 
Currently, they must rely on 
members who are owners in the 
area receiving notice, because 
there is no method of ensuring 
that interested groups can receive 
notice. Individuals with special 
interests in certain issues face the 
same problem. 

The best remedy to this situa- 
tion is to require municipalities to 
maintain a registry system for 
notification. Some interested 
groups and individuals may not 
wish to be notified of all activities 
in all parts of the municipality, or 
of all kinds of applications or 
decisions for which notification is 
given. Therefore, municipalities 
should be permitted to establish 
administrative policies on dis- 
tricts in the municipalities, and on 
kinds of applications, for which 
registries will be established. 

Since this notification may 
involve a cost, the municipality 
should be permitted to charge a 
nominal annual fee to individuals 
or groups who put themselves on 
a registry. 

Where notification must be 
given to the general public, either 
in the whole municipality or in a 
large part of it, a variety of 
methods might be used: news- 
paper advertisements; direct mail 
to owners and non-owner 



occupants on the assessment roll; 
and direct delivery by postal 
walk or other door-to-door 
method. All are appropriate, 
although direct delivery must be 
augmented by direct mail to non- 
resident owners as shown on the 
assessment roll. Municipalities 
should be permitted to use what- 
ever method they deem appropri- 
ate in the circumstances. 

Two kinds of notification 
should be required for site- 
specific rezonings, plan amend- 
ments, development permits, and 
lot creation. First, the applicant 
should be required to post a sign 
on the site with a sketch and a 
very brief description of the 
proposal and use, along with 
appropriate locations and phone 
numbers for further information. 
Legislation should permit muni- 
cipalities to set the requirement 
for such signs, and when they 
should be posted. 

All site-specific applications, 
with the exception of minor vari- 
ances, should require notification 
to owners and to non-owner 
occupants within 120 metres of 
the property for which the appli- 
cation is being made. In areas 
where a 120-metre radius reaches 
only the next property (as in many 
rural areas, where properties are 
very large), notice should also be 
to the owners and non-owner 
occupants of the properties that 
abut adjacent properties. The 
existing requirements of notifica- 
tion within 60 metres for minor 
variances seems adequate and 
should remain, but notice should 
be extended to non-owner 
occupants. 



FINAL REPORT 

107 



PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

76. To encourage public involve- 
ment in the planning process 
through better notification, 
the Planning Act, be 
amended so that: 

(a) Those affected by pro- 
posed changes be noti- 
fied, in plain and simple 
language, in advance of 
decisions. 

(b) Municipalities be 
required to maintain a 
registry of those request- 
ing notification of 
planning matters in the 
municipality or in parts 
of the municipality. A 
nominal fee may be 
charged for this service. 
The municipality may 
determine districts and 
kinds of applications for 
the registry, for which 
notice may be given. 

(c) Where notification to 
owners is required, 
notification also be to 
non-owner occupants 
listed on the assessment 
roll. 

(d) Where notification must 
be given to the general 
public, it be through a 
newspaper advertisement, 
direct mail to owners and 
non-owner occupants on 
the assessment roll, or 
direct delivery to proper- 
ties affected and direct 
mail to non-resident 
owners. 

(e) Where notification is 
required for municipal 
plans, major plan amend- 
ments, and comprehen- 



sive zoning by-laws, noti- 
fication be to the general 
public, those on the reg- 
istry, applicable boards 
of education, adjacent 
municipalities, upper- or 
lower-tier municipalities 
as applicable, ministries 
and provincial agencies, 
and Aboriginal commu- 
nities deemed to have an 
interest in the matter, 
(f) Where notification is 
required for site-specific 
rezonings, plan amend- 
ments, development 
permits, and lot creation, 
applicants be required to 
post a sign on the site, to 
specifications set by the 
municipality, advising of 
the nature of the applica- 
tion. Notification must 
also be given to owners 
and non-owner occupants 
within 120 metres of the 
site; in areas where a 120- 
metre radius reaches only 
the adjacent properties, 
notice should also be 
given to owners and 
non-owner occupants of 
properties abutting adja- 
cent properties. Notice 
should also be given to 
those on the registry 
wishing notice, upper- or 
lower-tier municipalities 
as applicable, applicable 
boards of education, 
ministries, and provincial 
agencies, and Aboriginal 
communities deemed to 
have an interest in the 
matter, unless the muni- 
cipality is notified that 
notice is not required. 



Public Meetings 

The planning process must be 
arranged in a way that encour- 
ages public involvement, and 
interested parties must be given 
an opportunity to be heard at 
appropriate points in the process. 

Significant public involvement 
should be encouraged in process- 
es to create municipal plans, to 
consider major plan amend- 
ments, including neighbourhood 
and area plan amendments, or to 
consider comprehensive zoning 
by-laws. At least two public 
meetings should be held. As 
noted, these issues require con- 
siderable planning studies, and 
the issues raised have important 
ramifications for the municipality. 

The public must also be given 
the opportunity for involvement 
in minor plan amendments, 
rezonings, and subdivisions. As 
well, there should be the oppor- 
tunity for public involvement for 
minor variances and consents. 
Where reasonable, applications 
for different kinds of approvals 
for the same property should be 
dealt with concurrently. Where 
different applications for the 
same property are being 
processed by different levels (for 
example, subdivisions and rezon- 
ing), the different levels should 
coordinate their activities. The 
degree of formality depends on 
the municipality involved. 

For municipal plan creation, 
major plan amendments, and 
comprehensive zoning by-laws, 
the following minimum process 
should be set out in the Planning 
Act: 



FINAL REPORT 
108 



PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 



1. Publication of intent to con- 
sider policy change. 

2. Opportunity for public 
response, including at least 
one public meeting. 

3. Preparation and circulation of 
draft proposal (including 
alternatives). 

4. Opportunity for response, 
including at least one public 
meeting. 

5. Final decision-making. 

6. Notification of decision. 

As discussed in Chapter 6, 
Municipal Plan-making, at the 
beginning of each process for 
municipal plan review, major 
plan amendments, and compre- 
hensive zoning by-laws, a prelim- 
inary report should be prepared 
by the municipality, describing: 

• in general terms, the purpose 
of the plan review; 

• the general scope of the plan 
review, including studies to 
be undertaken; 

• proposals for public consulta- 
tion and participation by 
interested agencies; and 

• the proposed timetable. 

This report would permit the 
public to be aware of the pro- 
posed process — and to debate it 
— at the early stages. Everyone 
will benefit from knowing what 
is to be expected. 

In appropriate cases, this pre- 
liminary report might also pro- 
vide the municipality with the 
opportunity to indicate that the 
plan amendment is major, is not 
one the municipality wishes to 
consider apart from a general 
plan review, and should be reject- 
ed as premature. In other cases, 
the amendment might be so con- 



trary to existing policies that it 
should be rejected. Saying "no" is 
often difficult. This suggested 
procedure may be useful in that 
regard. 

As noted for these cases, there 
should be a minimum require- 
ment of two public meetings. The 
first meeting should be at the 
beginning of the process, when 
the preliminary report is consid- 
ered. The second should be at the 
other end of the process, when 
final reports are being considered. 
Where, after the first meeting, a 
decision is made not to proceed 
with the proposed planning exer- 
cise, one public meeting will of 
course be all that is needed. 

For the first public meeting, 
notice should be given to the gen- 
eral public, those on the registry, 
applicable boards of education, 
adjacent municipalities, the 
upper- or lower-tier municipali- 
ties as applicable, ministries and 
provincial agencies, and 
Aboriginal communities deemed 
to have an interest in the matter. 
A second notice, to the same 
parties, and a public meeting are 
required for the second meeting. 

For rezonings, plans of subdi- 
vision, and minor plan amend- 
ments, one public meeting must 
be held, and notice of the applica- 
tion should be given to owners 
and non-owner occupants within 
120 metres of the site (or the 
greater area, as outlined in the 
above section on notification), 
those on the registry wishing 
notice, the upper- or lower-tier 
municipalities as applicable, 
applicable boards of education, 
ministries, and provincial agen- 
cies, and Aboriginal communities 



deemed to have an interest. In 
addition, a sign must be posted 
on the site. 

For minor variances and con- 
sents, a public meeting must be 
held by the body making decisions 
on them. At this meeting, the 
public is heard from and a 
decision is then made. Where 
lot-creation functions have been 
delegated by council to a commit- 
tee, it is the delegated body that 
will hold the public meeting. 
However, where lot-creation 
matters rest with the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning, 
notice must be given inviting 
comment, rather than requiring a 
meeting. Where lot-creation 
matters have been delegated to 
municipal staff, notice must be 
given inviting comment. 

In the case of development 
permits, there are opportunities 
for public comment, but no 
opportunity for a meeting unless 
council so decides. 

No notice or public meeting 
or hearing is required for plans of 
condominium. 

An agency may indicate it 
does not wish to receive notice of 
certain applications, and in this 
case notice need not be given. 

A reasonable opportunity for 
public comment must be permit- 
ted at all public meetings. There 
should be reasonable public 
notice (as outlined below), as well 
as opportunities provided for all 
interested parties to make presen- 
tations to decision-makers. 

Where two or more applica- 
tions on the same property are 
being dealt with concurrently, 
notification and meeting require- 
ments should be combined. 



FINAL REPORT 
109 



PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

11. To encourage public involve- 
ment in the planning process 
through public meetings, the 
Planning Act be amended to 
require that: 

(a) The following process be 
followed for plans, gener- 
al, area, neighbourhood, 
or other major plan 
amendments, and com- 
prehensive zoning 
by-laws: 

(i) Publication of intent 
to consider policy 
change, 
(ii) Opportunity for 
public response, 
including at least one 
public meeting, 
(iii) Preparation and 
circulation of draft 
proposal (including 
alternatives), 
(iv) Opportunity for 

response, including at 
least one public 
meeting, 
(v) Final decision- 
making, 
(vi) Notification of 
decision. 



(b) For plans, general, area, 
neighbourhood, or other 
major plan amendments, 
and comprehensive zon- 
ing by-laws, two public 
meetings take place. The 
first, to be held at the 
beginning of the process, 
should consider the need 
for the review of the plan 
or by-law and the process 
to be used for the review, 
including procedures for 
public involvement. The 
second should be at the 
end of the process, when 
final reports to council 
are being considered. 
Reasonable opportunities 
for public comment will 
be permitted at each 
meeting. 

(c) For rezonings, lot creation, 
and minor plan amend- 
ments, at least one public 
meeting be required 
when final reports to 
council are being 
considered. Reasonable 
opportunities for public 
comment will be 
permitted at the public 
meeting. 

(d) Where reasonable, two or 
more applications on the 
same property be dealt 
with concurrently, and 
notification and meeting 
requirements be 
combined. 



Other Considerations 

Several submissions argued that 
planning staff should be required 
to respond to significant argu- 
ments advanced during the public 
process. Although this is a useful 
suggestion, such a requirement is 
difficult to legislate. First, in some 
cases the public meeting or public 
hearing happens just before the 
council or committee makes a 
final decision; obviously, it will 
not be possible for staff to report 
and comment on objections 
raised. Second, it does not seem 
reasonable to require in legislation 
that every argument, no matter 
how weak, must receive a 
response. The question of what 
the planners respond to seems to 
be a matter of local political inter- 
est, and should not be legislated. 

Currently, the legislation 
permits municipalities to appoint 
a planning advisory committee. 
The Planning Act should authorize 
municipalities to establish 
committees to advise on matters 
such as the natural environment, 
agriculture, and housing. These 
committees could become a valu- 
able resource to the municipality. 

A number of submissions 
voiced concerns that traditional 
methods of notification and 
public involvement appealed to a 
narrow range of interests. Various 
groups of people are sometimes, 
in effect, excluded from the 
process because of income, age, 
cultural background, or other 
factors. The submitters urged that 
municipalities take special steps 
to involve those interests not 
normally represented. The 
Commission encourages muni- 
cipalities to take steps to ensure 



FINAL REPORT 
110 



PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 



that a wide range of interests are 
heard at public meetings, includ- 
ing those traditionally excluded 
from planning processes. 

Some submissions strongly 
suggested arrangements that 
would require municipalities to 
fund public groups wishing to 
become involved in planning 
issues before decisions are made 
by council. This kind of funding 
is generally called participant 
funding. Some municipalities 
find it useful to fund public 
groups, and these decisions should 
continue to be left to individual 
municipalities. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

78. The Planning Act be amended 
to permit municipalities to 
establish committees to 
advise on such matters as the 
natural environment, 
agriculture, housing, and 
planning. 



Notification Periods 
and Time Limits 

The process should be easily 
understood and accessible. The 
timeframes should permit consid- 
eration of the issues involved 
without creating unreasonable 
delay. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending the following notice be 
given for meetings: 

• Public meetings to consider 
plans, plan amendments, 
comprehensive zoning by-laws 

— 30 calendar days 

• Public meetings to consider 
rezonings, plans of subdivision 

— 21 calendar days 

• Public meetings to consider 
consents 

— 21 calendar days 

• Public meetings to consider 
minor variances 

— 14 calendar days 

• Public comment on 
development permits 

— 21 calendar days 

• Public comment on consents 
and plans of subdivision 
where delegated to municipal 
staff 

— 21 calendar days 

• Public comment where lot 
creation rests with the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning 

— 21 calendar days 



There must be adequate time 
periods for filing a notice of 
appeal with the municipality. The 
Commission is recommending 
the following appeal periods 
from notification of the decision: 

• Plans, plan amendments, 
comprehensive zoning by-laws 

— 45 calendar days 

• Rezoning, plans of subdivi- 
sion, consents, development 
permits, site-plan control, 
withdrawal of sewer and 
water allocations 

— 21 calendar days 

• Class Environmental Review 

— 30 calendar days 

• Minor variances 
— 14 calendar days 

• Minister's interim control 
order 

— 45 calendar days 

Several submissions asked for 
a longer appeal period for minor 
variances, so that non-resident 
owners (particularly cottagers) 
would be able to receive the 
notice and fairly respond. 

However, the Commission 
believes the important time period 
is the one giving notice of the pub- 
lic meeting and allowing for input 
into the decision before a first 
decision is made. A longer appeal 
period is not required because 
those interested will have already 
been involved; notice of decision 
is only sent to those who so 
request before a decision is made. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending that notification of 
applications for minor variances 
be slightly increased from 10 to 14 
days, and that a registry system 
which allows cottager associations 



FINAL REPORT 
111 



PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 



and other groups to receive notice 
be established. Of course, the 
Commission is also recommending 
that appeals on minor variances be 
handled by the municipal council. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

79. The Planning Act be amended 
to provide for the following 
notification and appeal time 
periods: 

(a) Notification periods: 
(i) Public meetings to 
consider plans, plan 
amendments, compre- 
hensive zoning 
by-laws 

— 30 calendar days 
(ii) Public meetings to 

consider rezonings, 
plans of subdivision 

— 21 calendar days 
(iii) Public meetings to 

consider consents 

— 21 calendar days 
(iv) Public meetings to 

consider minor 
variances 

— 14 calendar days 
(v) Public comment on 
development permits 

— 21 calendar days 
(vi) Public comment on 

consents and plans of 
subdivision where 
delegated to muni- 
cipal staff 

— 21 calendar days 
(vii) Public comment 

where lot creation 
rests with the Minister 
of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning 

— 21 calendar days 



(b) Appeal periods, from 
notice of decision: 
(i) Plans, plan amend- 
ments, comprehensive 
zoning by-laws 

— 45 calendar days 
(ii) Rezonings, plans of 

subdivision, consents, 
development permits, 
site-plan control, 
withdrawal of sewer 
and water allocations 

— 21 calendar days 
(iii) Class Environmental 

Review 

— 30 calendar days 
(iv) Minor variances 

— 14 calendar days 
(v) Minister's interim 
control order 

— 45 calendar days 



FINAL REPORT 
112 



9 

Conflicts, Disputes, 

and Appeals 



The Commission heard over and 
over that the planning process 
has become too adversarial, and 
many submissions urged that 
steps be taken to make it more 
consensual. 

Planning is, by its nature, con- 
troversial. People have different 
ideas about what planning should 
actually achieve, so in the best of 
all possible planning systems dis- 
putes are bound to arise. A good 
planning system will incorporate 
processes to resolve or settle these 
disputes as early as possible. 

Changes must be made if 
planning is to be less adversarial. 
One submission summed up the 
matter well: "Community plan- 
ning affects people personally. 
The plarming process was devel- 
oped with good intentions, but 
there are situations when the 
result has ended in good people 
hurting good people. At times, 
bitterness and animosity are the 
by-products of the final decision. 
Planning must be modified to 
permit people to approach the 
process in a less adversarial state 
of mind. The process must help 



people listen to each other." 

Planning can be made more 
consensual by ensuring that 
everyone interested in outcomes is 
involved in the planning process 
as early as possible. The earlier 
that people learn of proposals and 
have a chance to become involved 
in the process, the less likely they 
will feel imposed upon by the 
decisions of others — something 
that generates anger and hostility 
— and the more likely agreement 
will be reached. 

The Commission is calling for 
early notification on policy mat- 
ters. Recommendations include 
requirements for municipalities 
to indicate, at the beginning of a 
major planning exercise, the ways 
in which the public will be 
involved and the tentative 
timetable for the process. This 
information will help provide all 
parties with some idea of what is 
expected. 

A number of submissions 
raised the matter of early negotia- 
tions and dispute resolution. One 
planning board staff member in 
Northern Ontario informed the 



Commission that only two dis- 
putes in his jurisdiction have 
been appealed to the Ontario 
Municipal Board in the past 
17 years. Such an enviable record 
is not attributable to mere good 
luck, since this planner sees his 
role as reducing opportunities for 
disagreement. He talks to parties 
when applications are filed, he 
lets people know of problems and 
possible concerns, he arranges 
meetings before decisions are 
made and, if there are lingering 
doubts or worries, then after 
decisions as well. 

It would be useful if all plan- 
ners could help parties listen to 
each other and help conciliate 
where necessary, but such is not 
to be assumed, given that the 
skills involved are often based on 
training and attitude. It is, of 
course, in everyone's interest that 
disputes be resolved as early as 
possible. 

Larger municipalities should 
consider assigning staff to help 
conciliate. Where a municipality 
itself is a party to the dispute, it 
should arrange for mediators. 

Disputes often remain after a 
municipality makes a planning 
decision. Resolving them should 
continue to be viewed as a 
municipal responsibility, and 
mediation should be encouraged. 
The Minister of Municipal Affairs, 
the Honourable Ed Philip, has 
recently announced pilot projects 
that encourage municipalities to 
call the parties together to discuss 
settlement options after a council 
decision, but before any 0MB 
hearing. The results of these pilot 
projects will be useful to review in 
shaping resolution mechanisms. 



FINAL REPORT 
113 



CONFLICTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

80. Mediation and programs 
which help different inter- 
ests listen to each other be 
part of the planning process, 
and that municipalities con- 
sider techniques to encour- 
age dispute resolution prior 
to council decisions. 



Ontario Municipal 
Board 

After decisions have been made 
at the municipal level, the key 
dispute-resolution mechanism is 
the Ontario Municipal Board 
(0MB), an independent 
administrative tribunal. 

The Commission has found 
broad support for the 0MB and 
the role it plays as an indepen- 
dent arbiter and decision-maker. 
However, almost universal 
concern was expressed about the 
time involved in scheduling 
hearings — from 12 to 18 months. 
Despite recent improvements — 
most hearings are now held 
within 12 months — the main 
areas of change in the 0MB should 
focus on having disputes settled 
and appeals heard more quickly. 

The Board now receives 
almost 6000 new files a year and 
holds more than 2000 hearings 
annually. The files are roughly 
broken down into the following 
general categories: 



900 minor variances 
1000 consents 
1000 zoning matters 
100 subdivision matters 
200 official plan amendment 
matters, most of them 
site-specific 
50 site-plan matters 
1000 assessment appeals 
40 expropriation cases 
1500 municipal capital 
expenditure matters. 

The last items — assessment 
appeals, expropriation cases, and 
capital expenditure matters — are 
not under the Planning Act. 

Few capital expenditure mat- 
ters require a hearing. About 80 
percent of the remaining matters 
are dealt with at hearings that take 
no more than three days — and 
many of these in fact can be 
handled in one day. A very small 
number of all cases — about 
3 percent — consume more than 
half the Board's hearing time. 

Several submissions suggest- 
ed ways of reducing the backlog. 
One proposal was to reduce 
access to the Board, limiting 
grounds of appeal to matters 
such as provincial or municipal 
policy or process. Lawyers 
responded that they would be 
able to shape any appeal to fit 
such grounds, which means the 
limitation would be ineffective. 
Another suggestion was to 
prohibit appeals on questions of 
"market impact" or for the 
purpose of limiting competition. 
Conditions and limits on appeals 
would likely lead to further delay 
as parties argued before the Board 
— and then, possibly, before the 
courts — about whether the 
grounds of appeal had actually 



been met. The Commission 
rejected this approach. 

The Commission has already 
noted that decisions must be con- 
sistent with provincial policy, and 
that development proposals must 
conform to municipal plans. A 
comprehensive set of provincial 
policies, along with comprehen- 
sive municipal plans, will help 
answer the question the Board 
must often grapple with in the 
abstract: what is "good planning"? 
Questions of adherence to 
provincial policy, municipal 
plans, and a fair process should 
be the major focal points of the 
Board's deliberations. 

Some submissions suggested 
there be a substantial filing fee for 
appeals. The Commission agrees 
that some accountability must 
rest with an appellant beyond 
purchase of the stamp on the 
envelope containing the appeal, 
but it is not convinced that the 
merit of the appeal relates in any 
way to the depth of the appel- 
lant's pocket or ability to pay. The 
question of accountability is best 
addressed in the way the case is 
handled by the Board. 

Minor Variance Appeals 

A number of submissions 
suggested that minor variance 
appeals not be heard by the 
Board. In recent years, the Board 
has received almost 900 minor 
variance appeals annually. Such 
appeals occupy about 10 percent 
of the Board's workload. 

The substance of minor 
variances is restricted entirely to 
questions of zoning detail. The 
Commission has argued that final 
planning decisions should be 



FINAL REPORT 
114 



CONFLICTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 



increasingly made by municipali- 
ties, and it seems reasonable that 
a provincial appeal body should 
not be deciding issues deemed 
too insignificant to be dealt with 
by local councils. These matters 
should be decided in a final 
fashion by those elected to make 
decisions locally. The provincial 
interest in questions of process is 
set out in legislation that ensures 
parties are given reasonable 
notice and a reasonable opportu- 
nity to be heard, and that pro- 
vides a fair and open process for 
decision-making. Details of these 
requirements are described in 
Chapter 8, Public Involvement. 

There are several advantages 
in having appeals on minor vari- 
ance decisions considered and 
decided on by local councils, as 
opposed to having appeals heard 
by the Ontario Municipal Board. 
Local councils should be able to 
make decisions about very local 
matters, and variances of zoning 
by-laws certainly fit this category. 
One result of this shift is that 
council will be much more atten- 
tive to establishing alternative 
dispute-resolution techniques in 
order to ensure that such appeals 
do not eat into council's time. 

A second consequence is that 
council will be more cognizant of 
the limitations of its zoning 
by-laws and the need for by-laws 
which permit everyday applica- 
tions to proceed without a time- 
consuming, complicated process. 
A third is that some of the 
Board's energy and time will be 
freed to deal with more signifi- 
cant issues, and a fourth is that 
appeals can be dealt with more 
quickly. 



There are arguments against 
this shift. Some councils may feel 
they will be overwhelmed by the 
number of appeals they must 
hear every year. However, many 
of the largest municipalities gen- 
erate no more than a handful of 
minor variance appeals, and that 
number can be reduced through 
better zoning by-laws and 
improved dispute resolution. One 
municipality, the City of Toronto, 
generates almost 200 minor vari- 
ance appeals yearly, and it will 
have to review its zoning by-laws 
and dispute-resolution mecha- 
nisms to ensure it is able to deal 
with this change. The Commission 
believes these minor matters 
should be placed within the con- 
trol of the most locally elected 
body. 

On appeal, the council will 
make a decision on the merits of 
the case. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

81. The Planning Act be amend- 
ed to require that, where 
appeals of decisions on 
minor variances are filed, the 
council in the municipality 
in which the application has 
been made consider the 
application and make a deci- 
sion, and that the role of the 
Ontario Municipal Board in 
such appeals be terminated. 



Dispute Resolution 

The Ontario Municipal Board has 
an important role to play in 
resolving disputes, and more 
energy should be devoted to this 
aspect of its work. The 0MB has 
already taken initiatives in this 
direction. The following proposals 
of the Commission complement 
these initiatives. 

A notice of appeal should 
state the reasons for appeal, so 
that a reasonable understanding 
of the matters in dispute can be 
gained from the document itself. 

To ensure a common base of 
information about the issues 
involved in the appeal, the muni- 
cipality should be encouraged to 
convene a meeting of the appel- 
lant(s) and other participants who 
have an interest in the appeal to 
discuss the matter. It is hoped this 
meeting will result in the dispute 
being resolved, or at least in a nar- 
rowing of the issues. The 0MB 
should have the authority to order 
the municipality to convene such 
a meeting, where appropriate. 

For appeals of plans, zoning 
by-laws, and other matters, stan- 
dard procedure should be that 
within 30 days of the appeal being 
received by the 0MB, the Board 
should convene a procedural 
meeting of the parties, chaired by 
a person assigned by the Board. 
There may be minor cases involv- 
ing a brief hearing where, in the 
Board's opinion, its time would 
be better spent proceeding with 
the hearing than arranging for this 
procedural meeting. The Board 
should be encouraged to define 
such situations and to ensure that 
hearings for these cases occur in 
an expeditious fashion. 



FINAL REPORT 
115 



CONFLICTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 



The procedural meeting 
would be for any one or a combi- 
nation of the following purposes: 

• to identify the parties; 

• to correct misinformation; 

• to confirm that relevant 
statutory requirements have 
been met; 

• to consider consolidating 
related matters in dispute; 

• to determine and simplify 
issues; 

• to explore mediation and 
settlement possibilities; 

• to exchange documents and 
reports; 

• to determine whether an 
application for intervenor 
funding will be filed; 

• to estimate the length of any 
hearing that may be necessary; 
and 

• to discuss scheduling. 

The Board member assigned to 
the meeting should be familiar 
with the case and be prepared to 
provide direction at the meeting. 
The objective should be to settle 
the matter or proceed with a 
hearing in a fair and expeditious 
manner. 

Several courses of action may 
flow from the procedural meeting: 

1. If a settlement consistent with 
provincial policies is reached 
at the procedural meeting, the 
Board may issue the appro- 
priate order. 

2. If the appellant does not 
attend the procedural meeting 
and the Board concludes it is 
appropriate in the circum- 
stances, it may dismiss the 
appeal. 



3. The Board may conclude that 
the appellant does not have 
an objection which merits a 
full hearing, and it may order 
a time and place for the appli- 
cant to make representations 
as to the merits of the appeal, 
following a procedure compa- 
rable to that in section 34(25) 
of the Planning Act dealing 
with zoning matters. This sec- 
tion states that the Board 
"may, where it is of the opin- 
ion that the objection ... is 
insufficient, dismiss the 
appeal without holding a full 
hearing but before so dismiss- 
ing the appeal shall notify the 
appellant and afford the 
appellant an opportunity to 
make representations as to the 
merits of the appeal." The Act 
should be amended to broad- 
en the application of this sec- 
tion to all matters subject to 
appeal. 

A number of submissions 
suggested that the Board be 
permitted to make a decision 
at the procedural meeting to 
dismiss appeals because of 
lack of merit. However, if the 
Board was allowed to make a 
final decision at this stage, the 
informal discussion would be 
undermined. Another session 
is therefore required to permit 
at least the appellant to be 
heard and a decision to be 
made. This summary hearing 
to determine the merits of the 
appeal should be swiftly 
scheduled and brief. 



4. If the Board has concluded an 
application for intervenor 
funding will be made, 
arrangements for submission 
of the application and its 
determination should be 
made as quickly as possible. 

5. If the Board concludes a set- 
tlement seems possible, it 
may set out a process and 
timetable for mediation. With 
the consent of the parties, the 
Board could appoint a media- 
tor to assist. If a settlement is 
reached, it must be approved 
by the Board to ensure consis- 
tency with provincial and 
municipal policies. 

6. The Board may conclude that 
a full hearing is warranted. 
Where useful, the Board 
should set out a timetable for 
further exchange of informa- 
tion and encourage other 
methods to ensure the hear- 
ing will focus on the serious 
matters in dispute. The Board 
may call other meetings as 
required. 

A Board member who con- 
ducts the procedural meeting 
should not preside at an applica- 
tion for intervenor funding, or at 
a summary hearing (as described 
in point 3, above). A member 
who conducts settlement meetings 
or intervenor-funding hearings 
should not be involved in subse- 
quent full hearings. A member 
involved in a procedural meeting 
where settlement is not discussed 
should be permitted to be 
involved in full hearings. 



FINAL REPORT 
116 



CONFLICTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

82. The Ontario Municipal 
Board, as a standard practice, 
convene a procedural meet- 
ing of the parties within 30 
days after an appeal has 
been received by the Board, 
chaired by a Board member. 
This meeting will determine 
how best to process the dis- 
pute, including arrangements 
to disclose information, nar- 
row issues, focus on serious 
matters under dispute, and 
seek a settlement. In minor 
cases where a hearing will 
occur in an expeditious fash- 
ion, the Board may dispense 
with the procedural meeting. 

83. The Planning Act be amend- 
ed to provide that where the 
Ontario Municipal Board 
member concludes at a 
procedural meeting that the 
appellant on any planning 
matter does not have an 
objection which merits a full 
hearing, the member may 
order a time and place for 
the appellant to make 
representations as to the 
merit of the appeal. 



Other Procedural Matters 

Unincorporated associations 

The Planning Act states that only 
"persons" may file appeals, 
which has been interpreted as 
excluding unincorporated associ- 
ations. This interpretation leaves 
many community groups unable 
to file an appeal or be party to a 
Board hearing unless they 
become incorporated. There is lit- 
tle real difference between incor- 
porated and unincorporated com- 
munity organizations: both raise 
questions of representation, and 
neither resolves questions of 
financial capability in the event of 
costs being awarded. An organi- 
zation's status is irrelevant as far 
as the validity of its arguments is 
concerned. For comparison pur- 
poses, the Consolidated Hearings 
Act has defined "person" to 
include an unincorporated associ- 
ation. The Commission, therefore, 
has concluded that the legislation 
should be amended to enable 
unincorporated associations to 
file appeals with the Ontario 
Municipal Board. 

Increased authority The Planning 
Act authorizes the Ontario 
Municipal Board to make any 
decisions that can be made by a 
municipality or the Minister. 
Several submissions asked for 
clarification of the Board's power 
to impose terms and conditions 
(including monitoring) to protect 
the natural environment and 
secure other matters. The 
Commission is recommending 
increased authority to municipal- 
ities. If this recommendation is 
adopted, such authority will then 
be available to the Board. Also 



raised were questions of the 
enforcement of Board orders. The 
Act should make it explicit that a 
person who contravenes a Board 
order is guilty of an offence, and 
that a private individual or body 
may initiate prosecution for the 
enforcement of any Board order. 
The Board should also have the 
authority to refer matters back to 
the municipality for further study 
or consideration. 

Site-specific objections One 

technical problem with the current 
Act is that when a site-specific 
objection to a comprehensive 
zoning by-law is filed, the whole 
of the by-law is considered to be 
under appeal. This technicality 
should be resolved to ensure the 
appeal does not hold up imple- 
mentation of those parts of the 
by-law not under dispute. Where 
an objection to a municipal or an 
area plan, or to a comprehensive 
zoning by-law, is site-specific, the 
appeal should be deemed to apply 
only to the property affected, and 
the remainder of the document 
should come into effect. 

Right to appeal The Commission 
is recommending that for muni- 
cipal plan approvals, the current 
referral system (in which the 
Minister or some delegated 
authority is requested to refer a 
matter to the Board) be replaced 
with a right to appeal to the 
Ontario Municipal Board. 
Supporters of the referral system 
argue that the discretion involved 
in deciding when the matter is 
referred allows for negotiation 
with the applicant. The merit of 
the appeal system is that it 



FINAL REPORT 
117 



CONFLICTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 



replaces discretion with certainty 
of time limits and processes. 
Nothing will prevent that same 
negotiation from occurring with- 
in the time limits of appeal. 

Audio-tapes Because it is not 
common practice for Ontario 
Municipal Board hearings to be 
transcribed, transcripts of pro- 
ceedings are virtually unattain- 
able. This is a concern, especially 
in lengthy hearings where the 
arguments are made well after 
the evidence is given. In such 
cases, an independent record of 
Board hearings is important to 
prevent a dispute over what was 
said in evidence. The Commission 
has therefore concluded that, on 
the request of a party prior to a 
hearing, the Board should be 
required to arrange for an audio- 
tape of the proceedings of the 
hearings, and to provide a copy 
of the tape when requested. 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

84. The Planning Act be 
amended: 

(a) to provide unincorporated 
associations status before 
the Ontario Municipal 
Board; 

(b) to make explicit that a 
person or municipality 
who contravenes a Board 
order is guilty of an 
offence; 

(c) to permit the Board to 
refer matters back to a 
municipality for further 
study or consideration; 

(d) to allow for the approval 
of the unappealed por- 
tions of plans and com- 
prehensive zoning by- 
laws when only site-spe- 
cific appeals have been 
filed; 

(e) to replace the current 
referral system with a 
right to appeal to the 
Board; and 

(f) to provide that, on a 
request of a party prior to 
a hearing, the Board shall 
arrange to make an 
audio-tape of the pro- 
ceedings of the hearing. 



Intervenor Funding 

The concept of intervenor fund- 
ing permits the hearing board to 
order funding to be provided to 
certain participants prior to a 
hearing. The Intervenor Funding 
Project Act authorizes the Ontario 
Energy Board, the Environmental 
Assessment Board, and joint 
boards under the Consolidated 
Hearings Act to award intervenor 
funding. 

The unavailability of inter- 
venor funding at the Ontario 
Municipal Board has been an issue 
that has received considerable 
attention during recent years. 

The Commission received 
many submissions that strongly 
favour intervenor funding at the 
Board, arguing that such funding, 
by balancing resources of 
intervenors and proponents, is 
one of the few ways of ensuring 
meaningful participation before 
the Board. As one submission 
noted: "Intervenor funding is 
crucial if there is to be meaningful, 
objective public input into 
Municipal Board hearings." 

The Commission also 
received many submissions 
strongly opposed. Some argued 
that intervenor funding would 
result in more appeals, more 
delays, and added costs to both 
developers and municipalities. 
The public interest was fairly rep- 
resented on municipal councils or 
by the province, submitters said, 
and would not be represented by 
intervenors. And neither muni- 
cipalities nor developers could 
bear the costs. 



FINAL REPORT 
118 



CONFLICTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 



In brief, it is a contentious 
issue. 

A private member's bill 
establishing such funding 
procedures at the Board was 
introduced and proceeded to 
second reading in 1989. It was 
reintroduced in late 1990. The 
1991 Coopers and Lybrand 
Consultants report on the admin- 
istration of the Ontario Municipal 
Board also proposed that such 
funding be available for compli- 
cated cases. In addition, a recent 
review of the Intervenor Funding 
Project Act looked favourably on 
the extension of that piece of 
legislation to the Ontario 
Municipal Board. 

The Commission believes the 
current situation creates a hard- 
ship for those trying to protect a 
public interest that is not other- 
wise adequately represented 
before the Board. Subject to 
appropriate controls and criteria, 
intervenor funding will help the 
Board make better decisions. 

The two difficult issues are 
determining the types of 
applications for which intervenor 
funding should be available; and 
implementing procedures to 
ensure cost-effective admini- 
stration. 

All kinds of applications can 
raise issues of significant public 
interest. For example, wetlands, 
important habitat, and agricultural 
land can all be threatened by 
applications for plan amendments, 
plans of subdivision, consents, 
and rezonings. But significant 
public interests will not be raised 
in all cases. 

The concern is that whatever 
criteria are established for 



awarding intervenor funding, 
many applications will be 
submitted. Reviewing these 
applications could take up a great 
deal of the Board's time and 
energy, while resulting in a very 
small number of such applications 
being granted. 

Appeal hearings for many 
smaller matters can often happen 
within a single day, and do not 
involve significant expenses. The 
time taken to consider an applica- 
tion for intervenor funding for 
these cases might almost equal 
the length of the hearing itself. 
Intervenor funding applications 
in these cases would not be 
administratively efficient. 

To avoid this situation, the 
Commission is recommending 
that only certain kinds of 
applications be considered for 
intervenor funding. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending that applications for 
plans and plan amendments, and 
plans of subdivision which 
involve a rezoning, be the only 
applications considered for inter- 
venor funding. In other types of 
applications where the Board will 
be assisted by the representation 
of public interests, the Board 
should award costs during or 
after the hearing. 

Regarding process, the 
Commission recommends that 
application be made only after 
the procedural meeting, and after 
the Board has made a decision 
that an appeal will proceed to 
mediation or full hearing. This 
will ensure that applications can 
be made only in cases where the 
dispute cannot be resolved easily. 
Further, the Board should be able 



to reject an application for funding 
on the basis of written submissions 
without a hearing. This will 
require detailed application 
forms, which set out the amount 
of funding requested and how 
the applicant meets the funding 
criteria. If the Board does not 
reject the application, it should 
establish a funding panel of one 
or more members of the Board to 
hold a hearing on eligibility. 

Intervenor funding should be 
awarded to an individual or 
group in relation to issues that, in 
the opinion of the Board, affect a 
significant segment of the public 
and concern the public interest 
and not just private interests. 

The decision of the Board 
should be based on the following 
criteria: 

1. the intervenor represents a 
clearly ascertainable public 
interest, consistent with 
provincial policy, that should 
be represented at the hearing; 

2. separate and adequate repre- 
sentation of the interest would 
assist the Board and contribute 
substantially to the hearing; 

3. the intervenor does not have 
sufficient financial resources 
to enable it to represent the 
interest adequately; 

4. the intervenor has made 
reasonable efforts to raise 
funding from other sources; 

5. the intervenor has demon- 
strated concern for this issue 
at the municipal level; 

6. the intervenor has attempted 
to join together with other 
objectors; 

7. the intervenor has a clear pro- 
posal for the use of any funds 
that might be awarded; 



FINAL REPORT 
119 



CONFLICTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 



8. the intervenor has appropri- 
ate financial controls to 
ensure that the funds, if 
awarded, are spent for the 
purposes of the award; and 

9. such representation would 
assist the Board and contribute 
substantially to the hearing. 

If the application is granted, the 
funding panel should determine 
the proportion of the intervenor 
expenses to be covered; and 
having determined the ability of 
the party or parties to pay, the 
source of money for intervenor 
funding, be it a developer, the 
municipality, the province, or a 
government agency. 

There will be some delay until 
legislation is passed establishing 
a full intervenor-funding 
program, and in the interim it is 
important that intervenor funding 
be available. Since without 
legislation an order cannot be 
made requiring funding to be 
paid, the province should provide 
funds. 

Until legislation is passed, the 
province should provide $500,000 
annually for intervenor support. 
Administrative systems will be 
able to be put into place during 
this period, and experience will 
be gained in applying intervenor 
fimding to Planning Act matters. 



The Commission recommends 
that: 

85. The Planning Act be amended 
to permit the Ontario 
Municipal Board to award 
intervenor funding on any 
appeal of a plan, plan 
amendment, or plan of 
subdivision which involves 
a rezoning, which, in the 
opinion of the Board, affects 
a significant segment of the 
public and concerns the 
public interest and not just 
private interests. The decision 
of the Board should be based 
on the following criteria: 

(a) the intervenor represents 
a clearly ascertainable 
public interest, consistent 
with provincial policy, 
that should be represent- 
ed at the hearing; 

(b) separate and adequate 
representation of the 
interest would assist the 
Board and contribute 
substantially to the 
hearing; 

(c) the intervenor does not 
have sufficient financial 
resources to enable it to 
represent the interest 
adequately; 

(d) the intervenor has made 
reasonable efforts to raise 
funding from other 
sources; 

(e) the intervenor has 
demonstrated concern 
for this issue at the 
municipal level; 

(f ) the intervenor has 
attempted to join 
together with other 
objectors; 



(g) the intervenor has a clear 
proposal for the use of 
any funds that might be 
awarded; 

(h) the intervenor has appro- 
priate financial controls 
to ensure that the funds, 
if awarded, are spent for 
the purposes of the 
award; and 

(i) such representation 
would assist the Board 
and contribute substan- 
tially to the hearing. 

Applications for intervenor 
funding may not be made 
until the Board has 
determined that a full 
hearing or mediation will 
take place. The Board may 
reject an application for 
intervenor funding without 
a hearing. In other types of 
applications where the Board 
will be assisted by the repre- 
sentation of public interests, 
the Board should award costs 
during or after the hearing. 

86. Until legislation has been 
passed permitting the Board 
to award intervenor funding, 
the Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning provide 
$500,000 annually to the 
Board to be used for inter- 
venor funding. 



FINAL REPORT 
120 



CONFLICTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 



Awarding Costs 

Although the existing Act allows 
the Board to award costs against 
any party, this power is rarely 
used. Costs should be awarded in 
cases where groups or individu- 
als have assisted the Board by 
representing public interests, and 
the Board should consider award- 
ing costs in other cases. The 
Board's authority should also be 
expanded to include the authori- 
ty to award interim costs during 
a hearing. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

87. The Planning Act be amended 
to permit the Board to award 
interim costs during a hear- 
ing, in addition to its existing 
power to award costs at the 
end of a hearing. 



Administration 

Backlog As noted, there are con- 
siderable delays before the Board 
is able to arrange for hearings. 
Clearing up this backlog is crucial 
to an efficiently functioning plan- 
ning system. 

The Commission believes the 
pre-hearing procedural meeting 
approach is an excellent model 
for dealing with the backlog, and 
procedural meetings should be 
instituted as soon as possible for 
appeals in the system. The Board 
should be allocated funds for 
part-time Board members and 
mediators to help clear this 
backlog. 

Board membership Several 
matters involving Board member- 
ship need to be addressed. First, 
increased emphasis has been 
placed on environmental issues 
and the need for dispute resolu- 
tion in matters before the Board. 
Opportunities should be made 
available to members for more 
training in these areas. As well, 
when the government makes 
appointments to the Board, these 
new areas of emphasis should be 
considered in the review of a 
candidate's skills and back- 
ground. 

Second, the Board must have 
adequate resources if it is to carry 
out its mandate. More full-time 
Board members are not necessarily 
the answer. Rather, opportunities 
should exist for appointments of 
part-time Board members to 
conduct procedural meetings and 
mediators to conduct settlement 
meetings. The Board should 
maintain a roster of mediators for 
parties to consider using in 



settlement discussions. These 
part-time members and media- 
tors may be based in different 
centres around the province. 

Third, complaints were heard 
about the lack of Board represen- 
tation from Northern Ontario, 
and suggestions were made that 
the Board be decentralized. 
However, because of the limited 
size of the 0MB, it would be 
difficult to regionalize the Board's 
functions. For administrative 
purposes, the 0MB has recently 
divided the province into three 
areas. As the Board works with 
this new structure, it may find 
ways of achieving regional and 
administrative balance. The 
appointment of part-time 
members and mediators from the 
North to deal with preliminary or 
settlement aspects of Northern 
appeals may satisfy the concern 
about representation. 

Workload and resources Some 
submissions expressed concern 
that because so many new duties 
were being assigned to the Board, 
its workload would become 
unmanageable. They said that 
without a significant infusion of 
funds, the Board might not be 
able to make decisions within a 
reasonable timeframe. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending new duties for the 
Board: reviewing joint-planning 
disputes and proposing resolu- 
tions; hearing appeals of decisions 
to terminate sewage and water 
allocations and appeals of projects 
approved through a Class 
Environmental Review; and 
making decisions on applications 
for intervener funding. It is 
unclear how much work will be 



FINAL REPORT 
121 



CONFLICTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS 



involved in these matters or as a 
result of increased opportunities 
for appeals of subdivision and 
consent decisions, which are also 
being recommended. 

At the same time, two recom- 
mendations are being been made 
to moderate the Board's work- 
load: minor variance appeals will 
no longer be heard by the Board; 
and procedural meetings will 
precede hearings. The former 
should free up about 10 percent 
of the Board's time now spent on 
planning matters. The latter, if it 
works as expected, should reduce 
the number and length of hearings 
by narrowing issues and facilitat- 
ing the possibility of settlement. 
Together, these recormnendations, 
if implemented, should reduce 
the Board's workload, decreasing 
the overall time taken to schedule 
hearings and render decisions. 

The Commission is recom- 
mending the appointment of 
part-time Board members and the 
use of mediators, and some funds 
will be required for them to deal 
with the backlog of appeals. Once 
the backlog is out of the way, the 
proposed changes should allow 
the Board to perform its functions 
in a timely fashion, without the 
need for increased resources. 

Several submissions asked 
that the Board be required to hold 
a hearing within a certain time- 
frame (say, within nine months of 
the filing of the appeal) and make 
a decision on the appeal within a 
further three months. Ideally, a 
hearing should be held within 
four to six months of the filing of 
an appeal, but the Commission 
sees great difficulty in ordering 
such deadlines. The Commission 



believes its recommendations will 
result in these timeframes being 
reached once the current backlog 
has been cleared. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

88. The Ontario Municipal 
Board institute a pre-hearing 
procedural meeting process 
to deal with the current 
backlog of cases before the 
Board. 

89. To ensure the Ontario 
Municipal Board has the 
necessary resources to carry 
out its responsibilities: 

(a) In appointing new Board 
members, the government 
take into account new 
areas of concern, such as 
environmental issues and 
dispute resolution. 

(b) The government appoint 
part-time members to the 
Board. 

(c) The Board maintain a list 
of mediators for parties 
to consider using as they 
attempt to resolve their 
differences. 

(d) Board members be offered 
appropriate training in 
dispute resolution and in 
environmental and other 
matters with which the 
Board deals. 



FINAL REPORT 
122 



10 

Sewage Treatment 

and Septics 



The treatment of sewage is a 
major plam^ing problem in 
Ontario, both in communities 
with sewage-treatment plants 
and in communities relying on 
private, conventional septic 
systems. 

Sewage Treatment 

There are 418 provincial and 
municipal sewage-treatment 
plants in Ontario, and 80 percent 
of them are currently operating at 
capacity. Communities frequently 
assume these plants are process- 
ing sewage adequately, but 
studies show that up to 25 percent 
of plants do not meet approved 
guidelines. 

To address these and other 
water-quality problems, the 
Ontario government has under- 
taken the Municipal /Industrial 
Strategy for Abatement (MISA) 
program. Implementation has 
been slow, and regulations for 
municipalities are still being 
developed. 



The costs for remediating 
existing sewage-treatment plants 
are significant. These costs are 
difficult to determine precisely, 
but over the past few years 
$700 million has been spent by 
the province and municipalities 
in Ontario for the remediation 
and expansion of existing water 
and sewage infrastructure, and 
for new facilities. The province 
contributes about one-fifth of that 
amount. Estimates suggest that, 
for a 20-year period, this sum 
would have to be doubled to 
ensure problems are reasonably 
addressed. In 1993, the province 
announced the expenditure of 
$258 million of its funds on these 
matters over the next four years. 

In the United States, predic- 
tions are that the combined 
operating and capital costs of 
sewage treatment will increase 
elevenfold (on a per capita basis) 
within 20 years to meet the 
standards required by the U.S. 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 
In Ontario, increases will be more 
modest, perhaps tripling current 
figures. 



A number of the Commission's 
recommendahons will help ensure 
existing facilities are more effi- 
ciently used. Water conservation 
policies, legislated requirements 
for studies on a watershed basis, 
and studies addressing infra- 
structure in municipal plans are 
recommended and should lead to 
improvements. 

For example, few municipali- 
ties on full services now pursue 
water conservation policies. Some 
do not meter water, even though 
evidence suggests that metering 
reduces consumption by 
25 percent. Only a few municipal- 
ities are encouraging low-flow 
toilets and water-saving devices 
in showers and toilets, and in the 
kitchen. Municipal policies and 
programs to conserve water, 
as would be required by the 
recommended provincial policy 
statement, will help reduce 
demand on existing water and 
sewage-treatment plants. 

The MISA program is soon to 
move from the study to the 
implementation phase, and there 
is little new to recommend in this 
area. MISA regulations should be 
put in place quickly and imple- 
mentation should be speedy, 
consistent, and appropriately 
funded. 

Where it is clear a municipality 
does not have demonstrated 
capacity to service additional 
development, development 
should not be permitted to 
proceed. 



FINAL REPORT 
123 



SEWAGE TREATMENT AND SEPTICS 



Septics 



In Ontario, there are one million 
conventional septic systems. 
There is increasing evidence of 
contamination of both ground 
and surface water as a result of 
their use. In low-density situations, 
such as for individual farms or 
large holdings, septics appear to 
work satisfactorily if the systems 
are properly designed, constructed, 
used, and maintained. 

Septics are generally good at 
treating moderate amounts of 
human waste, but reliability 
depends on proper use, mainte- 
nance, and pump-outs, as well as 
appropriate soil conditions. In 
principle, if conditions and use 
are appropriate, the system will 
work very well and process the 
sewage in ways that do not result 
in threats to human health or the 
environment. However, problems 
are now becoming apparent 
when too many systems are 
located close together on relatively 
small lots, and in-house uses such 
as dishwashers, clothes washers, 
and whirlpool baths increase the 
volume of water and chemicals 
entering and leaving the system. 

In 1990, the Ministry of the 
Environment inspected 9067 
systems province-wide, of which 
34 percent were found to be mal- 
functioning. Ministry studies in 
Haliburton and in Muskoka 
found one-third of the systems 
were designed to current stan- 
dards and worked properly, 
one-third were designed below 
standards, and one-third were 
classifiable as a public-health 
nuisance. 



Many suggestions made to 
the Commission to address septic 
problems concerned management 
and use. Among these sugges- 
tions: more should be done to 
educate owners of existing systems 
about proper use and potential 
problems and to ensure systems 
are properly maintained; inspec- 
tions and pump-outs should occur 
regularly; inspections should be 
mandatory when houses using 
septics are sold; and use permits 
should be time-limited, based on 
the life-expectancy of the system. 

There have also been useful 
suggestions about alternative sys- 
tems, which include the compost 
toilet, the RUCK system, green- 
house systems, and engineered 
sand-filter systems. Communal 
treatment facilities, which serve a 
number of users, are also available. 
These and other technologies 
may be substitutes for the 
conventional septic system, but 
further research and development 
is needed to determine their suit- 
ability for Ontario and standards 
for operation. 

Inspections and the issuance 
of permits for private and 
communal systems are responsi- 
bilities of the Ministry of the 
Environment and Energy, and 
that ministry should continue to 
set standards for installation and 
operation. The ministry should 
continue to be responsible for 
licensing septic installers and 
septage haulers, and should 
institute training programs for 
them and for inspectors. 



The regular inspection of pri- 
vate and communal septic sys- 
tems, after installation, should 
also be required. This should be 
the responsibility of the Ministry 
of the Environment and Energy. 
However, that ministry should 
consider entering into agreements 
permitting county and regional 
governments, their health units, 
or conservation authorities, or, 
where no upper tier exists, 
municipalities — provided all 
have the appropriate expertise — 
to assume the responsibility for 
inspections and for the issuance 
of permits for installation. The 
Ministry of the Environment and 
Energy and its agents should be 
permitted to charge septic owners 
a fee to cover the costs of inspec- 
tions on a user-pay basis, to be 
collected with property taxes. 

Complaints have been 
received that some septic systems 
are installed without the installer 
seeking the necessary approvals. 
The danger in these situations is 
that the installation will be faulty, 
and a water course or the 
groundwater will become pollut- 
ed. To control illegal installations, 
the province should institute a 
system whereby septic tanks may 
not be sold without the purchaser 
obtaining a certificate of approval 
from the province or its agent 
and showing it to the seller of the 
septic tank. This system will 
permit the province or its agent to 
inspect all sites before installation 
as well as during and after 
installation. Ensuring proper 
installation will considerably 
reduce the likelihood of failure. 

Private septics should be 
inspected regularly for three 



FINAL REPORT 
124 



SEWAGE TREATMENT AND SEPTICS 



purposes: to determine the 
physical soundness of the system; 
to ascertain that the system meets 
current standards for use; and to 
determine whether or not there is 
a need for a pump-out. Once an 
inspection program is devised, 
with the user fee in place and 
trained inspectors available, the 
first priority for inspection 
should be systems installed 
before 1975, when the province 
imposed the most recent set of 
standards. Once these inspections 
are completed in an area, all other 
septic systems should be inspect- 
ed at least once every five years. 

Pump-outs should occur 
regularly, although how often 
that should be depends on the 
use of the system as determined 
by the inspection. The province 
should require proof that systems 
are inspected regularly. 

Facilities must be available 
for septage disposal. In Southern 
Ontario, regions and counties 
should provide these facilities; in 
Northern Ontario, it should be a 
responsibility of the Ministry of 
the Environment and Energy. 

Many submissions noted that 
better education of owners is 
critical to ensuring septic systems 
are used correctly. The Ministry 
of the Environment and Energy 
should devise and undertake an 
education program. 



As noted, further research is 
needed to test and approve 
alternative systems, and to learn 
more about how septics function. 
It would be unrealistic to expect 
the Ministry of the Environment 
and Energy to be able to fund 
such research on its own, but by 
working with universities, 
colleges, municipalities, and the 
private sector, it can accomplish a 
great deal. The Ministry should 
bring appropriate parties together 
and take the lead in establishing 
an ongoing research and develop- 
ment program into sewage- 
treatment matters in Ontario. 

In addition, information 
should be developed on the level 
of financial guarantees needed to 
address issues of capital replace- 
ment, maintenance, and liability 
for communal systems. The 
Ministry of the Environment and 
Energy should develop this infor- 
mation in consultation with 
municipalities, working through 
the Association of Municipalities 
of Ontario. 



Private Wells 

In many cases, those who use pri- 
vate septic systems also use pri- 
vate wells. In such cases, wells 
should be inspected at the same 
time as septics are inspected. 
There should be three parts to 
this inspection: taking a water 
sample to evaluate water quality; 
examining the location of the well 
in relation to the septic bed and 
other site sources of contamina- 
tion; and checking the soundness 
of the wellhead to determine that 
no surface water or other contam- 
inants are running into the well. 
In addition to environmental 
concerns about contamination of 
groundwater from septic sys- 
tems, more general concerns have 
been expressed about well water 
quality and the lack of inspection 
of wells. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

90. The Ministry of the 
Environment and Energy 
continue to be responsible 
for inspections and the 
issuance of permits for pri- 
vate and communal systems, 
for setting standards for 
installation and operation, 
and for licensing septic 
installers and septage 
haulers. The Ministry of the 
Environment and Energy 
should institute training pro- 
grams for installers, septage 
haulers, and inspectors. 



FINAL REPORT 
125 



SEWAGE TREATMENT AND SEPTICS 



91. The Ministry of the 
Environment and Energy be 
responsible for regular 
inspection of private and 
communal septic systems 
every five years. Where septic 
users have private wells, 
these should be inspected at 
the same time. The Ministry 
of the Environment and 
Energy should consider 
entering into agreements 
assigning responsibility for 
inspections and issuance of 
permits to regional and 
county governments, their 
health units, or conservation 
authorities, or, where no 
upper tier exists, to muni- 
cipalities, provided all have 
the appropriate expertise. 
The first priority for inspec- 
tion should be septic systems 
installed before 1975. 

92. The Ministry of the 
Environment and Energy 
and its agents be permitted 
to charge septic and private 
well owners a fee to cover 
the costs of inspections on a 
user-pay basis, to be collect- 
ed with property taxes. 

93. The Ministry of the 
Environment and Energy 
institute a system whereby 
septic tanks may not be sold 
without the purchaser 
obtaining a certificate of 
approval and showing it to 
the seller of the septic tank. 



94. Regions and counties be 
required to provide facilities 
for septage disposal. In 
Northern Ontario, this 
should be the responsibility 
of the Ministry of the 
Environment and Energy. 

95. To improve the information 
available on different kinds 
of sewage systems, the 
Ministry of the Environment 
and Energy: 

(a) Devise and undertake a 
program to educate 
owners on the proper use 
and care of septic systems. 

(b) Establish an ongoing 
research and development 
program into sewage- 
treatment questions in 
Ontario. 

(c) In consultation with 
municipalities and the 
Association of 
Municipalities of Ontario, 
develop information 
concerning the level of 
financial guarantees 
needed to address issues 
of capital replacement, 
maintenance, and liability 
for communal systems. 



FINAL REPORT 
126 



11 

Streamlining 



Many people who made submis- 
sions were concerned that the 
Commission's intention of creating 
a more timely and efficient 
planning system would not be 
realized. They feared the result of 
requiring better planning would 
be further delay and more 
gridlock in decision-making, with 
ensuing negative economic 
consequences. 

The Commission has been 
firm in its desire to create a more 
timely process, and has made 
recommendations specifically 
addressing the timing issues. 

There are three specific 
aspects to the planning approval 
process: municipal decisions; 
provincial decisions; and appeals 
to the Ontario Municipal Board. 
Timeframes are recommended for 
each, and in the case of municipal 
and provincial decisions, the 
recommendations are that time- 
frames be set in legislation. The 
Commission has also addressed 
larger, more general issues in an 
effort to streamline the process. 



General Issues 

Recommendations in three major 
areas will help resolve problems 
that now cause delay: 

• Provincial policies will set a 
general framework and direc- 
tion for planning decisions, so 
there will be a clear basis for 
determining what is "good 
planning." (See Recommen- 
dations 3 and 9.) 

• Legislative requirements will 
spell out issues to be 
addressed in the municipal 
plan, so municipalities will 
plan in advance rather than 
decide on larger issues on a 
case-by-case basis as 
applications are filed. (See 
Recommendations 32 and 35.) 

• Municipalities will be given a 
stronger and clearer role in 
the planning process, with 
upper-tier municipalities 
given greater ability to make 
decisions on such matters as 
plans of subdivision. (See 
Recommendation 59.) 



Currently, these three areas 
are not addressed reasonably in 
the planning system. Without a 
comprehensive set of provincial 
policy statements, it is difficult 
for developers, residents, and 
provincial and municipal staff to 
know what the expectations are. 
Much time is now spent (particu- 
larly in public processes) attempt- 
ing to agree on what is "good 
planning." If analysis of basic 
information on watershed stud- 
ies, mapping of natural features 
and resources, and infrastructure 
planning is done at the plan 
stage, the consideration of devel- 
opment applications can proceed 
in a more expeditious fashion. 



FINAL REPORT 

127 



STREAMLINING 



Municipalities 

Three major changes will create 
timeliness of decision-making at 
the municipal level: 

• If municipal decisions on 
applications for plan amend- 
ments and plans of subdivi- 
sion are not made within six 
months of the receipt of a 
completed application, appeal 
may be made by the applicant 
to the Ontario Municipal 
Board for independent 
determination. (See 
Recommendations 49(b) 

and 57(d).) 

• If it is clear at an early stage 
that the municipality is not 
dealing with an application 
for a plan amendment or plan 
of subdivision in a timely 
fashion, application may be 
made to the Ontario 
Municipal Board to shorten 
the six-month period. (See 
Recommendations 49(c) and 
57(d).) 

• If municipal decisions on 
applications for consents, 
rezonings, and development 
permits are not made within 
90 days, appeal may be made 
by the applicant to the 
Ontario Municipal Board for 
independent determination. 
(See Recommendations 57(d), 
61, and 67.) 



No change is suggested in the 
30-day period set in current 
legislation for considering 
applications for site plans. 

Establishing reasonable 
periods for applications to be 
considered by the municipality or 
planning board is a good first 
step in ensuring timeliness. Some 
councils now take considerably 
longer, but these timeframes 
should be generally sufficient to 
permit the public, staff, and 
councillors to review matters and 
make a fair determination on most 
cases. The currently legislated 
30-day timeframe for applications 
for plan amendments and rezon- 
ings is totally unworkable, since 
council is unable to obtain a 
completed application, undertake 
appropriate studies and review, 
and permit the most rudimentary 
public consultation in such a 
short period. No timeframe is set 
out in current legislation for 
consents. The Commission 
recommends one. 

Where major plan amendment 
applications challenge the very 
basis of the municipal plan — by 
asking for densities far beyond 
those contemplated in the plan, 
or for development on land not 
included within the settlement 
envelope — the Commission is 
recommending that municipalities 
may decide either to consider 
such applications as premature 
and appropriate only at the plan 
review stage, or to reject such 
applications without undertaking 
substantial studies. Municipal 
plans should have some certainty, 
and applicants should not be 
permitted to force municipalities 
to rethink basic plan ideas at their 
whim. 



The Province 

Three major changes that will 
create timeliness in the provincial 
decisions are: 

• If provincial decisions are not 
made within six months of 
receipt of notice of the 
adoption of a plan or a plan 
amendment by a municipality 
or of a completed application, 
appeal may be made by the 
applicant or municipality to 
the Ontario Municipal Board 
for independent determination. 
(See Recommendation 22.) 

• Administrative changes are 
suggested that decentralize 
decision-making to staff at a 
regional level, and that ensure 
coordination among ministries. 
(See Recommendations 19, 20, 
and 21.) 

• Many provincial decisions are 
recommended to be delegated 
to regions, counties, separated 
municipalities, cities in the 
North, planning boards, and 
planning authorities. (See 
Recommendations 41 and 59.) 

Many submissions com- 
plained that decisions languish at 
the provincial level for a long 
time — a year or two, and in 
some cases even longer — before 
the province deals with them. 
The opportunity to appeal after 
six months will make a signifi- 
cant change, as will increased 
delegations to the municipal 
level. The six-month timeframe 
also applies to regions and coun- 
ties that have been delegated 
approval authority for lower-tier 
plans and plan amendments. 



FINAL REPORT 

128 



STREAMLINING 



The Ontario 
Municipal Board 

Three major changes are recom- 
mended so that more timely deci- 
sions can be made on appeals: 

• The Ontario Municipal Board 
should hold a procedural 
meeting of all parties within 
30 days of receiving an 
appeal, and this process 
should also be used to 
address the backlog. (See 
Recommendations 82 and 88.) 

• The Board should have the 
authority, in all cases where at 
the procedural meeting it 
seems there are insufficient 
grounds for a full hearing, to 
order a summary hearing. 
(See Recommendation 83.) 

• The Board should help with 
mediation, require parties to 
exchange information, and 
narrow issues before any 
hearing is held. (See 
Recommendations 82 and 89.) 

Appeals to the Ontario 
Municipal Board can now take 
12 to 18 months before a hearing 
is held, and then another few 
months before a decision is 
released. While procedural meet- 
ings will not resolve all disputes. 
Board powers to call a summary 
hearing or draw the parties 
together will result in much more 
timely resolutions and shorter 
hearings. Further, a comprehen- 
sive set of provincial policy state- 
ments will give clearer direction 
to the Board in resolving disputes 
and making decisions. 



Economic Effects 

A number of submissions urged 
that the Commission undertake 
an economic analysis of its 
recommendations. 

The Commission believes an 
economic analysis of the proposals 
to create a more timely process 
would not be worthwhile. The 
Commission's recommendations 
for timeframes are straightforward 
and clear for everyone to see. 
They are bound to have a positive 
economic impact on the process. 

As discussed in Chapter 4, 
The Provincial Role, in the section 
on the Cost of Planning, it is 
difficult to assign a dollar figure 
to the costs to municipalities of 
legislated planning requirements. 
Many municipalities are now 
undertaking this kind of planning, 
and proposals to allow muni- 
cipalities to pool resources to 
undertake planning will make for 
an efficient use of limited funds. 
The cost of not doing this basic 
planning is much higher in the 
long run for everyone — 
developers, municipalities, 
and taxpayers. 



FINAL REPORT 
129 



12 



Implementing This Report 



Numerous recommendations for 
improving the planning process 
are contained in this Report. The 
Commission recognizes that the 
recommendations cannot all be 
implemented at once, and that 
further consultation is needed on 
some. 

It is, however, important to 
move as quickly as possible to 
make improvements in the 
planning system — to improve its 
timeliness and to ensure environ- 
mental matters are properly con- 
sidered. There have already been 
two years of extensive discussion 
and consultation on these issues. 

This chapter sets out the 
Commission's recommended 
steps for implementing the 
changes recommended in the 
Report. It is important to phase in 
the changes in a practical manner 
that provides predictability and 
reliability for everyone involved. 

Three different kinds of reform 
are being recommended: admin- 
istrative, policy, and legislative. 
Administrative reform can begin 
almost immediately. Policy 
changes require further public 
consultation and then can be 
implemented under existing 
legislation. Legislative changes 
must be drafted, and then they 
are subject to the process of the 
Legislature. 



Administrative 
Reform 

Administrative reforms are the 
easiest changes to make, at least 
in theory. They can be made by 
the government and its agencies 
without a great deal of delay and 
without substantial additional 
consultation. Reforms to planning 
administration should be made 
as quickly as possible. 

The government should 
consider the recommendations 
for administrative change con- 
tained in this Report and decide 
on those changes it wishes to 
immediately proceed with. The 
following outlines a number of 
administrative improvements, 
recommended earlier in this 
Report, which the Commission 
thinks should be given early 
consideration. 

The Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs should be restructured to 
reflect the new functions recom- 
mended in Chapter 4, The 
Provincial Role, and renamed the 
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning. As a first step, the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning should consult with 
other ministries and other 
appropriate interests, and estab- 
lish the regional planning review 



committees. Planning approval 
powers should be delegated to 
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning staff on these 
committees. These committees 
should discuss procedures with 
municipalities served, including 
the selection of a municipal staff 
member to serve on the commit- 
tee, screening mechanisms, and 
timeframes for decisions. 

In addition to delegations 
already made, once a comprehen- 
sive set of planning policies has 
been adopted by the government, 
the Minister of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning should delegate to 
all those regions, counties, sepa- 
rated municipalities, and cities in 
the North that have an official 
plan and are advised by a quali- 
fied planner, approval authority 
for plans and plan amendments 
of lower tiers (where relevant), 
and plans of subdivision. No 
further delegations to planning 
boards should occur until 
decisions have been made about 
boundaries and areas. 

Pending decisions on the 
legislative amendments recom- 
mended by the Commission, the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning should agree that, as a 
matter of practice, where no min- 
isterial decision is forthcoming 
within six months of submission 



FINAL REPORT 
130 



IMPLEMENTING THIS REPORT 



of a completed application for 
approval, the matter will be 
referred to the Ontario Municipal 
Board at the request of the 
applicant or the municipality as 
appropriate. A similar practice 
should be instituted for upper-tier 
consideration of lower-tier plans. 

The province should establish 
the grant programs recommended 
in Chapter 4 for new county plans, 
planning boards, and watershed 
studies. 

Ministries should clarify and 
publish the standards, criteria, 
and /or guidelines used to judge 
applications for permits and 
licences and other technical 
approvals. Agreements should be 
worked out between relevant 
ministries and municipalities 
capable of assuming such powers. 
Such agreements would give 
these bodies approval authority 
for applications meeting such 
standards, criteria, and guidelines, 
and for peer review of more 
complicated matters. 

The Ontario Municipal Board 
should be asked to establish 
procedural meeting mechanisms 
to deal with both new cases and 
backlogged cases, and begin 
training members on mediation 
techniques and other skills needed 
to chair procedural meetings. The 
government should appoint 
part-time members to the Board. 

Pending legislation for the 
full intervenor-funding program 
recommended by the Commission 
in Chapter 9, Conflicts, Disputes, 
and Appeals, the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning 
should provide an interim fund 
of $500,000 a year for intervenor 
funding at the Ontario Municipal 
Board. 



After reasonable consultation 
with affected Northern Ontario 
interest groups, the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning 
should appoint committees — at 
least one for Northeastern Ontario, 
and one for Northwestern Ontario 
— to make recommendations on 
planning board areas and bound- 
aries, consistent with the recom- 
mendations in the Report. These 
committees should be asked to 
report within six months of being 
appointed. 

Once the committees have 
reported, the Minister should 
consider the recommendations 
for new planning boards and for 
expansion or change to existing 
boards. When planning boards 
have an approved plan and are 
advised by a qualified planner, 
the Minister should delegate to 
those boards approval authority 
for plans and plan amendments 
of municipalities within the 
boards, for plans of subdivision, 
and for consents. 

A protocol or agreement 
should be developed by the 
government to give affected and 
other interested Aboriginal com- 
munities notice of development 
proposals for, or changes in use 
or tenure of, provincially owned 
land. 

The Interministerial Planning 
Committee should be formally 
constituted and its mandate 
approved. Its first priority should 
be to assist the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning 
in adopting a comprehensive set 
of provincial policies. 



Policy Reform 

The Commission has noted that 
before a comprehensive set of 
provincial policy statements is 
adopted, there should be 
opportunities for further public 
comment. 

It is important that the further 
public comment not simply be on 
the Commission's policy recom- 
mendations. Rather, it should 
focus on a set of policies which the 
government itself has indicated it 
wishes to adopt. Thus, the 
government should consider the 
Commission's policy recommen- 
dations, and endorse for consul- 
tation purposes a policy package 
that will be available for further 
public discussion. 

The endorsed policy package 
should be given wide distribution, 
and a consultation period of three 
months should be established. 
Given the great number of 
responses received by the 
Commission to the Draft Report, 
it is reasonable to expect a deluge 
of submissions, which will take 
two months to analyse and 
decide upon. 

For consultation to occur and 
responses to be analysed, about 
six months will be required. It is 
most important that a compre- 
hensive set of provincial policy 
statements be adopted as soon as 
possible to provide appropriate 
direction to provincial staff, the 
Ontario Municipal Board, muni- 
cipalities, developers, and the 
public. The Commission suggests 
that the government aim for the 
policy package to be in place by 
the end of 1993. 



FINAL REPORT 
131 



IMPLEMENTING THIS REPORT 



These policies should replace 
the four existing policies, the 
Food Land Guidelines, and the 
Growth and Settlement Policy 
Guidelines. Other policy guide- 
lines should be amended to be 
consistent with the comprehensive 
set of provincial policies and be 
advisory only. Existing imple- 
mentation guidelines for policies 
under the Planning Act should 
also remain advisory only. New 
implementation guidelines for 
policy statements should be 
developed with public input, but 
the adoption of the comprehensive 
set of provincial policy statements 
should not be delayed while 
guidelines are being prepared. 



Legislative Ref omi 

Legislation is required in order to 
put a number of the Commission's 
recommendations into effect. 
After the Cabinet has considered 
the Final Report and has made 
decisions on the legislative 
amendments it wants to proceed 
with, it should direct the devel- 
opment of a draft bill that could 
be used for consultation purposes. 
This bill should be circulated for 
comment for a period of about 
90 days. Comments received 
during that period should be the 
basis for re-drafting legislation, 
and a bill should be introduced. 
After it has been given second 
reading, there should be the 
opportunity of further public 
comment at the committee stage. 
This will likely result in further 
amendments, leading to third 
reading and proclamation in 
1994. 

The Commission recommends 
that: 

96. The government take 

immediate steps to consider 
and act on the following 
recommendations for 
administrative changes 
contained in this Report: 

(a) The Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs be 
restructured and renamed 
the Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning. 

(b) The Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning, 
after consultation with 
ministries and other 
interests, establish 
regional planning review 
committees and delegate 
the planning approval 



powers of the Minister to 
the appropriate ministry 
staff on these committees. 

(c) In addition to delegations 
already made, once a 
comprehensive set of 
planning policies has 
been adopted by the gov- 
ernment, the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning delegate to 
those regions, counties, 
separated municipalities, 
and cities in the North 
that have an official plan 
and are advised by a 
qualified planner, 
approval authority for 
plans and plan amend- 
ments of lower tiers 
(where relevant), and 
plans of subdivision. 

(d) Pending any legislative 
amendments, the 
Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning 
agree that, as a matter of 
practice, where no minis- 
terial decision is forth- 
coming within six 
months of submission of 
a completed application 
for approval, the matter 
will be referred to the 
Ontario Municipal Board 
at the request of the 
applicant or the 
municipality. Upper-tier 
governments should be 
requested to agree to a 
similar procedure for 
lower-tier approvals for 
which they are 
responsible. 



FINAL REPORT 
132 



IMPLEMENTING THIS REPORT 



(e) The government estab- 
lish the grant programs 
recommended in this 
Report for new county 
plans, planning boards, 
and watershed studies. 

(f) Ministries clarify and 
publish the standards, 
criteria, and/or guidelines 
used to judge applications 
for permits, licences, and 
other technical approvals 
and transfer approval 
authority, by agreement, 
to municipalities capable 
of assuming such powers. 
Such agreements should 
include provision for 
peer review of more 
complicated matters. 

(g) The Ontario Municipal 
Board be requested to 
establish the recommend- 
ed procedural meeting 
mechanisms to deal with 
both new cases and back- 
logged cases, to establish 
procedures for mediation, 
and to provide training 
on mediation techniques 
and other skills needed 
by members to chair 
procedural meetings. 

(h) The government appoint 
part-time members to the 
Ontario Municipal 
Board. 

(i) Pending legislation, the 
Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning 
provide an interim fund 
of $500,000 a year for 
intervenor funding at the 
Ontario Municipal 
Board. 



(j) After consultation with 
affected interest groups, 
the Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning 
appoint committees — at 
least one for Northeastern 
Ontario and one for 
Northwestern Ontario — 
to make recommenda- 
tions on planning board 
areas and boundaries. 
These committees should 
be requested to report 
within six months of 
being appointed. Once 
the committees have 
reported, the recommen- 
dations for new planning 
boards and expansion 
and/or change to existing 
boards should be imple- 
mented. After this occurs, 
and once a comprehen- 
sive set of planning poli- 
cies has been adopted by 
the government, the 
Minister should delegate 
to planning boards with 
an approved plan and 
which are advised by a 
qualified planner, 
approval authority for 
plans and plan amend- 
ments of municipalities 
within the planning 
board, and for plans of 
subdivision and consents. 

(k) The government develop 
a protocol or agreement 
to give affected and other 
interested Aboriginal 
communities notice of 
development proposals 
for, or changes in use or 
tenure of, provincially 
owned land. 



(1) The Interministerial 
Planning Committee be 
formally constituted and 
its mandate approved, 
with a first priority to 
assist the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and 
Planning in adopting a 
comprehensive set of 
provincial policies. 

97. The government consider the 
policy recommendations 
contained in this Report and 
endorse for consultation pur- 
poses a comprehensive set of 
provincial policy statements, 
which should be widely 
circulated for comment for a 
period of three months. The 
government should set a goal 
of formally adopting a com- 
prehensive set of provincial 
policy statements under 
section 3 of the Planning Act 
before the end of 1993. 

98. The government consider the 
recommendations for legisla- 
tive amendments contained 
in this Report and prepare a 
draft bill, which should be 
widely circulated for com- 
ment for a period of three 
months. Subsequently, after 
a re-drafted bill has been 
introduced in the Legislature, 
the public should be given 
the further opportunity to 
comment at the committee 
stage. The government should 
set a goal of enacting the 
Planning Act amendments in 
1994. 



FINAL REPORT 
133 



13 
Recommendations 



The Purposes of Planning 

The Commission recommends that: 

1. The Planning Act be amended to state that the 
purposes of the Act are to guide land-use change 
in a manner that: 

(a) fosters economic, environmental, cultural, 
physical, and social well-being; and 

(b) protects and conserves the natural environ- 
ment and conserves and manages natural 
resources for the benefit of present and 
future generations; and 

(c) provides for planning processes that are fair, 
open, accessible, accountable, timely, and 
efficient; and 

(d) encourages cooperation and coordination 
among differing interests. 

2. Section 2 of the Planning Act be amended to 
provide that, in exercising powers under the 
Act, the council of every municipality, every 
local board or authority, every minister of the 
Crown and every ministry, board, commission 
or agency of the government, including the 
Ontario Municipal Board and Ontario Hydro, 
shall have regard to, among other things, such 
matters of provincial interest as: 

(a) the protection of ecosystems, including 
natural features and functions; 

(b) the protection of the agricultural resource 
base of the province; 



(c) the conservation and management of natural 
resources and the mineral resource base; 

(d) the protection and conservation of heritage 
features of significant architectural, cultural, 
historical, archaeological or scientific interest; 

(e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of 
energy and water; 

(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of 
communication, transportation, sewer, 
water, and waste-management services; 

(g) the minimization of waste; 

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy 
communities; 

(i) the adequate provision and equitable distri- 
bution of educational, health, social and 
recreational facilities and programs; 

(j) the adequate provision of a wide variety of 
housing; 

(k) the adequate provision and distribution of 
employment opportunities; 

(1) the protection of the financial and economic 
well-being of the province and its 
municipalities; 

(m) the coordination of planning activities of 
public bodies and private interests; 

(n) the effective and efficient resolution of 
planning conflicts. 



FINAL REPORT 
134 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



Provincial Policy Statements 

The Commission recommends that: 

3. To provide clarity and consistency in the 
definition of provincial interests in planning: 

(a) The province adopt a comprehensive set of 
policy statements under section 3 of the 

Planning Act. 

(b) This comprehensive set of policy statements 
replace the four existing policies under 
section 3, namely the Mineral Aggregate 
Resources Policy the Flood Plain Planning 
Policy the Land Use Planning for Housing 
Policy and the Wetlands Policy. 

(c) This comprehensive set of policy statements 
replace the Food Land Guidelines and the 
Growth and Settlement Policy Guidelines. 

(d) After the comprehensive set of policy 
statements has been adopted, any new 
implementation guidelines be developed 
with public input. 

(e) All existing guidelines be made consistent 
with the comprehensive set of provincial 
policy statements and remain advisory only. 

4. The Planning Act be amended to provide that in 
exercising any authority that affects any planning 
matter, the council of every municipality, every 
local board or authority every minister of the 
Crown and every ministry, board, commission 
or agency of the government, including the 
Ontario Municipal Board and Ontario Hydro, 
shall be consistent with policies adopted under the 
Act. 

5. The Planning Act be amended to require that the 
proposed Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning give consideration every five years to 
whether there is need for revision of provincial 
policy statements. 



6. The province engage in negotiations with the 
federal government to allow individuals to 
claim the full value of land or of interests in land 
donated to approved non-profit corporations or 
trusts as an income tax credit, and to ensure that 
such gifts can be made without triggering 
capital gains tax. 

7. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Planning 
undertake research on the cost and benefit of 
different development forms and settlement 
patterns, and provide municipalities with advice 
on methods of assessing the fiscal impact of 
development options and proposals. 

8. To address outstanding issues related to mineral 
aggregate resource operations, the Ministry of 
Natural Resources, in consultation with muni- 
cipalities, the industry, and others: 

(a) Determine the sequence for extraction of 
primary aggregate resources. 

(b) Develop strategies for dealing with contra- 
vention of the Aggregate Resources Act and the 
enforcement of aggregate licence conditions 
and wayside pit permits. 

(c) Review the amount of fees assessed against 
aggregate operations and the proportion 
allocated to municipalities. 



FINAL REPORT 
135 



RECOMMENDATIONS/POLICY STATEMENTS 



The following comprehensive set of policy state- 
ments be adopted by the province, after further 
consultation, under section 3 of the Planning Act. 



A. Natural Heritage and Ecosystem 
Protection and Restoration Policies 

Goal: To protect the quality and integrity of 
ecosystems, including air, water, land, and biota; 
and, where quality and integrity have been 
diminished, to restore or remediate to healthy 
conditions. 

1. Development may be permitted only if the 
quantity and quality of water in ground- and 
surface-water systems are not impaired in the 
short and long term. 

2. Development shall not be permitted in signifi- 
cant ravines, river, stream, and natural corridors, 
and in the habitat of endangered, threatened and 
vulnerable species. Development shall not be 
permitted in significant woodlots south of the 
northern boundaries of the District Municipality 
of Muskoka, and the counties of Haliburton, 
Hastings, Lennox and Addington, Frontenac, 
and Lanark. Development shall not be permitted 
on adjacent and related lands if it adversely 
affects the integrity of the natural features or 
ecological functions of the areas included in this 
statement. New infrastructure shall be located 
outside of these significant features unless it is 
demonstrated there is no reasonable alternative. 

3. In the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region, 
development shall not be permitted within 
provincially significant wetlands. On adjacent 
lands, development may be permitted only if it 
does not result in any of the following: loss of 
wetland functions; subsequent demand for 
future development that will have an adverse 
effect on existing wetland functions; conflict 
with existing site-specific wetland management 
practices; and loss of contiguous wetland area. 
This shall be demonstrated by an environmental 
impact study (LIS) prepared in accordance with 
established procedures and carried out by a pro- 
ponent addressing all these issues. On adjacent 
lands, established agricultural activities are 
permitted without an LIS. 



FINAL REPORT 
136 



RECOMMENDATIONS/POLICY STATEMENTS 



In the Boreal Region, development may be 
permitted in provincially significant wetlands 
and adjacent lands only if it does not result in 
any of the following: loss of wetland functions; 
subsequent demand for future development that 
will have an adverse effect on existing wetland 
functions; and conflict with existing site-specific 
wetland management practices. This shall be 
demonstrated by an environmental impact 
study (EIS) prepared in accordance with estab- 
lished procedures, and carried out by a propo- 
nent, addressing all these issues. On adjacent 
lands, established agricultural activities are 
permitted without an EIS. 

New infrastructure shall be located outside 
provincially significant wetlands unless it is 
demonstrated there is no reasonable alternative. 
Approval authorities shall consider alternative 
methods and measures for minimizing impacts 
on wetland functions when reviewing proposals 
to construct transportation, communications, 
sanitation, and other such infrastructure in 
provincially significant wetlands. 

4. Except for areas covered in policies A2 and A3, 
areas of natural and scientific interest, ground- 
water recharge areas, significant wildlife habitat, 
and shorelines will be classified into areas where 
either (a) no development is permitted or 

(b) development may be permitted only if it 
does not adversely affect the features and func- 
tions for which the area is identified. In the 
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region, locally sig- 
nificant wetlands will be classified into areas 
where either (a) no development is permitted or 
(b) development may be permitted only if it 
does not adversely affect these wetland functions. 

5. Except for areas covered in policies A2 and A3, 
development on lands adjacent to lakes, rivers, 
and streams may be permitted only if it does not 
impair water quality or adversely affect shore- 
line vegetation, bank stability, and wildlife 
habitat. 



6. Development may be permitted only if there are 
no adverse effects on, or is no net loss of, fish 
habitat within the same watercourse. 

7. Development shall not be permitted in the 
floodway of a defined storm, or in the flood 
plain where the floodway is not defined, except 
with the consent of, or in special policy areas 
approved by, the Ministry of Natural Resources 
or a conservation authority. Where development 
is permitted in the flood fringe, structures may 
be permitted only if protected by floodproofing 
actions appropriate to the purpose for which the 
structure is used, including the ingress and 
egress of vehicles and pedestrians during times 
of flooding. 

8. Development on lands adjacent to the Great 
Lakes and their connecting channels and the 
St. Lawrence River shorelines shall not be per- 
mitted within areas susceptible to 100-year flood 
levels and 100-year erosion limits unless mitiga- 
tive measures have been taken to address flood, 
erosion, and related hazards. 

9. Development may be permitted on hazardous 
sites only if it does not present a risk to public 
safety, public health, and property. 

10. The need to remediate contaminated air, water, 
and soil, their systems, and contaminated sites 
will be determined, and an appropriate plan for 
site remediation will be approved and imple- 
mented, before above-grade building permits 
are issued. 

11. In decisions regarding development, every 
opportunity will be taken to: improve the quality 
of air, land, water, and biota; maintain and 
enhance biodiversity compatible with indige- 
nous natural systems; and protect, restore, and 
establish natural links and corridors. 



FINAL REPORT 
137 



RECOMMENDATIONS /POLICY STATEMENTS 



B. Community Development and 
Infrastructure Policies 

Goal: To manage growth and change to foster 
communities that are socially, economically, 
environmentally, and culturally healthy, and that 
make efficient use of land, new and existing 
infrastructure, and public services and facilities. 

1. Social and human needs will be addressed by an 
adequate distribution of facilities and services 
available to residents diverse in ability, age, 
income, and culture. 

2. Public streets and places used by the public will 
be planned to meet the needs of pedestrians and 
be designed to be safe, vibrant, and accessible to 
all, including the disabled. 

3. The well-being of downtowns and main streets 
will be fostered. 

4. To encourage economic opportunities that 
enhance job possibilities and broaden the eco- 
nomic base of communities, a supply of zoned 
land will be maintained sufficient to meet 
anticipated needs. 

5. Communities will be planned to minimize the 
consumption of land, promote the efficient use 
of infrastructure and public service facilities, 
and, where transit systems exist or may be intro- 
duced in the future, promote the use of public 
transit. 

6. The efficiency of transportation systems shall be 
maximized by coordinating transportation plans 
with those of other relevant jurisdictions, inte- 
grating transportation modes, and making 
optimal use of existing transportation systems 
before proceeding with system expansion. 

7. In existing built-up areas served by public 
sewage and water systems, intensification and 
mixed uses will be encouraged by appropriate 
land-use designations and zoning. 



8. Extensions to built-up areas served by public 
sewage and water systems may be permitted 
only if the following conditions are met: 

(a) new development areas are logical extensions 
of the existing built-up areas, and will be 
served by public sewage and water systems; 
and 

(b) a strategy for the development, staging, and 
financing of the infrastructure for the exten- 
sion is adopted; and 

(c) opportunities for the efficient use of land, 
infrastructure, and public service facilities 
through intensification and mixed uses in 
existing built-up areas are provided; and 

(d) the extension will have a compact form and 
a mix of uses and densities that efficiently 
use land, infrastructure, and public service 
faciUties; and 

(e) if the extension is to include quality agricul- 
tural land, it is demonstrated there is no 
reasonable alternative to accommodating the 
growth anticipated. 

9. Extensions to built-up areas not served by public 
sewage may be permitted only if the following 
conditions are met: 

(a) new development areas are logical extensions 
of the existing built-up areas; and 

(b) the long-term adequacy of private on-site or 
public or communal systems of water supply 
and sewage treatment is demonstrated; and 

(c) a strategy for the development, staging, and 
financing of any needed infrastructure and 
public service facilities for the extension is 
adopted; and 

(d) the extension will have a compact form and 
densities and uses appropriate to the water 
and sewage systems proposed; and 

(e) if the extension is to include quality agricul- 
tural land, it is demonstrated there is no 
reasonable alternative to accommodating the 
growth anticipated. 



FINAL REPORT 

138 



RECOMMENDATIONS/POLICY STATEMENTS 



10. In recreational and rural areas other than quality 
agricultural areas, development that is not an 
extension of the built-up areas of communities 
may be permitted only if the following conditions 
are met: 

(a) rural and recreational characteristics are 
defined and policies to protect those charac- 
teristics are set out in the municipal plan; 
and 

(b) the cumulative impacts of development on 
rural and recreational characteristics and on 
natural features and functions are assessed 
and are acceptable; and 

(c) the long-term adequacy of private on-site or 
public or private communal systems of 
water supply and sewage treatment is 
demonstrated; and 

(d) the long-term public costs of reasonably 
expected infrastructure and public services 
and public service facilities are assessed and 
are acceptable. 

11. Reasonable public access to public land and 
water bodies will be maintained or provided. 

12. Policies and decisions regarding infrastructure 
and development will respect and conserve 
significant landscapes, vistas, ridge-lines, and 
areas of natural beauty. 

13. Policies and decisions regarding infrastructure 
and development will respect and conserve 
significant cultural and historical patterns, built 
heritage, and cultural resources. 



14. On lands containing significant archaeological 
heritage, development shall not be permitted 
where, by its nature, the resource must be pre- 
served on site to ensure its heritage integrity. In 
other cases, development may be permitted if 
the site is studied and significant archaeological 
heritage is catalogued, analysed, and removed 
by licensed archaeologists prior to development. 

15. The continuous linear characteristics of signifi- 
cant transportation and infrastructure corridors 
and rights-of-way, including abandoned railway 
corridors, will be protected. 

16. New permanent town sites shall not be permitted 
in areas without municipal organization, and 
development in areas without municipal organi- 
zation will generally be restricted. New perma- 
nent town sites shall not be permitted for the 
purposes of resource extraction. 

17. Development will be planned to minimize the 
impact of noise, odour, and other contaminants 
generated by major facilities such as airports, 
transportation corridors, sewage-treatment 
facilities, waste sites, industries, and aggregate 
activities, on sensitive uses such as residences, 
hospitals, and schools. 



FINAL REPORT 
139 



RECOMMENDATIONS/POLICY STATEMENTS 



C. Housing Policies 

Goal: To provide opportunities in each muni- 
cipality for the creation of housing that is afford- 
able, accessible, adequate, and appropriate to the 
full income and age range of present and expected 
future households. 

1. The opportunity for a full range of housing 
types to accommodate households diverse in 
ability, age, and income will be provided in all 
communities served by public sewage and water 
systems. 

2. The area used to determine housing needs in 
relation to number of units and affordability is 
the same as the geographical boundary of the 
upper-tier municipality, separated municipality, 
city in the North, planning board, or planning 
authority. Where the urban area extends over 
those boundaries, then the area used will incor- 
porate the larger geographical boundary. 

3. (a) Opportunities will be provided so that at 

least 30 percent of new units created through 
residential intensification and development 
will be affordable to households in the lowest 
60th percentile of household income distrib- 
ution in the area. 

(b) In large-scale housing development projects, 
such opportunities will be provided. 

(c) hinovative development and redevelopment, 
small-scale intensification, residential con- 
version, and government programs will be 
used, where possible, to create opportunities 
for half of the housing provided through 
Policy C3(a) to be affordable to households 
in the lowest 30th percentile of household 
income distribution. 

4. Where land owned by the provincial government 
is declared surplus and development for housing 
is proposed, the province will create the opportu- 
nity for the development of affordable housing. 
Small sites will be dedicated to not-for-profit 
housing; large sites will serve a broader income 
range. 



5. A sufficient supply of land designated for resi- 
dential redevelopment or development will be 
maintained to allow for the provision of a full 
range of housing to meet present and future 
housing needs. Municipalities served by public 
sewage and water systems will maintain at least 
a three-year supply of zoned land and a ten-year 
supply of land designated for residential rede- 
velopment or development. 

D. Agricultural Land Policies 

Goal: To protect quality agricultural areas for 
long-term agricultural use. 

1. Quality agricultural areas will be protected for 
agricultural use, except as noted herein. Other 
agricultural areas may also be protected. 

2. Extensions of communities that include quality 
agricultural lands may be permitted if the condi- 
tions outlined in policies B8 and B9 are met. 

3. Infrastructure and public service facilities shall 
be located outside quality agricultural areas 
unless it is demonstrated there is no reasonable 
alternative. 

4. Lot creation in quality agricultural areas may be 
permitted only for primary agricultural uses, 
infrastructure, public service facilities, or resi- 
dences surplus to farming operations as a result 
of farm consolidation. 

5. Separation distances in agricultural areas 
between new development and existing uses 
will be adequate to ensure no adverse effects 
from odour, dust, noise, and light generated by 
primary agricultural uses. 



FINAL REPORT 
140 



RECOMMENDATIONS/POLICY STATEMENTS 



E. Conservation Policies 

Goal: To pursue energy conservation, water con- 
servation, and the reduction, re-use, and recycling 
of waste. 

1. Patterns of land use and development will be 
planned and modified to best promote efficiency 
of energy and water use and reduce per capita 
consumption. 

2. Water and energy conservation and waste mini- 
mization measures will be incorporated into the 
siting and design of landscaping, infrastructure, 
and buildings. 

3. Patterns of land use and development will be 
planned and modified to encourage the most 
efficient modes of transportation and to reduce 
the need for private automobile use in daily life. 

4. Transportation systems in urban areas will be 
designed to give priority to energy-efficient low- 
polluting travel, including priority to walking, 
bicycling, and public transit, where appropriate. 

5. The built environment and its embodied energy 
and resources will be conserved, where possible, 
through re-use, recycling, and renovation. 

F. Non-renewable Resources Policies 

Goal: To protect non-renewable resource opera- 
tions, significant deposits of non-renewable 
resources (including mineral aggregates, minerals, 
and petroleum resources), and areas of significant 
non-renewable resource potential for resource use. 



1. 



Existing non-renewable resource operations, 
significant deposits of non-renewable resources, 
and areas of significant non-renewable resource 
potential will be protected from incompatible 



uses. 



2. 



In areas of significant non-renewable resource 
potential, uses that do not preclude future access 
to and development of these potential resources 
may be permitted. 



3. Development on lands adjacent to existing oper- 
ations and areas of significant known deposits of 
non-renewable resources will be permitted, 
provided the development does not preclude 
continuation of the existing operations, does not 
preclude development of the remaining resource, 
and addresses issues of potential public health 
and safety. 

4. Development may be permitted in areas of 
significant known deposits of non-renewable 
resources where extraction is not feasible; or 
where existing or proposed uses serve a greater 
long-term interest of the general public than 
does access or extraction; or where it would not 
significantly preclude or hinder future extraction. 

5. Rehabilitation of non-renewable resource lands 
will be required after extraction. In areas of 
quality agricultural land, rehabilitation will be 
carried out to achieve substantially the same 
land area and soil capability for agriculture as 
existed prior to extraction, except where high- 
water conditions make it impossible and the 
operation has been issued approval to extract 
below the water table. 

G. Implementation Policies 

The following principles shall be used to implement 
provincial policies and make them effective: 

1. Policy takes effect after Cabinet approval and on 
publication in the Ontario Gazette, and applies to 
all planning applications under the Planning Act. 

2. Policy statements shall be implemented by 
municipalities through municipal plans, plans of 
subdivision, consents, zoning by-laws, minor 
variances, and other planning tools, and by 
other planning jurisdictions through their 
decisions. 

3. Policy applies whether or not municipal plans 
have been amended to reflect such policy. 



FINAL REPORT 
141 



RECOMMENDATIONS /POLICY STATEMENTS 



4. New policies apply to applications made but not 
finally approved when the policy takes effect. In 
applying new policies to such applications, the 
applicant and all planning jurisdictions must 
make their best efforts to achieve the policy to 
the greatest extent possible. Decisions of plan- 
ning jurisdictions on such applications must be 
tempered by fairness, including a consideration 
of: planning and front-end agreements, issues 
considered and decisions and formal agreemients 
already made with municipalities and other 
planning jurisdictions, and conformity of the 
application to current municipal plans and con- 
sistency with provincial policy. 

5. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Planning, 
together with other ministries, and in consulta- 
tion with the public, may prepare guidelines to 
assist planning jurisdictions in implementing 
policy statements. Such guidelines will be advi- 
sory only and shall not derogate from policy. 

6. Ministries will provide available information to 
planning jurisdictions on matters of provincial 
significance outlined in policy statements, and 
will assist planning jurisdictions in mapping 
and developing their policies. 

7. Conflicts between poHcies will be resolved by 
the clear meaning of words. For example, if one 
policy prohibits development in provincially 
significant wetlands and other policies encour- 
age aggregate extraction or affordable housing, 
the prohibition should rule out both extraction 
and housing in that wetland. Where conflicts 
still remain, those conflicts will be resolved in 
municipal plans as municipalities make best 
efforts to make decisions consistent with 
provincial policies. 

8. Municipal plans will include maps or other 
descriptions of areas referred to in policy 
statements. 



An environmental impact study (EIS), as out- 
lined in legislation, will be required for develop- 
ment proposals in the following areas: 

• lands adjacent to a significant ravine, river, 
stream, or natural corridor, or to the habitat 
of endangered, threatened, and vulnerable 
species, or to provincially significant wetlands 
in the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region; 

• lands adjacent to significant woodlots 
defined in Policy A2; 

• provincially significant wetlands and 
adjacent land in the Boreal Region; 

• those parts of areas of natural and scientific 
interest, groundwater recharge areas, signifi- 
cant wildlife habitat, and shorelines where 
development is not prohibited; 

• land adjacent to lakes, rivers, and streams; 
and 

• where development is proposed which may 
impact fish habitat. 

An EIS shall include: 

(a) a description of the existing natural environ- 
ment that will be affected or that might rea- 
sonably be expected to be affected, directly 
or indirectly; 

(b) the environmental effects that might reason- 
ably be expected to occur; 

(c) alternative methods and measures for miti- 
gation of potential environmental effects of 
the proposed development; and 

(d) a monitoring plan to measure the potential 
effects on the environment. 

An environmental impact study will provide 
a basis for assessing adverse effects. 



FINAL REPORT 
142 



RECOMMENDATIONS/POLICY STATEMENTS 



Definitions 

Adjacent land Land contiguous to an identified natural fea- 
ture or function, or resource. For the purpose of Policy A3 
concerning wetlands, adjacent lands means (a) those lands 
within 120 metres of an individual wetland area, and (b) all 
lands connecting individual wetland areas within a wetland 
complex. 

Affordable Annual cost of housing, including mortgage, prin- 
cipal, and interest payments as amortized over 25 years with 
a 25 percent down payment, or gross rent, that does not 
exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income. 

Agricultural activity Ploughing, seeding, harvesting, grazing, 
or animal husbandry, or buildings and structures associated 
with these farming activities. It includes these activities on 
areas lying fallow as part of a conventional rotation cycle. 

Agricultural use Primary agricultural uses are: (1) The grow- 
ing of crops or raising of livestock, including poultry and 
fish. (2) Farm-related commercial and farm-related industri- 
al uses that are directly related to the farm operation and are 
required to be in close proximity to farm operations. 
Secondary agricultural uses are secondary to the farm opera- 
tion, such as home occupations, home industries, and uses 
that produce value-added agricultural products from the 
farm operation. Agricultural drains are primary and sec- 
ondary agricultural uses. 

Archaeological heritage The remains of any building, struc- 
ture, activity, place, or cultural feature or object which, 
because of the passage of time, is on or below the surface of 
land or water, and is of significance to the understanding of 
the history of a people or place. 

Areas of natural and scientific interest Areas of land or water, 
as identified b\' the Ministry of Natural Resources, repre- 
senting dishnctive elements of Ontario's geological, ecologi- 
cal, or species diversity and including natural landscapes or 
features of value for natural heritage protection, scientific 
study, gene pools, and education. 

Biodiversity The variety of life in all forms, levels, and combi- 
nations. It includes ecosystem diversity, species diversity, 
and genetic diversity. 

Biota All plant and animal life. 

Boreal Region The part of Ontario defined as the Boreal Region 
in figures 1 and 3 of the Wetlands Policy Statement. (For infor- 
mation purposes, the region is an area north of a line 
running roughly between Sault Ste. Marie and Temagami.) 

Built heritage A building, structure, monument, or installation 
(or a group of them), or remains, associated with architectur- 
al, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history. 

Built-up area The area where development is concentrated 
and contiguous with the developed portions of hamlets, vil- 
lages, towns, and cities. 

Contaminated site Property or lands that, for reasons of public 
health and safety, are unsafe for development as a result of 
past human activities, particularly those activities that have 
left a chemical or radioactive residue. Such sites include 
some industrial lands, electrical facilities, and some aban- 
doned non-renewable resource operations. 



Cultural resource May include archaeological or built heritage 
resources and structural remains of historical and contextual 
value, as well as human-made rural, village, and urban dis- 
tricts, or landscapes and tree lines of historic and scenic 
interest. 

Cumulative impact The combined effects or potential effects 
of one or more development activities in a specified area 
over a particular time period. They may occur simultaneous- 
ly, sequentially, or in an interactive manner. 

Defined Storm The Hurricane Hazel storm (1954) or the 
Timmins storm (1961) or the 100-year storm, whichever is 
greatest, in the planning area, or other standard approved by 
the conservation authority or Ministry of Natural Resources. 

Development (1) The construction, erection, or placing of a 
building or structure. (2) The making of a significant addi- 
tion or alteration to a building or structure. (3) A significant 
change in use or in intensity of use of any building, struc- 
ture, or premises. (4) Activities such as site-grading, excava- 
tion, removal of topsoil or peat, or the placing or dumping 
of fill. (5) Drainage works. The maintenance of existing 
municipal and agricultural drains is not "development" for 
the purpose of these policies. 

Ecosystem Systems of plants, animals, and micro-organisms, 
together with the non-living components of their environ- 
ment and related ecological processes. 

Endangered species Any indigenous species of fauna or flora 
that, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, is 
indicated to be threatened with immediate extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its Ontario range. 
Endangered species are idenhfied in Regulations under the 
Endangered Species Act. 

Farm consolidation The joining together of two farm parcels 
that are abutting. 

Fish habitat The spawning grounds and nursery, food supply, 
and migration areas upon which fish rely to live. 

Flood fringe The outer portion of the flood plain between the 
floodway and the limit of flooding expected from the 
defined storm. 

Flood plain The area of land adjacent to a watercourse that 
may be subject to flooding during the defined storm. It 
includes the floodway and the flood fringe. 

Floodproofing A combination of structural changes or adjust- 
ments incorporated into the basic design or construction of 
buildings, structures, or properties subject to flooding so as 
to reduce or eliminate flood damages. 

Floodway The channel of a watercourse and the inner portion 
of the flood plain, where flood depths and velocities are gen- 
erally higher than in the flood fringe. It is the area required 
for the safe conveyance and discharge of flood flow result- 
ing from a storm less intense than the defined storm, or 
where water depths and velocities are such that they pose a 
potential threat to life or property on or near the flood plain. 



FINAL REPORT 
143 



RECOMMENDATIONS/POLICY STATEMENTS 



Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region The area of Ontario 
defined as the Great Lalces - St. Lawrence Region in figures 
1 and 3 of the Wetlands Policy Statement. (For information 
purposes, the region is south of a Hne running roughly 
between Sault Ste. Marie and Temagami.) 

Groundwater (1) Water occurring below the soil surface that is 
held in the soil itself. (2) Subsurface water, or water stored in 
the pores, cracks, and crevices in the ground below the 
water table. (3) Water occurring in the zone of saturation 
below the earth's surface. 

Groundwater recharge area An area from which there is sig- 
nificant addition of water to the groundwater system. 

Hazardous site Property or lands that, for reasons of public 
health, safety, or potential property damage, are unsafe for 
development as a result of naturally occurring or human- 
made perils. They may include unstable lands or areas sub- 
ject to change as a result of their previous use as mining 
sites, sites prone to erosion, slopes and banks, unstable soils 
such as some organic and clay soils, areas of unstable 
bedrock, orphaned wells, capped wells, and underground 
caverns. 

Infrastructure Physical structures that form the foundation for 
development. Infrastructure includes public sewage and 
water systems, storm-water disposal systems, waste man- 
agement facilities, electric power, communications and 
transportation corridors and facilities, and oil and gas 
pipelines. 

Intensification The development of a property or site at a 
higher density than previously existed. It includes (1) rede- 
velopment, or development within existing communities; (2) 
infill development, or development on vacant lots or under- 
developed lots within a built-up area; (3) conversion, or the 
change of use of an existing structure or land use; (4) cre- 
ation of apartments or other accommodation in houses. 

Mineral aggregate Sand, gravel, shale, limestone, dolostone, 
sandstone, and other mineral materials suitable for construc- 
tion, industrial, manufacturing, and maintenance purposes, 
but excluding metallic minerals, fossil fuels, and non-aggre- 
gate industrial minerals such as asbestos, gypsum, nepheline 
syenite, peat, and rock salt. 

Minerals: 

Industrial minerals are generally synonymous with non- 
metallic minerals and include any mineral, rock, or other 
naturally occurring substance of present or potenhal eco- 
nomic value, exclusive of metallic ores, mineral aggregates, 
and mineral fuels. 

Metallic minerals have a high specific gravity and a metallic 
lustre from which metals (such as copper, nickel, or gold) 
are derived. 

Non-metallic minerals lack the common properties of 
metallic minerals, such as metallic lustre or high specific 
gravity, and are generally of value for intrinsic properties of 
the mineral itself and not as a source of metal. They are gen- 
erally synonymous with non-aggregate industrial minerals 
such as asbestos, gypsum, nepheline syenite, peat, and rock 
salt. 



Mixed use A variety of uses in a building or community in 
close proximity, possibly including housing, recreational, 
and commercial, institutional, industrial, or other employ- 
ment uses. 

Non-renewable resource operations (1) Legally existing pits 
and quarries, oil, gas, and brine wells, and mining opera- 
tions, including associated production and processing facili- 
ties. (2) Areas of existing mining land dispositions (mining 
leases and patents). (3) Past-producing mines, pits, and 
quarries with remaining mineral development potential. 

Petroleum resources Included are oil and gas deposits and 
underground natural gas storage facilities. 

Provincially significant wetland (1) A Class 1, 2, or 3 wetland 
in that part of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region below 
the line approximating the south edge of the Canadian 
Shield, as defined in An Evaluation System for Wetlands of 
Ontario South of the Precambrian Shield (MNR, 1984). (2) A 
wetland identified as provincially significant by the Ministry 
of Natural Resources through an evaluation system devel- 
oped specifically for other areas of Ontario. 

Public service facilities Buildings and structures for the provi- 
sion of public services. 

Public services Programs and services provided or subsidized 
by a government or other public body. Examples include 
social assistance, health, and educational programs, and cul- 
tural services. 

Quality agricultural area An area where quality agricultural 
land predominates. 

Quality agricultural land Land that includes specialty crop 
lands and /or Canada Land Inventory Classes 1, 2, and 3 
agricultural capability soils. Quality agricultural land may 
also be identified through an alternative land-evaluation 
system approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 

Specialty crop land Areas where specialty crops such as 
tender fruits (peaches, grapes, cherries, plums), other fruit 
crops, vegetable crops, greenhouse crops, and crops from 
agriculturally developed organic soil lands are predomi- 
nantly grown, usually resulting from: (1) soils that have suit- 
ability to produce specialty crops, or lands that are subject to 
special climatic conditions, or a combination of both; and /or 
(2) a combination of farmers skilled in the production of spe- 
cialty crops, and of capital investment in related facilities 
and services to produce, store, or process specialty crops. 

Rehabilitate After extraction, to treat land so that the use or 
condition of the land is restored to its former use or condi- 
tion, or is changed to another use or condition that is or will 
be compatible with adjacent land uses. 

Rural and recreational characteristics Elements of a muni- 
cipality's physical, environmental, social, or cultural fabric 
through which its identity or uniqueness has evolved and is 
defined. Examples include historic settlement patterns, nat- 
ural or cultural resources, waterways, and distinctive land- 
scapes or vistas. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
144 



RECOMMENDATIONS/POLICY STATEMENTS 



Sewage and water systems: 

Private communal systems are sewage works and systems, 
and water works that provide for the distribution, collection, 
or treatment of sewage or water not connected to full public 
systems; are for the common use of more than five units of 
full-time or seasonal residential occupancy; and are owned, 
operated, and managed privately. 

Private sewage and water systems, including on-site 
systems, are sewage works and systems, and water works, 
that are owned, operated, and managed privately and used 
by five or fewer properties or units. 

Public communal systems are sewage works and systems, 
and water works that provide for the distribution, collection, 
or treatment of sewage or water not connected to full public 
systems; are for the common use of more than five units of 
full-time or seasonal residential occupancy; and are owned, 
operated, and managed by the municipality or other public 
body. 

Public sewage and water systems are sewage and water 
works, owned by the municipality or the province and pro- 
vided to serve the whole municipality or a substanhal part 
of it. 

Significant In regard to natural features and functions, ecolog- 
ically important to the natural environment in terms of 
amount, content, representation, or effect and contributing 
to the quality and integrity of an identifiable ecological 
region. In regard to matters other than natural features and 
functions, important in terms of amount, content, represen- 
tation, or effect. 

Threatened species Any indigenous species of fauna or flora 
that, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence, is 
indicated to be experiencing a definite non-cyclical decline 
throughout all or a major portion of its Ontario range, and 
that is likely to become an endangered species if the factors 
responsible for the decline continue unabated. 

Transportation system Public corridors, transit systems, 
roads, pathways, and other facilities for the movement of 
people or goods. Modes of transportation in these systems 
may include automobile, bus, train, truck, aircraft, bicycle, 
or foot. 

Unorganized areas Those parts of the province without 
municipal organization. 

Vulnerable species Any indigenous species of fauna or flora 
that is represented in Ontario by small but relatively stable 
populations, and /or that occurs sporadically, or in a very 
restricted area of Ontario, or at the fringe of its range, and 
that should be monitored periodically for evidence of a pos- 
sible decline. 

Wetland area A single contiguous wetland, which may be 
composed of one or more wetland types. Two or more wet- 
land areas, plus their adjacent lands, form a wetland com- 
plex. 



Wetland functions The biological, physical, and socio-eco- 
nomic interactions that occur because wetlands are present. 
Included are groundwater recharge and discharge, flood 
damage reduction, shoreline stabilization, sediment trap- 
ping, nutrient retention and removal, food-chain support, 
and fish and wildlife habitat. 

Wetland management practices The activities undertaken by 
municipal or provincial public bodies, or by private 
landowners or individuals, to modify or enhance wetland 
features or functions to meet specific objectives. 

Wetlands Lands seasonally or permanently covered by shal- 
low water, as well as lands where the water table is close to 
or at the surface. In either case, the presence of water has 
caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the 
dominance of hydrophytic, or water-tolerant, plants. The 
four types of wetlands found in Ontario are bogs, fens, 
marshes, and swamps. Lands being used for agricultural 
purposes, that are periodically "soaked" or "wet," are not 
considered to be wetlands in this definihon. Such lands, 
whether or not they were wetlands at one time, are consid- 
ered to have been converted to alternate uses. 

Wildlife habitat Areas of the natural environment upon which 
wildlife depend for survival as self-sustaining populations 
in the wild, including land and water needed for cover, pro- 
tection, or food supply. Wildlife include all wild mammals, 
birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and invertebrates. Areas 
included may be deer yards, nesting areas, aquatic habitat, 
waterfowl staging areas, and habitat of endangered, threat- 
ened, and vulnerable species. 

Woodlot A hardwood, softwood, or mixed wooded area of 
more than one hectare, covered in trees to a density of (1) at 
least 1000 trees per hectare of all sizes, or (2) 750 trees per 
hectare measuring over 5 centimetres in diameter, or (3) 500 
trees per hectare measuring over 12 cenhmetres in diameter, 
or (4) 250 trees per hectare measuring over 20 centimetres in 
diameter. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
145 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



The Provincial Role 

The Commission recommends that: 

10. The Planning Act be amended to require the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Planning, 
before issuing a policy statement, to consult on 
the proposed policy, including providing notice 
and providing a fair opportunity for public 
comment. 

11. The Planning Act be amended to provide for the 
establishment of a Provincial Planning Advisory 
Committee (PPAC), consisting of no more than 
20 members representing the diverse interests in 
the planning system, appointed by the Minister 
of Municipal Affairs and Planning. PPAC will 
have the follow^ing functions: 

(a) Review proposals for provincial planning 
policy and plans referred by the Minister or 
submitted by the public. 

(b) Recommend to the Minister, for approval, an 
annual agenda of policy and planning 
priorities for the committee. 

(c) Direct the preparation of background 
studies, directing assigned staff and retaining 
consultants as needed. 

(d) Direct public consultation on policy and 
planning matters, using special committees 
having diverse interests and expertise in 
particular policy issues or representing 
interests in specific parts of the province. 

(e) Review the results of the public consultation, 
and provide feedback to the public on the 
recommendations made and how public 
input was considered. 

(f) Make recommendations to the Minister for 
provincial planning policies and plans, 
providing supporting rationale. 

(g) Review effectiveness of existing planning 
policy and plans, and make appropriate 
recommendations. 



12. To provide coordination among ministries on 
planning matters, an Interministerial Planning 
Committee (IPC) of deputy ministers from 
ministries that have a direct interest in land-use 
planning in Ontario be established, chaired by 
the deputy minister of the Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning. The committee's mandate 
would include coordinating policy and planning 
activities among provincial ministries and 
working with the Provincial Plarming Advisory 
Committee (PPAC) on provincial policy and 
planning proposals. 

13. The Planning Act be amended to provide that 
provincial plans be adopted as policy statements 
under the Act. 

14. Responsibility for provincial planning policy 
initiatives, coordination, and response be 
assigned to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 
which should be renamed the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning. 

15. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Planning be 
given lead responsibility for plarming functions in 
the province. To exercise this responsibility, the 
Minister should receive notice of municipal plan- 
ning matters and be given the following responsi- 
bilities in respect of municipal planning functions: 

(a) Administer the Planning Act. 

(b) Coordinate provincial activities regarding 
policies and planning for land-use and 
related matters, including studies, analysis, 
and monitoring. 

(c) Play a leadership role in resolving intermin- 
isterial disputes. 

(d) Work with the Provincial Planning Advisory 
Committee. 



FINAL REPORT 

146 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



16. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Planning: 

(a) Continue to have the authority to approve 
plans and plan amendments of regional 
governments, counties, separated munici- 
palities, cities in the North, planning boards, 
and planning authorities. This approval 
power includes the ability to modify plans 
and plan amendments. 

(b) Continue to, where no regional or county 
plan exists, have the authority to approve 
plans, plan amendments, and plans of sub- 
division of local municipalities, and the 
Planning Act be amended to give the 
Minister the authority to charge an adminis- 
trative fee for this function. 

17. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Planning, 
as well as other ministers, be permitted to 
appeal any municipal planning decision within 
the same timeframe, and subject to the same 
rules, as other objectors. 

18. The Planning Act be amended to give the 
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Planning the 
following authority: 

(a) The Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning be authorized to impose an interim 
control order on any area or site where there 
is a provincial interest that will not otherwise 
be protected, effective for up to one year and 
renewable for no more than one year 
pending development of a provincial policy 
to address the provincial interest at issue. 
Notice must be given to affected parties 
within 30 days, and an appeal to the Ontario 
Municipal Board may be filed within 

45 days of notification. 

(b) The Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning be authorized to place a zoning 
order on any site or area without local 
zoning controls where there is a provincial 
interest that will not otherwise be protected. 
The right of appealing such orders to the 
Ontario Municipal Board should be 
retained. 



(c) The Minister's powers to remove delegated 
authority from municipalities continue, and 
the Minister be given additional authority to 
withdraw assigned consent powers. 

(d) The authority of the Minister to issue decla- 
rations of provincial interest and the associ- 
ated authority of Cabinet to confirm, vary, or 
rescind decisions of the Ontario Municipal 
Board — as set out in sections 17, 22, and 34 
of the Planning Act — be repealed. 

19. To provide for improved administration of 
provincial review and approval responsibilities: 

(a) Regional planning review committees 
consisting of interested ministries be 
established, chaired by the staff member of 
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning. 

(b) Provincial plan approval and development 
review be delegated to the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning staff on that 
committee. 

(c) A planner nominated by the municipalities 
served by the committee be assigned to it to 
help with administrative review, with costs 
paid by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning. 

(d) Procedures be established, following consul- 
tation with municipalities served, on screen- 
ing and on approval and review periods. 

20. Where responsibilities concerning related mat- 
ters (such as storm-water management and fish 
habitat protection) are distributed among more 
than one ministry, agency, or level of municipal 
government, one ministry be assigned lead 
responsibility and be required to develop a 
coordinated strategy. 



FINAL REPORT 

147 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



21. To provide for the improved administration of 
provincial permits, licences, and other technical 
approvals: 

(a) Ministries clarify the standards, performance 
criteria, and guidelines to be met, including 
the preferred methodology to be employed. 

(b) The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning regularly publish an up-to-date 
booklet on required provincial permits, 
licences, and other technical approvals. 

(c) Ministries delegate to qualified municipalities 
the approval responsibilities for those per- 
mits, licences, and other technical approvals 
for which there are clear standards or criteria. 
The delegation agreements should include 
provision for certification by qualified 
professionals, in appropriate cases, and for 
peer review of technical studies. 

22. Regional planning review committees set targets 
for approving many development review matters 
within 60 days of receipt, and most others within 
90 days, and more complex matters, such as 
municipal plans, within six months. Where the 
province has not made a decision within six 
months, an appeal may be made to the Ontario 
Municipal Board. 

23. In fulfilling the provincial responsibility to 
provide information to support planning: 

(a) Ministries develop and maintain systems, 
technology, and frameworks for data and 
information, and help coordinate 
information with municipalities; 

(b) Ministries promote research on proposed 
technology and other solutions related to 
planning and land-use matters for Ontario 
and assess and, where appropriate, approve 
them in a timely fashion. 



24. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Planning, 
in conjunction with other ministries, institute a 
regular monitoring program on the compliance 
with and effectiveness of provincial planning 
policies, and that it be required to report at least 
every five years, providing a basis for the review 
of provincial planning policies. 

25. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Planning 
continue to sponsor or support training pro- 
grams for clerks and planning administrators, to 
sponsor training seminars in planning for new 
councillors, and to encourage field offices in the 
Ministry to hold semi-annual conferences on 
planning and other municipal issues; and that 
appropriate funding be made available for these 
activities. 

26. The province provide grant programs to assist 
counties without county plans in developing 
them, in the amount of at least $1 milUon 
annually; to assist planning boards in Northern 
Ontario in developing plans and providing 
planning services in unorganized areas, in the 
amount of at least $600,000 annually; and to 
assist with watershed studies, in the amount of 
at least $1.5 million annually. 

27. The Interministerial Planning Committee under- 
take a review to ensure that provincial grant and 
subsidy programs support provincial policy 
statements, and report to the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning within one year 
of the adoption of such statements. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
148 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



Planning and Aboriginal 
Communities 

The Commission recommends that: 

28. A protocol or agreement be developed at the 
provincial level so that notice of development 
proposals or changes in use or tenure of provin- 
cially owned lands would be given to First 
Nations, non-status Aboriginal, and Metis 
settlements and areas. 

29. The Planning Act be amended to authorize 
municipalities and planning boards to enter into 
agreements with First Nations and Aboriginal 
organizations regarding joint-planning, develop- 
ment, details of notification, servicing, and other 
matters within municipal jurisdiction. Tliis 
authorization should explicitly note that 
outstanding land claims are not prejudiced 
because of such agreements. 

30. Requirements in the Planning Act to notify an 
owner or a municipality, or a provincial or 
federal agency that has a relevant interest, be 
amended to specifically include First Nations, 
non-status Aboriginal, and Metis settlements 
and areas. 

31. The province notify municipalities of land 
claims that affect their jurisdictions. 



Municipal Plan-making 

The Commission recommends that: 

32. The Planning Act be amended to require that 
regions, counties, separated municipalities, cities 
in the North, and planning boards prepare and 
adopt a municipal plan containing goals and 
policies which would: 

(a) apply provincial policies to the regional 
context in a manner that resolves any 
conflicts among those policies; 

(b) plan and coordinate regional infrastructure, 
including transportation, water, sewage 
treatment, waste, open space, and educational, 
health, and social facilities; 

(c) establish urban and rural settlement patterns, 
including location and overall staging; 

(d) address the general nature and distribution 
of population, employment, and housing, 
including the supply and affordability of 
housing across the region; 

(e) address regional economic and social issues, 
other regional responsibilities, and interre- 
gional and intermunicipal issues; 

(f) protect natural features and systems; 

(g) protect the quality and quantity of ground 
and surface water; 

(h) protect quality agricultural areas; 

(i) protect renewable and non-renewable 
natural resources; 

(j) address energy and water use and 
conservation opportunities; 

(k) address issues of special regional interest; 

(1) establish a process to monitor change and 
the effectiveness of the plan. 

33. The Planning Act be amended to specify that 
upper tiers may not delegate responsibility for 
preparing plans on broad issues to lower tiers. 



FINAL REPORT 
149 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



34. Lower-tier municipalities continue to be permit- 
ted to develop local plans for the municipality or 
for one or more neighbourhoods, districts, or 
areas in the municipality. 

35. The Planning Act be amended to enable lower- 
tier plans to address, within the context of the 
broad plan, the following matters: 

(a) the detailed pattern of land use, density, and 
mix of uses; 

(b) distribution of open space and parks; 

(c) recreation; 

(d) natural features and systems; 

(e) character of the community, including her- 
itage, streetscape, and physical design; 

(f) the supply and affordability of housing in 
the municipality; 

(g) zoning, site plans, and other tools to regulate 
development; 

(h) energy and water use and conservation 
opportunities; 

(i) contaminated and hazardous sites; 

(j) issues of special local interest; and 

(k) other local responsibilities. 

36. The Planning Act be amended to require that 
lower-tier plans conform to upper-tier plans and 
be consistent with provincial policy. 

37. The Planning Act be amended to require that 
where there is no lower-tier plan, the upper-tier, 
planning board, or planning authority plan 
address the matters listed in Recommendation 
35 as well as Recommendation 32. Separated 
municipalities and cities in the North would be 
required to address the requirements in both rec- 
ommendations. 

38. The Municipal Act be amended to permit coun- 
ties, with the agreement of local municipalities, 
to be responsible for water and sewage. 



39. The Planning Act be amended to permit local 
municipalities, with the consent of the affected 
counties and of the Minister of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning, to establish a planning authority 
to exercise planning powers similar to a county, 
provided: 

(a) it covers a population of not less than 20,000, 
or includes no fewer than six municipalities; 

(b) no municipality is split between planning 
jurisdictions; 

(c) the area covered by the planning authority 
includes the whole of an area served by 
public water and sewage services, including 
a separated municipality if one is part of the 
serviced area; 

(d) the affected counties do not have, and are 
not preparing, a county plan. 

Membership on the authority will consist of 
councillors appointed by local councils on a 
basis of representation by population. 

40. To provide for more local decision-making on 
planning matters in the North: 

(a) In Northern Ontario, except for cities and the 
Regional Municipality of Sudbury, planning 
areas be established to include municipalities 
and unorganized areas that share common 
interests and are within the same sphere of 
influence. Planning-area boundaries should 
generally be based on natural boundaries 
such as watersheds, and should reflect 
relevant administrative boundaries such as 
school boards and economic development 
areas. 

(b) The Planning Act be amended to provide that 
members of planning boards are appointed 
by municipal councils from among their 
members, and elected from unorganized 
areas. Representation should generally be 
proportional to electoral population. 
Funding shares from municipalities and 
unorganized areas should be pro-rated by 
assessment or, with the approval of the 
province, by an annual fee or levy. 



FINAL REPORT 
150 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



(c) The Planning Act be amended to require that 
planning boards are required to prepare 
plans and that the planning duties and 
responsibilities of planning boards are 
similar to those of upper tiers. 

(d) The Planning Act be amended to provide that 
the approved planning board plan applies to 
all municipalities and unorganized areas 
within the planning area, and that for 
unorganized areas, planning boards be 
given responsibility for zoning, site-plan 
control, and building code administration. 

(e) The Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning establish committees from 
Northern Ontario to make recommendations 
on the location and boundaries of planning 
areas, and to report within six months. 

(f) Where Crown land is within or adjacent to a 
municipality or a planning board's area, 
the Ministry of Natural Resources be 
required to inform the board of proposals 
for that land and engage in a public 
planning process. 

(g) Local services boards and roads boards 
continue to administer services and roads in 
unorganized areas. 

41. Once the province has adopted a comprehensive 
set of policy statements, the Minister of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning delegate to 
regions and counties with plans the authority to 
approve lower-tier plans and plan amendments. 
The delegated approval authority would include 
the authority to modify the plan or plan 
amendment. 

42. Upper-tier municipalities currently without plans 
be required to prepare and adopt plans, and that: 

(a) If plans have not been adopted by the coun- 
cils of the Regions of York and Peel by the 
end of 1994, the province impose sanctions 
such as limits on capital borrowing, ineligi- 
bility for certain conditional grants, and 
removal of authority for upper-tier lot levies 
and delegated approvals. 



(b) If plans are not adopted by counties and 
planning board areas within five years of the 
adoption of the new provincial policies, the 
province consider imposing sanctions as 
described in Recommendation 42(a). 

(c) Until county and planning board plans are 
approved, the province maintain approval 
authority for municipal plans, plan amend- 
ments, plans of subdivision, and plans of 
condominium, and that no further 
delegation occur. 

43. The Planning Act be amended to permit muni- 
cipalities and planning boards and authorities to 
prepare and adopt strategic plans that address, 
in a pro-active way, economic, environmental, 
social, and other issues important to a community. 
A strategic plan should not be legally enforceable. 

44. The Planning Act be amended to define "muni- 
cipal plan" as "an approved document contain- 
ing goals, objectives, and policies established 
primarily to manage and direct physical change 
and the effects on the social, economic, and nat- 
ural environments of the municipality or a part 
thereof, or an area that is without municipal 
organization." 

45. The Planning Act be amended to require that 
municipal plans include maps or descriptions of 
matters noted in provincial policies. 

46. The Planning Act be amended to require that, 
prior to the preparation of any plan or a general, 
area, neighbourhood, or other major plan 
amendment, a report be prepared for public 
review and considered by council, containing: 

(a) a general description of the purpose of the 
proposed plan review; 

(b) the general scope of the proposed plan 
review, including studies to be undertaken; 

(c) proposals for public consultation and 
participation by interested agencies; and 

(d) the proposed timetable for plan preparation 
and consideration. 



FINAL REPORT 
151 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



47. The Planning Act be amended to require that the 
preparation of any plan or a general, area, neigh- 
bourhood, or other major plan amendment 
include the following steps: 

(a) Identify problems, priorities, needs, opportu- 
nities, and objectives. 

(b) Identify the criteria by which to evaluate 
options and alternatives. 

(c) Identify reasonable options (including the 
"do nothing" option) consistent with 
provincial policy, and describe their effects 
on the social, economic, and natural 
environment and their effectiveness in 
meeting objectives. 

(d) Prepare alternative-plan concepts on selected 
options and compare and assess them using 
the criteria in Step (b) to determine which 
concepts best meet objectives in Step (a). 

(e) Select and refine a preferred plan. 

(f) Establish monitoring systems and contin- 
gency approaches. 

48. Legislation be amended to provide that plans 
and plan amendments which are approved 
under the comprehensive planning process 
described in recommendations 46 and 47 not be 
subject to the provisions of the Environmental 
Assessment Act. 

49. The Planning Act be amended to provide that: 

(a) Municipalities may reject, without substan- 
tial study, any application for a major plan 
amendment, that is, an amendment which 
challenges basic assumptions in the muni- 
cipal plan. Alternatively, municipalities may 
defer consideration of any application for a 
major plan amendment until a general plan 
review. 

(b) Where a municipality has not made a final 
decision on a plan amendment application 
within six months of filing a complete appli- 
cation, an applicant may appeal to the 
Ontario Municipal Board. 



(c) Where a municipality is not taking effective 
action to respond to an application, with the 
exception of an application for major plan 
amendment, an applicant may appeal to the 
Ontario Municipal Board 90 days after filing 
a complete application. 

50. To incorporate watershed considerations into 
the planning process, the Planning Act be 
amended to require that: 

(a) In preparing plans with regard to develop- 
ment and change affecting water, municipal- 
ities prepare and adopt policies based on 
watershed considerations; and 

(b) Watershed or sub-watershed studies be 

undertaken in cases where there are changes 
in or concerns about levels of water quality 
or quantity and /or where there are 
pressures for development and change. 

(c) With the advice of conservation authorities, 
the upper tier identify which studies need to 
be undertaken first. Where there is no 
upper-tier or it is not planning, these 
decisions will be made by the affected lower 
tiers. 

(d) Conservation authorities carry out such 
studies and provide inventory, analysis, and 
recommendations to municipalities. Where 
no conservation authority is in place, 
watershed studies will be undertaken by 
municipalities, with the help of the Ministry 
of Natural Resources. 

(e) Watershed studies focus on surface-water 
and groundwater quality and quantity. They 
should generally address the following 
matters: 



FINAL REPORT 
152 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



(i) quality and quantity of surface water 
and groundwater for developed areas 
of the municipality and other areas 
likely to undergo change; 
(ii) flooding and natural hazards; 
(iii) shorelines, marinas, and lakefill; 
(iv) tree cover; 
(v) erosion control; 
(vi) drainage plans and storm water; 
(vii) wetlands, recharge areas, and natural 

features; 
(viii) remediation of water systems and 
natural features; 
(ix) aquatic resources, including fisheries. 

51. The Ministry of Natural Resources, the 
Association of Conservation Authorities of 
Ontario, and the Association of Municipalities of 
Ontario review the relationships between 
conservation authorities and county councils. 

52. To establish requirements for environmental 
impact studies, the Planning Act be amended: 

(a) To provide that applicants for development 
involving subdivisions and consents, devel- 
opment permits, and rezoning be required 
to prepare an environmental impact study 
(EIS) where required by provincial policies. 

(b) To authorize municipalities to establish addi- 
tional circumstances in which an EIS may be 
required. 

(c) To provide that the content of an EIS include, 
without being limited to: 

(i) a description of the existing natural 
environment that will be affected or 
might reasonably be expected to be 
affected, directly or indirectly; 
the environmental effects that might 
reasonably be expected to occur; 
alternative methods and measures for 
mitigation of potential environmental 
effects of the proposed development; 
and 

a monitoring plan to measure the poten- 
tial effects on the natural environment. 



(ii) 
(iii) 



IV 



(d) To provide that a municipal council may not 
make final decisions on development appli- 
cations until any required EIS is available. 

53. The Planning Act be amended to provide that 
where municipalities are unable to agree on 
joint-planning, any municipality may apply to 
the Ontario Municipal Board for mediation. If 
the mediation fails, the Board should be autho- 
rized to order a joint-planning structure and a 
cost-sharing arrangement. 

54. The Ministry of Natural Resources consider 
establishing pilot projects that bring together 
municipalities on the eastern shore of Georgian 
Bay and along the Lake Simcoe shoreline to 
coordinate analysis and response to common 
problems. Such projects could include watershed 
studies, water-use planning, and recreational 
boating. 

55. The Planning Act be amended to require that 
municipalities prepare monitoring reports at 
least every five years, identifying and selecting 
key indicators. The monitoring reports will be 
one basis for the consideration by the municipal- 
ity of the need to review its municipal plan. 



FINAL 



REPORT 

153 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



Lot Creation and Development 
Control 

The Commission recommends that: 

56. The two existing administrative systems for lot 
creation — plans of subdivision and consents — 
be maintained. In addition, the current provisions 
of the Planning Act dealing with part-lot control 
should continue in force. 

57. The Planning Act provisions regarding plans of 
subdivision and consents be amended: 

(a) To require both plans of subdivision and 
consents to be consistent with provincial 
policy and to conform to municipal plans. 

(b) To establish the same legislative requirements 
for both plans of subdivision and consents 
with respect to information to be provided 
in applications, and matters to be dealt with 
in considering applications. 

(c) To provide that draft subdivision plan 
approval may be terminated by the muni- 
cipality if the conditions of draft approval 
are not met within a time established as a 
condition of draft approval. 

(d) To provide that if a municipality has not 
decided on a completed application for a plan 
of subdivision six months after receiving it, or 
for a consent three months after receiving it, 
the applicant may appeal the matter to the 
Ontario Municipal Board. Where a municipal- 
ity is not taking effective action on an applica- 
tion for a plan of subdivision, an applicant 
may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board 
90 days after filing a complete application. 

58. The current requirement for boundary surveys 
to be submitted with applications for plans of 
subdivision, and the current exemption from 
this requirement for consent applications, be 
maintained. 



59. The responsibility for lot creation generally reside 
with the body responsible for the broad plan 
and, to this end, the Planning Act be amended: 

(a) To enable the Minister of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning, by order, after adoption of a 
comprehensive set of planning policies, to 
delegate responsibility for subdivision 
approval to upper-tier municipalities, 
separated municipalities, cities in the North, 
planning boards, and planning authorities, 
provided they have a municipal plan and 
are advised by a qualified planner (that is, a 
planner who can appear as an expert plan- 
ning witness before the Ontario Municipal 
Board); and to provide that this authority 
may not be delegated to lower tiers. 

(b) To assign the authority to grant consents to 
planning boards and authorities as well as 
to upper-tier municipalities, separated 
municipalities, and cities in the North; and 
to enable the Minister to withdraw this 
assigned consent-granting authority where 
there is evidence that the authority is not 
being properly carried out. 

(c) To give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning the authority to charge municipali- 
ties an administrative fee where the Minister 
exercises approval authority for subdivisions 
and consents. 

(d) To provide that upper-tier municipalities 
may delegate consent-granting authority to 
lower-tier municipalities, on the approval of 
the Minister, where: 

(i) upper- and lower-tier plans have been 
adopted under the proposed compre- 
hensive set of provincial policy state- 
ments and the lower-tier plan is in con- 
formity with the upper-tier plan; and 

(ii) the lower tier is advised by a qualified 
planner (that is, a planner who can 
appear as an expert planning witness 
before the Ontario Municipal Board); 
and 

(iii) any conditions set by the upper tier are 
met. 



FINAL REPORT 
154 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



The authority of the Minister to revoke such 
delegation and to return consent-granting 
authority to the upper tier should be 
maintained. 

60. Where consent-granting authority has already 
been delegated to lower-tier municipalities, such 
delegation continue, provided the upper tier is 
satisfied its responsibilities are being exercised 
in a responsible way. The authority for the upper 
tier to withdraw delegated responsibility should 
continue. 

61. The Planning Act be amended to provide that if a 
municipality has not decided on a rezoning 
application within 90 days of receiving a com- 
pleted application, the applicant may appeal the 
matter to the Ontario Municipal Board. 

62. To provide for more local regulation of waterways 
in the province: 

(a) The province begin negotiations with the 
federal government to delegate the adminis- 
tration of the regulation of recreational 
boating to the province, similar to the current 
delegation of the administration of some 
sections of the federal Fisheries Act. 

(b) The ministry responsible for recreational 
boating consult with the Association of 
Municipalities of Ontario, affected muni- 
cipalities, cottager associations, boating 
associations, and others, to discuss adminis- 
trative arrangements regarding requests for 
speed limits, signage, and general imple- 
mentation, including effective policing. 

(c) The province begin negotiations with the 
federal government to amend appropriate 
legislation to permit municipalities to plan 
for and place appropriate water-use 
designations on inland water bodies. 



63. Municipalities be encouraged to prepare, with 
full public consultation, design guidelines for 
defined districts, and include them in a municipal, 
area, or neighbourhood plan. Design guidelines 
would be implemented through zoning and site- 
plan powers already available to municipalities. 

64. The site-plan control provisions of the Planning 
Act be amended: 

(a) To authorize municipalities and planning 
boards, in cases where the council or board 
decides to permit public consultation in the 
site-plan process, to develop procedures for 
how and when public input into site-plan 
review occurs. 

(b) To widen the authority for site-plan agree- 
ments to include: 

(i) on-site requirements to deal with off-site 
impacts; 

(ii) any requirement regarding phasing, 
infrastructure, or other matter authorized 
by the municipal plan and provincial 
legislation; 

(iii) conditions necessary for environmental 
protection and restoration, including 
storm-water management, site 
alterations, monitoring, and noise; 

(iv) financial arrangements, including letters 
of credit. 

(c) To authorize regions and counties to impose 
conditions for public transit purposes. 

65. Current provisions of site-plan control not be 
expanded to include colour, texture, type of 
materials, window detail, construction details, 
architectural detail, and interior design. 



FINAL REPORT 

155 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



66. The Planning Act be amended to permit a muni- 
cipality to adopt a development permit process 
for any district in a municipality, and to delegate 
permit approvals to staff, provided the 
municipality: 

(a) has adopted in the municipal plan develop- 
ment permit districts defining densities, 
uses, design guidelines, and other require- 
ments — such as environmental impact 
study requirements — for the affected part 
of the municipality; and 

(b) has appointed an advisory committee con- 
sisting of members representing a broad 
range of interests, such as developers, com- 
munity leaders, and individuals with an 
interest in design, to advise staff on develop- 
ment permit applications; and 

(c) has adopted a policy outlining conditions 
under which development permit applica- 
tions will be considered by council rather 
than by staff. 

67. The Planning Act be amended to provide that 
appeals of development permit decisions be 
made to the Ontario Municipal Board. If a 
municipality has not decided on a development 
permit application within 90 days of receiving a 
completed apphcation, the applicant may appeal 
the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board. 

68. In districts where the development permit 
process is in place, the traditional rezoning/ site- 
plan approval process should not apply. 



69. The Planning Act be amended: 

(a) To authorize municipalities to establish in 
the municipal plan sunset provisions on 
sewage and water allocations; and that the 
legislation provide, as a transitional matter, 
that allocations made before the legislation 
is passed may be withdrawn no sooner than 
12 months after the municipality has adopt- 
ed policies pursuant to the legislation. 

(b) To provide that any owner losing a sewage 
or water allocation has the right to appeal 
the withdrawal of that allocation to the 
Ontario Municipal Board. 

(c) To authorize municipalities to reserve sewer 
and water capacity for a reasonable amount 
of development that might proceed without 
plan of subdivision, such as minor infill and 
second units. 

70. The Planning Act be amended to clarify that: 

(a) Municipalities be authorized to permit 
bonuses in defined districts in return for 
stated public benefits, provided the muni- 
cipal plan establishes the maximum bonus 
that can be achieved and the public benefits 
for which a bonus may be given. 

(b) Municipalities be authorized to permit any 
transfer of density if the municipal plan 
states the policies outlining the purposes 
and criteria of such transfers, and establish- 
es geographical limits for development dis- 
tricts within which transfers may occur. 

71. To provide municipalities with general authority 
to regulate site alterations, the Planning Act and 
other applicable legislation be amended: 

(a) To permit municipalities to regulate tree-cut- 
ting, vegetation removal, changes in eleva- 
tion, placement and removal of fill, and 
removal of peat. The controls should not 
apply to alterations authorized under the 
Drainage Act or to farm tile drainage or other 
normal farming practices. 



FINAL 



REPORT 
156 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



(b) To permit municipalities to designate dis- 
tricts and apply different levels of site-alter- 
ation control to different districts, provided 
policies for each are spelled out in the 
municipal plan or appropriate by-law. 

(c) To permit municipalities, in order to control 
tree-cutting and other site changes in antici- 
pation of new rules, to set interim controls 
in a district without prior public notice, pro- 
vided notice immediately follows the deci- 
sion and opportunities for public debate and 
reconsideration are then made available. 

(d) To permit municipalities to enter the proper- 
ty for the purpose of inspections to ensure 
compliance with municipal by-laws. 

(e) To provide adequate penalties and remedies 
for breach of site-alteration by-laws, includ- 
ing injunctive relief, and including the abili- 
ty to restore the site and recover costs for 
restoration. 

72. Legislation be amended to clearly authorize 
committees of adjustment to consider minor 
variances of use. 

73. To establish an improved process for reviewing 
municipal infrastructure projects, legislation be 
amended to provide that: 

(a) The environmental assessment and review of 
municipal infrastructure projects currently 
undertaken through the Class 
Environmental Assessment process of the 
Environmental Assessment Act occur under 
the Planning Act, through a process called 
Class Environmental Review. 

(b) The Minister of the Environment and Energy 
be authorized to approve, under the 
Environmental Assessment Act, a parent Class 
Environmental Review (Class ER) document 
for any municipal infrastructure defined as 
"recurring, similar in nature, limited in scale, 
having only a predictable range of environ- 
mental effects, and being responsive to stan- 
dard mitigation measures," and that this 
definition of class be included in legislation. 



(c) The parent Class ER document set out both 
the matters to be considered in developing 
alternative design and mitigation measures, 
and the process for public involvement 
including public notice and comment. 

(d) Municipal infrastructure projects meeting 
the characteristics set out above and private 
infrastructure projects defined in the parent 
Class ER document be approved under the 
Class ER process prior to final decisions to 
proceed with construction. 

(e) Municipal infrastructure projects not meet- 
ing the definition of class continue to be sub- 
ject to the Environmental Assessment Act. 

(f) Appeals of the Class ER process, including 
whether the project falls within the defini- 
tion of class or concerning the adequacies of 
studies, are to the Ontario Municipal Board. 
The Board's jurisdiction in these cases 
should not extend to questions of need and 
alternatives dealt with at the municipal plan 
stage. 

(g) Appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board on 
issues of need and alternatives to municipal 
infrastructure be permitted only at the 
municipal plan stage, where such matters 
are reviewed. Infrastructure in an approved 
municipal plan need not be subject to a new 
need and alternatives study when the plan 
is reviewed. 

(h) Provincial and provincial agency undertak- 
ings continue to be dealt with under the 
Environmental Assessment Act. The opportu- 
nity to designate large-scale private under- 
takings under the Act would continue. 

(i) Where change is proposed which involves 
infrastructure subject to an environmental 
study report and where an environmental 
impact study is required, the two be coordi- 
nated to ensure no duplication, and a single 
study meeting both requirements be under- 
taken. 



FINAL REPORT 

157 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



Public Involvement 

The Commission recommends that: 

74. To encourage more public involvement in the 
planning process through the provision of 
information, the Planning Act be amended: 

(a) To require that all information, documenta- 
tion, and staff reports in relation to plans 
and applications be available to the public. 
Applicants must agree in submitting appli- 
cations that drawings, plans, and documents 
filed in support of those applications can be 
copied for purposes of public information 
and debate. 

(b) To permit municipalities to charge only 
nominal fees for planning reports and 
documents. 

75. The Municipal Act be amended so that council 
and committee meetings, meetings of committees 
of adjustment, and meetings of land division 
committees be open to the public, and decision- 
making regarding plans and planning applica- 
tions be carried out publicly. 

76. To encourage public involvement in the plan- 
ning process through better notification, the 
Planning Act, be amended so that: 

(a) Those affected by proposed changes be 
notified, in plain and simple language, in 
advance of decisions. 

(b) Municipalities be required to maintain a 
registry of those requesting notification of 
planning matters in the municipality or in 
parts of the municipality. A nominal fee may 
be charged for this service. The municipality 
may determine districts and kinds of appli- 
cations for the registry, for which notice may 
be given. 

(c) Where notification to owners is required, 
notification also be to non-owner occupants 
listed on the assessment roll. 



(d) Where notification must be given to the 
general public, it be through a newspaper 
advertisement, direct mail to owners and 
non-owner occupants on the assessment 
roll, or direct delivery to properties affected 
and direct mail to non-resident owners. 

(e) Where notification is required for municipal 
plans, major plan amendments, and compre- 
hensive zoning by-laws, notification be to 
the general public, those on the registry, 
applicable boards of education, adjacent 
municipalities, upper- or lower-tier muni- 
cipalities as applicable, ministries and 
provincial agencies, and Aboriginal commu- 
nities deemed to have an interest in the 
matter. 

(f) Where notification is required for site-specific 
rezonings, plan amendments, development 
permits, and lot creation, applicants be 
required to post a sign on the site, to specifi- 
cations set by the municipality, advising of 
the nature of the application. Notification 
must also be given to owners and non-owner 
occupants within 120 metres of the site; in 
areas where a 120-metre radius reaches only 
the adjacent properties, notice should also 
be given to owners and non-owner occupants 
of properties abutting adjacent properties. 
Notice should also be given to those on the 
registry wishing notice, upper- or lower-tier 
municipalities as applicable, applicable 
boards of education, ministries, and provin- 
cial agencies, and Aboriginal communities 
deemed to have an interest in the matter, 
unless the municipality is notified that 
notice is not required. 



FINAL REPORT 
158 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



11 . To encourage public involvement in the planning 
process through public meetings, the Planning 
Act be amended to require that: 

(a) The following process be followed for plans, 

general, area, neighbourhood, or other major 
plan amendments, and comprehensive 
zoning by-laws: 
(i) Publication of intent to consider policy 

change, 
(ii) Opportunity for public response, 

including at least one public meeting, 
(iii) Preparation and circulation of draft 

proposal (including alternatives), 
(iv) Opportunity for response, including at 

least one public meeting, 
(v) Final decision-making, 
(vi) Notification of decision. 

(b) For plans, general, area, neighbourhood, or 
other major plan amendments, and compre- 
hensive zoning by-laws, two public meetings 
take place. The first, to be held at the 
beginning of the process, should consider 
the need for the review of the plan or by-law 
and the process to be used for the review, 
including procedures for public involvement. 
The second should be at the end of the 
process, when final reports to council are 
being considered. Reasonable opportunities 
for public comment will be permitted at 
each meeting. 

(c) For rezonings, lot creation, and minor plan 
amendments, at least one public meeting be 
required when final reports to council are 
being considered. Reasonable opportunities 
for public comment will be permitted at the 
public meeting. 

(d) Where reasonable, two or more applications 
on the same property be dealt with 
concurrently, and notification and meeting 
requirements be combined. 



78. The Planning Act be amended to permit 
municipalities to establish committees to advise 
on such matters as the natural environment, 
agriculture, housing, and planning. 

79. The Planning Act be amended to provide for the 
following notification and appeal time periods: 

(a) Notification periods: 

(i) Public meetings to consider plans, plan 
amendments, comprehensive zoning 
by-laws 

— 30 calendar days 

(ii) Public meetings to consider rezonings, 
plans of subdivision 

— 21 calendar days 

(iii) Public meetings to consider consents 

— 21 calendar days 

(iv) Public meetings to consider minor 

variances 

— 14 calendar days 
(v) Public comment on development 

permits 

— 21 calendar days 

(vi) Public comment on consents and plans 
of subdivision where delegated to 
municipal staff 

— 21 calendar days 

(vii) Public comment where lot creation 
rests with the Minister of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning 

— 21 calendar days 

(b) Appeal periods, from notice of decision: 

(i) Plans, plan amendments, comprehen- 
sive zoning by-laws 

— 45 calendar days 

(ii) Rezonings, plans of subdivision, con- 
sents, development permits, site-plan 
control, withdrawal of sewer and 
water allocations 

— 21 calendar days 

(iii) Class Environmental Review 

— 30 calendar days 
(iv) Minor variances 

— 14 calendar days 
(v) Minister's interim control orders 

— 45 calendar days 



FINAL REPORT 

159 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



Conflicts, Disputes, and Appeals 

The Commission recommends that: 

80. Mediation and programs which help different 
interests listen to each other be part of the plan- 
ning process, and that municipalities consider 
techniques to encourage dispute resolution prior 
to council decisions. 

81. The Planning Act be amended to require that, 
where appeals of decisions on minor variances 
are filed, the council in the municipality in 
which the application has been made consider 
the application and make a decision, and that 
the role of the Ontario Municipal Board in such 
appeals be terminated. 

82. The Ontario Municipal Board, as a standard 
practice, convene a procedural meeting of the 
parties within 30 days after an appeal has been 
received by the Board, chaired by a Board mem- 
ber. This meeting will determine how best to 
process the dispute, including arrangements to 
disclose information, narrow issues, focus on 
serious matters under dispute, and seek a 
settlement. In minor cases where a hearing will 
occur in an expeditious fashion, the Board may 
dispense with the procedural meeting. 

83. The Planning Act be amended to provide that 
where the Ontario Municipal Board member 
concludes at a procedural meeting that the 
appellant on any planning matter does not have 
an objection which merits a full hearing, the 
member may order a time and place for the 
appellant to make representations as to the merit 
of the appeal. 

84. The Planning Act be amended: 

(a) to provide unincorporated associations 
status before the Ontario Municipal Board; 

(b) to make explicit that a person or municipality 
who contravenes a Board order is guilty of 
an offence; 



(c) to permit the Board to refer matters back to a 
municipality for further study or 
consideration; 

(d) to allow for the approval of the unappealed 
portions of plans and comprehensive zoning 
by-laws when only site-specific appeals 
have been filed; 

(e) to replace the current referral system with a 
right to appeal to the Board; and 

(f) to provide that, on a request of a party prior 
to a hearing, the Board shall arrange to 
make an audio-tape of the proceedings of 
the hearing. 

85. The Planning Act be amended to permit the 
Ontario Municipal Board to award intervenor 
funding on any appeal of a plan, plan amend- 
ment, or plan of subdivision which involves a 
rezoning, which, in the opinion of the Board, 
affects a significant segment of the public and 
concerns the public interest and not just private 
interests. The decision of the Board should be 
based on the following criteria: 

(a) the intervenor represents a clearly 
ascertainable public interest, consistent with 
provincial policy, that should be represented 
at the hearing; 

(b) separate and adequate representation of the 
interest would assist the Board and contribute 
substantially to the hearing; 

(c) the intervenor does not have sufficient 
financial resources to enable it to represent 
the interest adequately; 

(d) the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to 
raise funding from other sources; 

(e) the intervenor has demonstrated concern for 
this issue at the municipal level; 

(f) the intervenor has attempted to join together 
with other objectors; 

(g) the intervenor has a clear proposal for the 
use of any funds that might be awarded; 



FINAL REPORT 
160 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



(h) the intervenor has appropriate financial con- 
trols to ensure that the funds, if awarded, 
are spent for the purposes of the award; and 

(i) such representation would assist the Board 
and contribute substantially to the hearing. 

Applications for intervenor funding may not 
be made until the Board has determined that a 
full hearing or mediation will take place. The 
Board may reject an application for intervenor 
funding without a hearing. In other types of 
applications where the Board will be assisted by 
the representation of public interests, the Board 
should award costs during or after the hearing. 

86. Until legislation has been passed permitting the 
Board to award intervenor funding, the Ministry 
of Municipal Affairs and Planning provide 
$500,000 anrtually to the Board to be used for 
intervenor funding. 

87. The Planning Act be amended to permit the 
Board to award interim costs during a hearing, 
in addition to its existing power to award costs 
at the end of a hearing. 

88. The Ontario Municipal Board institute a pre- 
hearing procedural meeting process to deal with 
the current backlog of cases before the Board. 

89. To ensure the Ontario Municipal Board has the 
necessary resources to carry out its responsibili- 
ties: 

(a) In appointing new Board members, the 
government take into account new areas of 
concern, such as environmental issues and 
dispute resolution. 

(b) The government appoint part-time members 
to the Board. 

(c) The Board maintain a list of mediators for 
parties to consider using as they attempt to 
resolve their differences. 

(d) Board members be offered appropriate 
training in dispute resolution and in 
environmental and other matters with 
which the Board deals. 



Sewage Treatment and Septics 

The Commission recommends that: 

90. The Ministry of the Environment and Energy 
continue to be responsible for inspections and the 
issuance of permits for private and communal 
systems, for setting standards for installation 
and operation, and for licensing septic installers 
and septage haulers. The Ministry of the 
Environment and Energy should institute train- 
ing programs for installers, septage haulers, and 
inspectors. 

91. The Ministry of the Environment and Energy be 
responsible for regular inspection of private and 
communal septic systems every five years. 
Where septic users have private wells, these 
should be inspected at the same time. The 
Ministry of the Environment and Energy should 
consider entering into agreements assigning 
responsibility for inspections and issuance of 
permits to regional and county governments, 
their health units, or conservation authorities, or, 
where no upper tier exists, to municipalities, 
provided all have the appropriate expertise. The 
first priority for inspection should be septic 
systems installed before 1975. 

92. The Ministry of the Environment and Energy 
and its agents be permitted to charge septic and 
private well owners a fee to cover the costs of 
inspections on a user-pay basis, to be collected 
with property taxes. 

93. The Ministry of the Environment and Energy 
institute a system whereby septic tanks may not 
be sold without the purchaser obtaining a 
certificate of approval and showing it to the 
seller of the septic tank. 

94. Regions and counties be required to provide 
facilities for septage disposal. In Northern 
Ontario, this should be the responsibility of the 
Ministry of the Environment and Energy. 



FINAL REPORT 
161 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



95. To improve the information available on 

different kinds of sewage systems, the Ministry 
of the Environment and Energy: 

(a) Devise and undertake a program to educate 
owners on the proper use and care of septic 
systems. 

(b) Establish an ongoing research and 
development program into sewage-treatment 
questions in Ontario. 

(c) In consultation with municipalities and the 
Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 
develop information concerning the level of 
financial guarantees needed to address 
issues of capital replacement, maintenance, 
and liability for communal systems. 



Implementing This Report 

The Commission recommends that: 

96. The government take immediate steps to consid- 
er and act on the following recommendations for 
administrative changes contained in this Report: 

(a) The Ministry of Municipal Affairs be 
restructured and renamed the Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs and Planning. 

(b) The Minister of Municipal Affairs and 
Planning, after consultation with ministries 
and other interests, establish regional 
planning review committees and delegate 
the planning approval powers of the 
Minister to the appropriate ministry staff on 
these committees. 

(c) In addition to delegations already made, 
once a comprehensive set of planning policies 
has been adopted by the government, the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Planning 
delegate to those regions, counties, separated 
municipalities, and cities in the North that 
have an official plan and are advised by a 
qualified planner, approval authority for 
plans and plan amendments of lower tiers 
(where relevant), and plans of subdivision. 

(d) Pending any legislative amendments, the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Planning 
agree that, as a matter of practice, where no 
ministerial decision is forthcoming within 
six months of submission of a completed 
application for approval, the matter will be 
referred to the Ontario Municipal Board at 
the request of the applicant or the muni- 
cipality. Upper-tier governments should be 
requested to agree to a similar procedure for 
lower-tier approvals for which they are 
responsible. 

(e) The government establish the grant programs 
recommended in this Report for new county 
plans, planning boards, and watershed 
studies. 



FINAL REPORT 
162 



RECOMMENDATIONS 



(f) Ministries clarify and publish the standards, 
criteria, and/or guidelines used to judge 
applications for permits, licences, and other 
technical approvals and transfer approval 
authority, by agreement, to municipalities 
capable of assuming such powers. Such 
agreements should include provision for 
peer review of more complicated matters. 

(g) The Ontario Municipal Board be requested 
to establish the recommended procedural 
meeting mechanisms to deal with both new 
cases and backlogged cases, to establish 
procedures for mediation, and to provide 
training on mediation techniques and other 
skills needed by members to chair 
procedural meetings. 

(h) The government appoint part-time members 
to the Ontario Municipal Board. 

(i) Pending legislation, the Ministry of Municipal 
Affairs and Planning provide an interim 
fund of $500,000 a year for intervenor 
funding at the Ontario Municipal Board. 

(j) After consultation with affected interest 
groups, the Minister of Municipal Affairs 
and Planning appoint committees — at least 
one for Northeastern Ontario and one for 
Northwestern Ontario — to make recom- 
mendations on planning board areas and 
boundaries. These committees should be 
requested to report within six months of 
being appointed. Once the committees have 
reported, the recommendations for new 
planning boards and expansion and /or 
change to existing boards should be 
implemented. After this occurs, and once a 
comprehensive set of planning policies has 
been adopted by the government, the 
Minister should delegate to planning boards 
with an approved plan and which are 
advised by a qualified planner, approval 
authority for plans and plan amendments of 
municipalities within the planning board, 
and for plans of subdivision and consents. 



(k) The government develop a protocol or 
agreement to give affected and other 
interested Aboriginal communities notice of 
development proposals for, or changes in 
use or tenure of, provincially owned land. 

(1) The Interministerial Planning Committee be 
formally constituted and its mandate 
approved, with a first priority to assist the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Planning 
in adopting a comprehensive set of 
provincial policies. 

97. The government consider the policy recommen- 
dations contained in this Report and endorse for 

• consultation purposes a comprehensive set of 
provincial policy statements, which should be 
widely circulated for comment for a period of 
three months. The government should set a goal 
of formally adopting a comprehensive set of 
provincial policy statements under section 3 of 
the Planning Act before the end of 1993. 

98. The government consider the recommendations 
for legislative amendments contained in this 
Report and prepare a draft bill, which should be 
widely circulated for comment for a period of 
three months. Subsequently, after a re-drafted 
bill has been introduced in the Legislature, the 
public should be given the further opportunity 
to comment at the committee stage. The govern- 
ment should set a goal of enacting the Planning 
Act amendments in 1994. 



FINAL REPORT 
163 



Appendix A 




Order in Council 
D6cret 



Ontario 
Executive Council 
Consell des ministres 



On the recommendation of the undersigned, the 
Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice and 
concurrence of the Executive Council, orders that: 



Sur la recommandation du soussign^, le 
lieutenant-gouverneur, sur I'avis et avec le con- 
sentement du Conseil des ministres, d^crdte ce 
qui suit : 



The Government of Ontario recognizes that it is important 
that the people of Ontario have confidence in the planning and 
development process. 

The Government of Ontario believes that the planning and 
development process should recognize and support environmental, 
agricultural and other public interests. 

The Government of Ontario believes that an inquiry will 
provide policy recommendations which will assist the Government 
in making the planning and development process more fair, open 
and accountable. 

Under the Public Inquiries Act . R.S.O. 1980, c.411, the 
Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by commission, appoint one or 
more persons to inquire into any matter that the Lieutenant 
Governor in Council declares to be of public concern, if the 
inquiry is not regulated by any special law and if the Lieutenant 
Governor in Council considers it desirable to inquire into that 
matter. 

The Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it desirable to 
inquire into the following matters which the Lieutenant Governor 
in Council declares to be of public concern. 

The inquiry is not regulated by any special law. 

Therefore, pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act , a 
commission effective on the 1st day of July, 1991, shall be 
issued appointing John Sewell, Toby Vigod and George Penfold, who 
are, without expressing any conclusion of law regarding the civil 
or criminal responsibility of any individual or organization: 

1. to examine the relationship between the public and private 
interests in land use and development, 

2. to inquire into, report upon and make recommendations on 
legislative change or other actions or both, needed to 
restore confidence in the integrity of the land use planning 
system, including the following matters: 



O.C./D6cret 1355/91 



FINAL 



REPORT 
165 



ORDER IN COUNCIL 



(a) improvements to the integrity, efficiency, openness, 
accountability and goals of the land use planning and 
development review system; 

(b) determination of the appropriate roles and 
relationships of elected officials, administrators, the 
development industry, interest and lobby groups, the 
public and the Ontario Municipal Board in the land use 
planning and development review system; and 

(c) protection of the public interest in planning and land 
development and support of provincial priorities, 
including environmental and agricultural 
considerations ; 

In inquiring into these matters, the commission is to 
include the following in its considerations: 

(a) the effect of the development industry's concentration 
and structure on the ability of provincial and local 
governments to protect the public interest; 

(b) the appropriate role of provincial and municipal policy 
in achieving consistent and fair land use planning 
decisions and the need for any change in provincial 
legislation; 

(c) the adequacy of development control tools to implement 
public policy; 

(d) the impact of the municipal financing system and large 
scale infrastructure projects on local planning and 
development decisions, and 

3. to consult widely, undertake research, foster dialogue and 

make recommendations on amendments to the Planning Act. 1983 
and other relevant legislation and to undertake other 
actions needed to achieve its mandate. 

Nothing set out above shall be taken as in any way limiting 
the right of the commissioners to petition the Lieutenant 
Governor in Council to expand the terms of reference to cover any 
matter that they may deem necessary as a result of information 
coming to their attention during the course of the inquiry. 

All Government ministries, boards, agencies and commissions 
shall assist the commissioners to the fullest extent so that they 
may carry out their duties, and the commissioners shall have 
authority to engage such advisory services and other staff 
resources as they deem proper, at compensation rates approved by 



FINAL REPORT 
166 



ORDER IN COUNCIL 



the Management Board of Cabinet, so that a complete report may be 
prepared for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. 

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of the 
Attorney General will be jointly responsible for providing 
administrative support to the commission of inquiry. 

Part III of the Public Inquiries Act is declared to apply to 
this inquiry and to the commission conducting it. 

John Sewell shall be the Chair of the commissioners. 

The commissioners shall present an interim report to the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs by July 1, 1992 and provide the 
Minister with other interim reports as the Minister may request. 

The commissioners shall complete their inquiry and deliver 
their final report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs by 
July 1, 1993. 



Recommended 



^ 



Concurr 



Minister of 
Municipal Affairs 



Approved and Ordered 



June 6, 1991 
Date 




Lieutenant Governor 



FINAL REPORT 
167 



Appendix B 

Working 
Groups 



Beginning in 1991, the Commission 
organized a number of working 
groups to assist it at different 
stages over the course of its man- 
date. Positions and affiliations in 
the following lists identify a 
member's status at the time he or 
she was asked to join a group. 

General Working 
Groups 

The Commission organized two 
working groups to provide feed- 
back on the proposals produced 
in different phases of the 
Commission's work. The Chairs 
Group was made up of represen- 
tatives of organizations with a 
major interest in the planning and 
development process in Ontario. 
The Interministerial Group 
consisted of representatives of the 
provincial ministries interested in 
planning and development. 

Chairs 

Architectural Conservancy of Ontario 

Alec Keefer 

Association of Committees of 
Adjustment and Land Division 
Committees 

David Cowtan or 
Diane Stevenson 

Association of Municipalities of 
Ontario 

Terry Mundell 

Canadian Bar Association of Ontario 
Environmental Law Section 
Douglas R. Thomson 

Canadian Bar Association of Ontario 
Municipal Law Section 
Jim Harbell 



Conservation Council of Ontario 

Macklin Hancock or 
Duncan MacDonald 

County Planners 

Malcolm Boyd 

Economic Development Council of 
Ontario 

David Amos 

Environmental Assessment Board 

Grace Patterson 

Federation of Northern Ontario 
Municipalities 

Frank Manzo 

Federation of Ontario Cottagers' 
Associations 

Barry Mitchell 

Northern Ontario Municipal 
Association 

Jennifer McKibbon or 
Michael Power 

Ontario Association of Landscape 
Architects 

Gail Bornstein or 
Linda Irvine 

Ontario Environmental Network 
Land Use Caucus 

Stephen Connolly or 
Kathy Cooper 

Ontario Home Builders' Association 

Ian Rawhngs 

Ontario Municipal Board 

Diana Santo 

Ontario Professional Planners' Institute 

Andrew Hope or 
Anthony Usher 

Ontario Society for Environmental 
Management 

Douglas Petrie or 
Nigel Richardson 

Regional Planning Commissioners 

Sally Thorsen 

Toronto Society of Architects 

Lome Cappe or 
Kim Storey 

Urban Development Institute 

Bruno Pen 



Interministerial 

Ministry of Agriculture and Food 

Neil Smith 

Ministry of Energy 

Mary Ellen Warren 

Ministry of the Environment 

Jim Janse 
Mel Plewes 

Ministry of Culture and 
Communications 

Robert Montgomery 

Ministry of Government Services 

Eva Li 

Ministry of Housing 

Robert Dowler 

Ministry of Industry, Trade and 
Technology 

Geoff Hare 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 

Diana Jardine 
Dana Richardson 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
Anne Dragicevic 
Gord Rodgers 

Ministry of Northern Development and 
Mines 

Tony Buszynski 

Ministry of Tourism and Recreation 

John Yudelman 

Ministry of Transportation 

Mike Goodale 

Ministry of Treasury and Economics 

Carol Harris-Lonero 

Office of the Greater Toronto Area 

Sylvia Davis 



FINAL REPORT 
168 



WORKING GROUPS 



Planning Policies 
Working Groups 

In the fall of 1991, six working 
groups were organized to assist 
the Commission in developing, for 
discussion purposes, draft policies 
for different areas of the province. 
The six groups consisted of: 
cottage country, Northeastern 
Ontario, Northwestern Ontario, 
rural and small centres, urban, 
and urban fringe. 

Cottage Country 

Douglas Banks 

Houston Heights Beach Association and 
Stanley Township Cottagers' 
Association 

John Birnbaum 

Georgian Bay Cottage Association 

Larry Brown 

Chief Administrative Officer 
Township of Stephen 

Cliff Craig 

Land Management Coordinator 
Rideau Valley Conservation Authority 

Janet Grand 

Program Coordinator 
Muskoka Stewardship Program 

Jim Green 

Commissioner of Planning 
District of Muskoka 

Armin Grigaitis 

Marina Operator 

Councillor 

Township of Georgian Bay 

David Hahn 

Former Reeve 
Township of Bedford 

Jim Hamilton 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
Toronto 

Peter Hannah 

J.L. Richards Consultants 
Ottawa 

Jennifer Harker 

Biologist 

M.M. Dillon Ltd. 

Toronto 



Ted Johnston 

Cottager 
Bobcageon 

Bob Lehman 

Planning consultant 
Barrie 

Hank Malec 

Cottager/ Engineer 
Muskoka 

Dan Matthews 

Tourism Development Consultant 
Duntroon 

Gordon Mills 

Boater 

Oakville 

Barry Mitchell 

Federation of Ontario Cottagers' 
Associations 

Rodney Northey 

Cottager /Environmental lawyer 
Georgian Bay 

Ray Parfitt 

Planner 
Township of Mara 

John Patterson 

Cottager 
Muskoka Lakes 

Yuris Pelech 

Director of Planning 
Lush Corporation 
Burlington 

Wolf Scheider 

Ministry of the Environment 
Toronto 

Bob Sneyd 

Big Rideau Lake Association 

Mark Stagg 

County Planner and Economic 

Development Officer 
County of Haliburton 

Manuel Stevens 

Park Planner 
Rideau Canal 
Canadian Parks Service 

Ian Stewart 

Reeve 

Township of the Archipelago 

Myra Wiener 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Toronto 

John Yudelman 

Ministry of Tourism and Recreation 
Toronto 



Northeastern Ontario 

Bill Beckett 

Secretary-Manager 
North Bay-Mattawa Conservation 
Authority 

Wayne Belter 

Administrator 

Clerk/Treasurer 

Mattawa 

Lynne Bennett 

Councillor 

City of North Bay 

Jack Bourne 

Northland Engineering (1987) Ltd. 
Sudbury 

Roman Brozowski 

Nipissing University College 

Dan Brunette 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
Sudbury 

Michael Burke 

City Solicitor 
City of North Bay 

Jim Burke 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Sudbury 

Jeff Celentano 

City Planner 
City of North Bay 

Jean-Marc Filion 

Teacher 
North Bay 

Art Hinds 

Planning Administrator and Secretary- 
Treasurer 
Manitoulin Planning Board 

Claude Lafrance 

Ministry of the Environment 
Sudbury 

Keith Lewis 

Environment Director 
North Shore Tribal Council 

Brennain Lloyd 

Coordinator 
Northwatch 
North Bay 

Robert Lucenti 

Lawyer 

Lucenti, Rivard and Orlando 

North Bay 

Heather Ross , 

Assistant Coordinator 
Teme-Augama Anishnabai Bear Island 



FINAL REPORT 
169 



WORKING GROUPS 



Stephen Sajatovic 

Director of Planning and Development 
City of North Bay 

Gino Tedesco 

Developer 
North Bay 

Northwestern Ontario 

Dale Ashbee 

Ministry of Northern Development and 

Mines 
Thunder Bay 

Wendy Bell 

Mayor 

Town of Marathon 

John Callan 

Chief Administrative Officer 
Town of Dryden 

Dennis Cromarty 

Nishnowbe-Aski Development Fund 

Gordon Cuthbertson 

General Manager 

Department of Planning and Building 

City of Thunder Bay 

Silvio Di Gregorio 

Bruno's Contracting 
Thunder Bay 

Karen Farrell 

Northwest Ontario Economic 

Development Network 
Thunder Bay 

Margaret Harris 

Councillor 
Township of Dorion 

Bruce Hyer 

Environmental consultant 
Thunder Bay 

Victoria Kosny 

Secretary-Treasurer 

Lakehead Rural Planning Board 

Don Manahan 

Planning consultant 
Thunder Bay 

Cliff Mcintosh 

President 
Quetico Centre 

Allan G. McKitrick 

Lawyer 

McKitrick Jones Kislock 

Thunder Bay 

Iain Mettan 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
Thunder Bay 



Dusty Miller 

Councillor 

City of Thunder Bay 

Glenn Nolan 

Ahkokan Citizens' Group 

Richard Potter 

Chair 

Lakehead Conservation Authority 

Fred Poulter 

Vice-President, Administration 
Lakehead University 

Brenda Reimer 

Lakehead Social Planning Council 
Thunder Bay 

Wayne Scott 

Ministry of the Environment 
Thunder Bay 

Ian Smith 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Thunder Bay 

Miriam Wall 

Andersen Management Services 
Thunder Bay 

Rural and Small Centres 

Barbara Brownell 

Executive Director 

North Wellington Advisory Group 

Arthur 

Gary Davidson 

Director of Planning 
County of Huron 

Barbara Dembek 

Director of Planning 
Township of Wilmot 

Patrick Donnelly 

Planning Supervisor 
Ausable-Bayfield Conservation 
Authority 

Ted Emond 

Former mayor of Orillia 

Head of Compensation Department 

Hewitt Associates 

Wayne Fairbrother 

Lawyer 

Templeman Brady Menninga Cort 

Sullivan and Fairbrother 
Belleville 

Jordan Grant 

Seaton Group 
Woodbridge 

Ella Haley 

Researcher 
Guelph 



Rae Horst 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
Toronto 

Peggy Hutchison 

Grey County Association for Better 
Planning 

Sue MacPherson 

Senior Planner 
Walker Wright Young 
Toronto 

Mike Maloney 

Coalition Advocating Responsible 

Development 
Port Rowan 

Sharon McCrae 

Reeve 
Township of Ops 

Larry McDermott 

Councillor 

Township of Lavant, Dalhousie and 
North Sherbrooke 

Jean Monteith 

Planning consultant 
Monteith Zelinka Ltd. 
London 

Pauline Morris 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Toronto 

Stephen Rodd 

University of Guelph 

Neil Smith 

Ministry of Agriculture and Food 
Toronto 

Case Vanderham 

Farmer 
Holland Centre 

Elbert van Donkersgoed 

Christian Farmers' Federation of Ontario 
Guelph 

Brian Ward 

Ministry of the Environment 
Kingston 

Bryan Weir 

Director of Planning 
County of Peterborough 

John Willms 

Lawyer 

Willms and Shier 

Toronto 



FINAL REPORT 
170 



WORKING GROUPS 



Urban 

Michael de Gruchy 

Citizens for a Safe Environment 
Toronto 

Janet Dey 

Vice-President, Development 
Wesnor Developments 
Toronto 

Steven Fong 

Architect 
Toronto 

Rosemary Foulds 

Housing and social planner 
Hamilton 

John Gladki 

Director, Policy and Strategic Planning 
City of Toronto 

David Hulchanski 

Professor 

Faculty of Social Work 

University of Toronto 

Diana Jardine 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Toronto 

Allan Leibel 

Lawyer 

Goodman and Goodman 

Toronto 

Jane Marshall 

The Goldman Group 
Toronto 

Paul Muldoon 

Counsel 
Pollution Probe 
Toronto 

Lou Sage 

Chief Administratix'e Officer 
City of Hamilton 

Ed Sajecki 

Commissioner of Planning 
City of York 

Beth Savan 

Associate Professor 
Department of Geography and 

Environmental Studies Program 
University of Toronto 

Sherene Shaw 

Councillor 

City of Scarborough 

Ron Struys 

Real-estate developer 
Toronto 



Nick Tunnacliffe 

Commissioner of Planning 
Regional Municipality of Ottawa- 
Carleton 

Stephan von Buttlar 

Development consultant 
Toronto 

Carolyn Woodland 

Landscape architect 

Hough, Stansbury, Woodland Ltd. 

Etobicoke 

Urban Fringe 

John Bacher 

Preservation of Agricultural Lands 

Society 
St. Catharines 

Vicki Barron 

General Manager 

Credit Valley Conservation Authority 

John Bray 

Ministry of the Environment 
Toronto 

Margaret Britnell 

Mayor 
Township of King 

Brian Buckles 

Business executive 
Pickering Rural Association 

John Fisher 

Save the Oak Ridges Moraine 

Don Fleming 

Herity Group 
Toronto 

John Ghent 

Planner 

Town of Oakville 

Brenda Hogg 

Resident 
Richmond Hill 

Eldred King 

Chairman 

Regional Municipality of York 

Zen Makuch 

Lawyer 

Canadian Environmental Law 

Association 
Toronto 

Myron Pestaluky 

Venturon Development Corporation 
Concord 

Paul Ross 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Kingston 



Neil Smith 

Ministry of Agriculture and Food 
Toronto 

Sally Thorsen 

Commissioner of Planning and 

Development 
Regional Municipality of Waterloo 

John van Nostrand 

Architect /Planner 

John van Nostrand Associates Ltd. 

Toronto 

Dennis Wood 

Lawyer 

McCarthy Tetrault 
Toronto 



FINAL REPORT 
171 



WORKING GROUPS 



Planning Process 
Working Groups 

Early in 1992, the Commission 
organized four working groups 
based in four different parts of 
the province — Kingston, 
London, Sudbury, and Toronto — 
to help develop ideas on 
improving the planning process. 

Kingston 

Susan Beckett 

Councillor 

Township of Loughborough 

Alan Cohen 

Lawyer 

Soloway and Wright 

Ottawa 

Rupert Dobbin 

Director of Planning 
City of Kingston 

Terry Edwards 

Senior Planner 
County of Victoria 

Ray Essiambre 

Planning consultant 
Kanata 

Ruth Ferguson 

Planning consultant 
Ainley and Associates 
Belleville 

Rob Fonger 

Director of Research and Policy 

Department 
Township of Kingston 

Patty Fraize 

Bayhill Developments 
Kingston 

Chris Hartman 

Richcraft Homes Ltd. 
Ottawa 

Larry Huffman 

Ontario Federation of Agriculture 
Corbyville 

Shirley Langer 

Mayor 

City of Belleville 

Eleanor Lindsay 

Former councillor 
Town of Picton 



Shane Kennedy 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Ottawa 

Clifford Maynes 

Environmentalist 
Peterborough 

Les McCoy 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
Kemptville 

Alex Munter 

Councillor 
City of Kanata 

Dean Patterson 

Chief Administrative Officer 
Village of Bancroft 

Helen Robinson 

Collins Watershed Association 
Glenburnie 

Brian Ward 

Ministry of the Environment 
Kingston 

London 

Tom Albrecht 

Matthews Group Ltd. 
London 

Cathie Brown 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
London 

Charles Corbett 

Reeve 

Township of McGillivray 

Frances Crummer 

Resident 
Chatham 

Rick Draker 

Devlon Group 
London 

Ted Halwa 

Planning consultant 
Community Planners Inc. 
London 

John Harrison 

Heritage consultant 
Owen Sound 

Warren Hastings 

Planning Director 
City of Stratford 

Rick Hundey 

Chief Administrative Officer 
Town of Exeter 

Anne Hurd 

Mcllwraith Field Naturalists 
London 



Rhonda Hustler 

Warwick Watford Landfill Committee 
Watford 

Graham Jordon 

Consulting hydrologist 
Gamsbey and Martnerow 
Owen Sound 

John Judson 

Lawyer 

Lerner and Associates 

London 

John Longworth 

Ministry of the Environment 
London 

Jim Miller 

Ministry of Agriculture and Food 
St. Thomas 

Ralph Pugliese 

Director of Planning 
County of Kent 

Don Scott 

Director of Planning 
County of Bruce 

Ian Seddon 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
London 

Joe Swan 

Alderman 
City of London 

Paul Verkley 

Ontario Federation of Agriculture 

Atwood 



Sudbury 



John Bain 

Director of Planning 
City of Sault Ste. Marie 

Paul Bogart 

Councillor 
Township of Coleman 

Ron Bonnett 

Reeve 

Township of Plummer Additional 

Nancy Cunningham 

Mayor 

Town of Parry Sound 

Marcel Gagnon 

Lawyer 
Blind River 

Laurie Grosklag 

Dalron Construction Ltd. 
Sudbury 



FINAL REPORT 

172 



WORKING GROUPS 



Liz Harding 

Ministry of Northern Development and 

Mines 
Sudbury 

Roger Lachance 

Secretary-Treasurer, Commissioner 
West Nipissing Industrial and Planning 
Board 

Bill Lautenbach 

Director of Plarming 
Region of Sudbury 

Bob List 

Planning consultant 
Bracebridge 

David King 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
North Bay 

Doug Kinney 

Secretary-Treasurer 

Sault Ste. Marie North Planning Board 

Janice Newsome 

Director of Planning 
Town of Hearst 

Carmen Provenzano 

Lawyer 

Sault Ste. Marie 

John Robert 

Mayor 

Town of Valley East 

Valois Seguin 

Reeve 

Township of Cosby, Mason and 
Mortland 

Sally Sheppard 

Community Development Consultant 

Sudbury 

Rod Stewart 

Ministry of the Environment 
Sault Ste. Marie 

Jan Vandermeer 

Environmental consultant 
Timmins 

Paul Wyatt 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
Sudbury 



Toronto 

Phil Byer 

Environmental Assessment Advisory 

Committee 
Toronto 

Lindsay Dale-Harris 

Planning consultant 
John Bousfield Associates 
Toronto 

Nancy Diamond 

Mayor 

City of Oshawa 

Bill Friedman 

Lawyer 

Macaulay, Chusid and Friedman 

Toronto 

Carol Goyette 

Community Development (LAMP) 
Etobicoke 

Elizabeth Howson 

Planning consultant 
Macaulay, Shiomi and Howson 
Toronto 

Renee Jarrett 

Manager, Plan Review Section 
Metro Toronto and Region Conservation 
Authority 

Phil Jessup 

Internahonal Council for Local 

Environmental Initiatives 
Toronto 

Paul Jones 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Toronto 

Rick Lindgren 

Lawyer 

Canadian Environmental Law 

Association 
Toronto 

Blake Kinahan 

Chairman 

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto 

Economic Development and Planning 

Committee 

Cathie Macdonald 

Director of Plan Examination 
Buildings and Inspection Department 
City of Toronto 

Wayne McEachern 

Ministry of Transportation 
Toronto 

Keith McNenly 

Clerk/Treasurer 
Township of Mono 



Steve Marshall 

Save the Rouge Valley System 
Locust Hill 

Pat Murphy 

Director of Development Review 
Region of Halton 

Marilyn Mushinski 

Councillor 

City of Scarborough 

Mel Plewes 

Ministry of the Environment 
Toronto 

John Rogers 

Former mayor of Georgina 

Lawyer 

Newmarket 

Sue Seibert 

Planner 
Aurora 

Lucy Stocco 

Tribute Corporation 
Pickering 

Susan Zwickel 

The Daniels Group 
Toronto 



FINAL REPORT 
173 



WORKING GROUPS 



Special Issues 
Working Groups 

The Commission organized three 
working groups to assist in 
developing ideas on how to deal 
with special issues. These groups 
discussed: development tools; 
social policy; and the relationship 
between the Environmental 
Assessment Act and the Planning 
Act. 

Development Tools 

Doug Billett 

Director 

Development Review and 

Transportation Policy 
Regional Municipality of Peel 

Bob Clarke 

Planner 

Totten Sims Hubicki 

Cobourg 

Elaine Hitchman 

Commissioner of Planning 
City of North York 

Elizabeth Ottaway 

Deputy Commissioner of Planning 
County of Oxford 

Phil Sanford 

Lawyer 

McCarthy Tetrault 
Toronto 

Social Policy 

Philip Abrahams 

Metro Community Services 
Toronto 

Karen Chan 

Children's Services Division 
Halton Social Services Department 

Patricia Hodge 

Social Planning Council 
Kingston and District 

Dan Leckie 

Ministry of Health 
Toronto 

Judith Leon 

Senior Link 
Toronto 



John Nywening 

Ministry of Community and Social 

Services 
Toronto 

Susan Pigott 

United Way 
Toronto 

Gerde Wekerle 

Faculty of Environmental Studies 
York University 

Relationship Between 
Environmental Assessment 
Act and Planning Act 

Donald Biback 

Cadillac Fairview 
Toronto 

Michael Boggs 

Chief Administrative Officer 

Niagara Region 

Association of Municipalities of Ontario 

John Bull 

Director of Operations 

City of Guelph 

Municipal Engineers' Association 

Phillip Byer 

Environmental Assessment Advisory 

Committee 
Toronto 

Kathy Cooper 

Canadian Environmental Law 
Association 

Derek Doyle 

Environmental Assessment Branch 
Ministry of the Environment 

Paul Eagles/Len Gertler 

Environmental Assessment Board 
Toronto 

Ruth Ferguson 

Planning consultant 
Ainley and Associates 
Belleville 

Mike Goodale 

Ministry of Transportation 
Toronto 

Ron Kennedy 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Toronto 

Michael McQuaid 

Lawyer 

Weir and Foulds 

Toronto 



Pat Murphy 

Director of Development Review 
Region of Halton 

Steven Rowe 

Planning consultant 
Walker, Nott, Dragicevic 
Toronto 

Judy Simon 

Environmental consultant 
Toronto 

Jack Winberg 

Rockport Group 

Toronto 

Urban Development Institute 



FINAL REPORT 

174 



Appendix C 

Meetings with 
Communities, 
Councils, and 
Groups 

Meetings with Communities 

The Commission invited the 
public from surrounding areas to 
attend community meetings at 
the following locations: 



Brantford 


January 27, 1993 


Caledon 


July 14, 1992 


Chatham 


November 4, 1991 


Guelph 


April 2, 1992 


Hamilton 


February 17, 1992 


Newmarket 


April 15, 1992 


North Bay 


September 19, 1991 


Orangeville 


April 27, 1992 


Oro 


May 4, 1992 


Ottawa 


October 10, 1991 


Perth 


May 11, 1992 


Sarnia 


November 5, 1991 


Sault Ste. Marie 


September 13, 1991 


St. Catharines 


January 26, 1993 


St. Thomas 


March 31, 1992 


Sudbury 


February 28, 1992 


Thunder Bay 


September 12, 1991 


Townsend 


March 31, 1992 


Whitby 


March 12, 1992 


Windsor 


November 5, 1991 


Wingham 


April 2, 1992 



Meetings with Municipal 
Councils 

Members of the Commission met 
with regional, county, and local 
councillors on the following dates: 

1991 

September 

12 City of Thunder Bay 

13 City of Sault Ste. Marie 

19 City of North Bay 

20 City of Kitchener 
City of Waterloo 

23 City of Stratford 

October 

1 City of Burlington 

10 Regional Municipality of Ottawa- 

Carleton 
18 City of London 

City of Woodstock 

24 Regional Municipality of Peel 

November 

2 County of Oxford 

4 County of Kent 
City of Chatham 

5 City of Sarnia 
City of Windsor 
County of Lambton 

December 

13 County of Haliburton 
County of Peterborough 
County of Victoria 

1992 

January 

14 Regional Municipality of Halton 

15 Regional Municipality of Niagara 

16 County of Middlesex 

21 Regional Municipality of Ottawa- 
Carlcton 

22 County of Frontenac 

23 County of Northumberland 
28 City of Sault Ste. Marie 

30 County of Grey 

February 

5 City of Peterborough 

27 Regional Municipality of 
Hamilton-Wentworth 

28 Regional Municipality of Sudbury 

March 

3 County of Middlesex 
City of Thunder Bay 

12 Regional Municipality of Durham 

30 City of Scarborough 

31 County of Brant 
County of Elgin 
City of Brantford 
Regional Municipality of 
Haldimand-Norfolk 



April 

2 County of Bruce 
County of Huron 

3 County of Wellington 
City of Guelph 

21 Borough of East York 
30 Municipalities in District of 
Timiskaming 

May 

4 City of York 

6 Municipality of Metropolitan 
Toronto 

11 City of Etobicoke 

12 County of Lanark 

14 Regional Municipality of York 

26 United Counties of Stormont, 
Dundas and Glengarry 

27 County of Hastings 

28 County of Essex 

June 

5 District Municipality of Muskoka 
9 City of Timmins 

10 Regional Municipality of Sudbury 
19 Regional Municipality of Halton 

25 Regional Municipality of Ottawa- 
Carleton 

July 
14 Town of Caledon 

October 

5 Municipalities in District of Parry 
Sound 

14 Regional Municipality of York 

15 County of Simcoe 

19 Regional Municipality of Peel 

21 County of Renfrew 

22 County of Peterborough 

26 County of Lambton 

27 Regional Municipality of Waterloo 

November 

3 Municipalities in District of 
Nipissing 

1993 

January 

20 Regional Municipality of Ottawa- 
Carleton 

26 Regional Municipality of Niagara 

27 County of Brant 

February 
18 County of Grey 

March 

8 County of Kent 
City of Chatham 
17 Town of Jaffray Melick 
Town of Keewatin 
Town of Kenora 



FINAL REPORT 
175 



MEETINGS WITH COMMUNITIES, COUNCILS, AND GROUPS 



Meetings with Groups 

The Commission met with 
numerous associations and other 
organizations, either in meetings 
or at conferences, including: 

Aggregate Producers' Association 
Association of Committees of 
Adjustment and Land Division 
Committees 
Association of Conservation Authorities 
Association of Municipal Clerks and 

Treasurers of Ontario 
Association of Municipalities of Ontario 
Association of Ontario Business Districts 
Association of Professional Heritage 

Consultants 
Association of Public Health Inspectors 
Canadian Association of Certified 

Planning Technicians 
Canadian Bar Association, 
Environmental Section 
Canadian Bar Association, Municipal 

Section 
Canadian Institute of Planners 
Canadian Urban Institute 
Committee of Metro Local Area Councils 

(Toronto) 
Co-operahve Housing Federation 
County Planning Directors 
Environmental Assessment Advisory 

Committee 
Environmental Assessment Board 
Environmentalists Plan Toronto 
Family Service Agencies 
Federation of Ontario Cottagers' 

Associations 
Federation of Ontario Naturalists 
Georgian Bay Cottagers' Association 
Georgian Bay Triangle Association 
Grand River Conservation Authority 
Greater Toronto Home Builders' 

Association 
Grey Association for Better Planning 
Guelph Home Builders' Association 
Hike Ontario! 

Housing Development Resource Centre 
Kitchener-Waterloo Home Builders' 

Association 
Lakeshore Planning Council 
Metro Toronto Planning Commissioners 
Municipal Engineers' Association 
Muskoka Cottagers' Association 
National Association of Industrial and 

Oftice Parks 
Niagara Escarpment Coalition 
Niagara Escarpment Commission 
Northern Ontario Municipal Association 
Oak Ridges Moraine Working Group 
Ontario Architects' Association 



Ontario Association of Landscape 

Architects 
Ontario Public School Boards' 

Association 
Ontario Environmental Network, Land 

Use Caucus 
Ontario Federation of Agriculture 
Ontario Home Builders' Association 
Ontario Institute of Agrologists 
Ontario Land Economists 
Ontario Municipal Board 
Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association 
Ontario Professional Planners' Institute 
Ontario Social Planning Council 
Ontario Society for Environmental 

Management 
Ontario Tender Fruit Producers' 

Marketing Board 
Ontario Urban Transit Association 
Regional Planning Commissioners 
Rural Ontario Municipal Association 
Society of Directors of Municipal 

Recreation in Ontario 
Tender Fruit Growers' Association 
Toronto Board of Trade, Planning 

Committee 
Toronto Real Estate Board 
Urban Design Group of the Greater 

Toronto Area 
Urban Development Institute 
Uxbridge Conservation Association 
Waterfront Regeneration Trust 
Women Plan Toronto 
York Region Real Estate Board 



FINAL REPORT 
176 



Appendix D 

Public Forums 

The Commission held four 
rounds of public forums across 
the province. 



1992 


January Public Forums 


January 

14 Burlington 

15 Thorold 


16 


London 


21 


Ottawa 


22 


Kingston 


23 
27 
28 


Cobourg 
Thunder Bay 
Sault Ste. Marie 


30 


Owen Sound 


May/June Public Forums 


May 

26 


Cornwall 


27 


Belleville 


28 


Windsor 


June 




1 


Metro Toronto 


2 


Metro Toronto 


4 


Stratford 


6 


Gravenhurst 


9 


Timmins 


10 
16 


Sudbury 
Kenora 


October/November Public 


Forums 


October 


14 


Richmond Hill 


15 


Barrie 


19 

21 


Brampton 
Pembroke 


22 
26 


Peterborough 
Sarnia 


27 


Waterloo 


November 


3 


North Bay 


4 


Thunder Bay 



1993 

Public Forums on the Draft 
Report 

February 

15 Oshawa 

16 Newmarket 

17 Parry Sound 

18 Owen Sound 

19 Owen Sound 

22 Metro Toronto 

23 Metro Toronto 

24 Mississauga 

25 Hamilton 

March 

1 Ottawa 

2 Ottawa 

3 Kingston 

4 Lindsay 

8 Chatham 

9 London 

10 Guelph 

11 Sault Ste. Marie 

15 Timmins 

16 Sudbury 

17 Thunder Bay 

18 Kenora 



FINAL REPORT 

177 



Appendix E 

Submitters 

Many individuals and organiza- 
tions contributed to our work 
through submissions to the 
Commission and briefs presented 
at public forums. Some of the 
names on the list made more than 
one submission. An asterisk (*) 
denotes an oral submission only. 

Access to Permanent Housing 

Committee 
Social Housing Access Committee 
Housing Help Centre Program 

Committee 
Hamilton 

Action to Restore a Clean Humber 

Etobicoke 

Leah Adams 

Gananoque 

William S. Addison 

Director of Planning 
County of Simcoe 

David E. Agar 

Russell 

Aggregate Producers' Association of 
Ontario 

J.H. Albarda 

Elora 

Don Alexander 

Owen Sound 

Kenneth A. Alexander 

Tarzwell 

Stephen Alexander 

Planning Department 
City of Cornwall 

Ned Allam 

Nehad Allam (Architects) 
North York 

Bob Almack 

Blackstock 

Lome Almack 

Pickering Rural Association 

Allan Anderson 

Tottenham 

Cheryl Anderson-Langmuir 

Guelph Field Naturalists 



D.G. Andrews 

Department of Chemical Engineering 

and Applied Chemistry 
University of Toronto 

Ron Andrews 

Reeve 

Township of Bruce 

N.B. Andreychuk 

Mayor 
Grimsby 

Archaeological Services Inc. 

Toronto 

Architectural Conservancy of Ontario 

Ronald St. C. Armstrong 

Armstrong Harrison Associates 
Whitby 

W. David Arnill 

Seeley and Arnill Aggregates 
CoUingwood 

Doris A. Arnold 

Owen Sound 

J.W. Arnott 

Georgian Triangle Development Institute 
CoUingwood 

Arnprior Region Federation of 
Agriculture 

Assaly Group of Companies 

Ottawa 

Association of Conservation Authorities 
of Ontario 

Association of District Health Councils 
of Ontario 

Association of Municipalities of 
Ontario 

Association of Ontario Land Surveyors 

Association of Professional 
Archaeologists 

Association of Supervisors of Public 
Health Inspectors of Ontario 

Atikokan Citizens' Group* 

Glenn Nolan 

Bill Auld 

Parry Sound 

Auto Free Ottawa 

Michael J. Axford 

Chatsworth 

Tess Ayles 
Doug Hum 
Barbara Jamieson 

Child Care Committee of Scarborough 

Yvonne Azzoparde 

Kennebec Township 



Ellen Baar 

Vancouver 

C.E. Babb 

Burlington 

John Bacher 

Friends of Foodlands 

Paul Bain* 

Planner 
Toronto 

Neil Baird* 

Grafton 

Ross Baker 

Arden 

Ted Baker 

Baker Salmona Associates 
Mississauga 

Tambyah Balasingham 

North York 

Bob Barber 

Matheson 

Ed Barge 

Cobourg 

Clayton J. Barker 

Burford Township Historical Society 

Norine Baron* 

Heathcote 

G. Gerald Barr 

Waterloo 

G. Barrett 
S. Couture 
B. Debbert 
L.E. Draho 
J. Fleming 
M. Henderson 
T. Grawey 
O. Katolyk 
L. Mottram 
B. Page 
R.W. Panzer 
W.j.C. Parker 
D.N. Stanlake 
J.R. Tikalsky 
B. Turcotte 
London 

Barrie Builders Association 

G.R. Bartlett 

Dunnville 

John Barton 

Kanata 

Trevor Bartram 

Toronto 

Bay of Quinte Remedial Action Plan 

Public Advisory Committee 



FINAL REPORT 

178 



SUBMITTERS 



G.H.U. Bayly 

Niagara Escarpment Commission 


Ruby Birch 

Richmond Hill 


Dr. Anita C Beaton 


Black Creek Anti-Drug Focus 


Oro Station 


Community Coalition 


Beaver Valley Heritage Society 

Clarksburg 


Northwest Space Committee 
North York 


Susan Beckett 

Councillor 


Bill Blair 

Renfrew 


Township of Loughborough 
D. Vance Bedore 


Jon-Paul Blais 

Sioux Lookout 


Planning Director 


Gary Blazak 


County of Renfrew 
Beth Beech 


Gumming Cockburn 
London 


Stratford 


Ursula Bloom 


Fred Beer 


Combermere 


Pickering Rural Association 


Dirk Blyleven 


Belfountain Community and Planning 
Organization 

Gerry Belisle* 

Barry's Bay 


Mississauga 

Board of Education for the City of 
Etobicoke 

Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto 


Don Bell 


Boat Harbour Association of Brighton 


Mississauga 


Township 


George Bell 

G.K. Bell and Associates 


David Boese* 

St. Catharines 


Mississauga 


Michael H. Boggs 


Belleville Business Improvement Area 


Chief Administrative Officer 


Danny Bellissimo 


Regional Municipality of Niagara 


Toronto 


William Bolan 


Mohamed Belmadani 


Sault Ste. Marie 


Denise Seguin 


Lionel Bonhomme 


St. Pascal 


Melrose Heights 


R.G. Bennett 


Timmins 


HJ. Heath 


Bonnechere Metis Association 


Lindsay 


Golden Lake 


R.P. Bentham 


E. Boote 


Flesherton 


Hastings 


Stella Berbynuk 

Tilbury 


Borough of East York 
William Bosiak 


Paul and Virginia Berg 


W.R. Bosiak Construction 


Millbank 


Stirling 


Julie Bergshoeff 

Hamilton 


George Bothwell 

Owen Sound 


Laurie Berman 


L.A. Bottos 


Palgra\e 
Skip Bernstein 


City Solicitor 

City of Sault Ste. Marie 


Markdale 


Aurel Boucher 


Helen Beswick 


Pembroke 


Councillor 
Town of Dundas 


Jack Boughner 

Langton 


Big Rideau Lake Association 


Sam Bowman* 


D.R. Billett 


Toronto 


Bramalea 


Bill Boychuk 

Timmins 



John Boyd 
Lois James 

Toronto 

Howard Bradfield* 

Anchor Concrete Products 
Kingston 

Richard Brady 

Senior Planner 
Proctor and Redfern 
St. Catharines 

M.R. Bragg 

Past President 

Association of Supervisors of Public 

Health Inspectors of Ontario 
Woodstock 

Murial Braham 

Councillor 

Township of Haldimand 

Murial Braham 
Jackie Innis 

Councillors 

Township of Haldimand 

George and Judy Braithwaite 

McDonald's Corners 

Andrew Breuer 

Thornhill 

Robert A. Breuls 

Harrowsmith 

Lynne Bricker 

Ottawa 

Gail and Robert Briggs 

Kakebeka Falls 

David O.J. Broderick 

Maxwell 

Mark Brodrick 

Guelph 

Ernest Brommecker 

Etobicoke 

Cary Brown 

Barrie 

Doug Brown 

Conserver Society of Burlington 

Ronald F. Brown 

Toronto 

Paul Bruer 

Wiarton 

Dan Brunette 

Ministry of Natural Resources 
Northeastern Region 
Sudbury 

Ken and Marion Bryden 

Toronto 



FINAL REPORT 
179 



SUBMITTERS 



Douglas Brydges 

Editor 

Times Star Publishing 

Geraldton 

Douglas Budden 

Tamworth 

Building Owners and Managers 
Association of Ottawa-Carleton 

Mark Bunting 

P.M. Bunting and Associates 
Kingston 

Patricia Bum 

Kingston 

William John Bums 

Fergus 

William Burrows 

Ottawa 

Rita A. Burtch 

Rideau Environmental Action League 

Murray Buzza* 

Burlington 

Sean Cable 

Kingston 

Ted Cadenhead* 

Thunder Bay 

Mike Cadman 

Guelph 

John Calvert 

Alternative Transportation Campaign 
Kingston Environmental Action Project 

Cambridge Environmentalists 

Sarah Campbell 

North Bay 

Canadian Association of Certified 
Planning Technicians 

Canadian Association of Professional 
Heritage Consultants 

Canadian Bar Association (Ontario) 

Toronto 

Canadian Environmental Defence Fund 

Canadian Environmental Law 
Association 

Canadian Environmental Law 
Association 

In association with members of Land- 
Use Caucus of Ontario Environment 
Network 

Canadian Institute for Environmental 
Law and Policy 

Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate 
Companies 



Canadian Jesuits 

Father J. P. Horrigan 
Director of Properties 

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society 

Ottawa-Hull Chapter 

Canadian Power and Sail Squadrons 

Scarborough 

Canadian Seniors for Social 
Responsibility 

Working Group on Healthy Sustainable 
Communities 

Chris Cannon* 

Shelagh Merskey 
Kingston 

Christine J. Cannon 

Kingston 

R. Carl Cannon 

Director of Planning 
Township of Sidney 

Carleton Board of Education 

Carlingwood Community Association 

Ottawa 

Roger N. Carr 
Port Hope 

Lome Carroll 

West Lome 

Cyril Carter 

Peterborough 

Ronald E. Carter 

Conestoga-Rovers and Associates 
Belleville 

Dennis Carter-Edwards 

Ontario Historical Society 

Cataraqui Region Conservation 
Authority 

Catfish Creek Conservation Authority 

Annabel Cathrall 

Chair 

Environment Committee 

Guelph Field Naturalists 

P.M. Catling 

Canadian Botanical Association 

Jeffrey Celentano 

North Bay 

Central Beckwith Concerned Citizens 
Group 

Smiths Falls 

Central Elgin Planning Office 

Central Lake Ontario Conservation 
Authority 

Oshawa 

Chalkfarm Neighbourhood Association 

North York 



Wes Chalmers 

Blenheim 

Alan Chappie 

Armbro 
Brampton 

Chatham Kent Home Builders' 
Association 

Joyce Chevrier 

Kenora 

Raymond Chipeniuk 

Ottawa 

Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario 

Guelph 

Christine Chun 

Scarborough Housing Help Centre 

William Church 

Orangeville 

Citizen Review Committee for Waste 
Management of Ottawa 

Citizens for Affordable Housing York 
Region 

Citizens Against More Pits 

North Dumfries 

Citizens for Citizens 

Hamilton 

Citizens Concerned About the Future of 
the Etobicoke Waterfront 

Lakeshore Planning Council 

Citizens Environmental Alliance* 

Windsor 

Citizens for a Greener Oxford (County) 

Citizens for an Oak Ridges Trail 

Aurora 

Citizens' Organization for Wellesley 
Township Study 

Citizens for Property Tax Reform 

Toronto 

Citizens for Safe Cycling* 

Ottawa 

Citizens for a Safe Environment* 

Toronto 

City of Barrie 
City of Belleville 
City of Brampton 
City of Brantford 
City of Brockville 
City of Burlington 
City of Cambridge 
City of Chatham 
City of Etobicoke 



FINAL REPORT 
180 



SUBMITTERS 



City of Gloucester 
City of Guelph 

City of Guelph 

Committee of Adjustment 

City of Hamilton 
City of Kanata 
City of Kingston 
City of Kitchener 
City of London 
City of Mississauga 
City of Niagara Falls 
City of North Bay 
City of North York 
City of Orillia 
City of Oshawa 
City of Ottawa 
City of Owen Sound 
City of Pembroke* 
City of Peterborough 

City of Peterborough 

Committee of Adjustment 

City of Port Colbome 
City of St. Thomas 
City of Sarnia 
City of Sault Ste. Marie 
City of Scarborough 
City of Stoney Creek 
City of Stratford* 

City of Thorold 

Committee of Adjustment 

City of Thunder Bay 
City of Timmins 

City of Timmins 

Committee of Adjustment 

City of Toronto 

City of Toronto 

Planning Advisory Committee 

City of Vanier 
City of Vaughan 
City of Waterloo 
City of Windsor 

City of Windsor 

PAC Sub-Committee on Planning and 
Development Reform 

City of Woodstock 

City of York 



Civic Forum 

Alex Cullen 
Ottawa 

Bob Clark 

Cobourg 

Diane Clarke 

Shuniah 

Ralph Clayton 

Ridgetown 

Austin Clipperton 

Clerk-Treasurer 

Township of the Spanish River 

CN Real Estate 

Bud Purves 

Co-housing Society* 

Toronto 

Co-operative Housing Association of 
Ontario 

Coalition Advocating Responsible 
Development 

Haldimand-Norfolk 

Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment 

Claire Coates 

Woodbridge 

D.S. Colbourne 

Chair (Interim) 

Ontario Municipal Board 

Robert J. Colclough 

Paris 

Ronald C. Cole 

Stratford 

Mr. and Mrs. A.W. Coles 

North York 

Collins Watershed Association 

Kingston 

Donna Colson* 

Pembroke 

Committee of Metro Local Area 
Councils 

Community History Project 

Toronto 

Community Services Council 

Newmarket 

Concerned Citizens for Civic Affairs in 
North York 

Concerned Citizens of Haldimand 

Concerned Citizens of King Township 

Concerned Citizens of West Lake 
Picton 

Concrete Precasters Association of 
Ontario 



Confederation of Resident and 
Ratepayer Associations 

Toronto 

Richard W. Connelly 

R.W. Connelly Associates 
Carp 

Conservation Council of Ontario 

Consumers Gas 
Toronto 

Ruth Cooper 

Ottawa 

Ross R. Cotton 

Reid and Associates 
Barrie 

Alan Coulter 

Weston 

Counsel Mortgage Corporation 

Tim Bankier 
Toronto 

County of Brant 

County of Bruce 

County of Elgin 

County of Elgin 

Land Division Committee 

County of Essex 
County of Frontenac 

County of Frontenac 

Land Use Planning Committee 

County of Grey 
County of Haliburton 

County of Hastings 

Planning Advisory Committee 

County of Kent 

County of Lambton 

County of Lennox and Addington 

County of Middlesex 

County of Oxford 

County of Perth 

County of Peterborough 

County of Prince Edward 

County of Renfrew 

County of Simcoe 

County of Victoria 

County of Wellington 

County Planning Directors of Ontario 

Gary Cousins 

Director of Planning and Development 
County of Wellington 



FINAL REPORT 
181 



SUBMITTERS 



Judy Coward* 

St. Catharines 

Joan Coxhead 

Scarborough 

CP Rail System 

Margaret Cranmer-Byng* 

Richmond Hill 

Paul Crawford 

Scarborough 

Credit Valley Conservation Authority 

Credit Valley Conservation Authority 
Township of Amaranth 
Township of East Garafraxa 
Township of Mono 
Township of Caledon 
Town of Orangeville 

Phyllis Creighton 

Conservation Council of Canada 

Agatha Cretaro 

Windsor 

Douglas G. Cross 

MSI 
Milford Bay 

W. Crouse 

Kirkendall Neighbourhood Association 
Hamilton 

Wesley Crown 

Township of Tay 

Karl Crozier 

Burk's Falls 

W.R. Crozier 

Richards Landing 

Frances Crummer 

Chatham 

Kevin Cunningham 

Thornton 

Nancy Cunningham 

Mayor 

Town of Parry Sound 

Dacon Corporation 

Kingston 

Fredric Dahms 

Department of Geography 
University of Guelph 

Ronald Daigle 

Nepean 

Dr. E.B. Dakin 

Kirkland Lake 

Jens Dam 

Moorefield 

Harold Darch 

Great Lakes Cruising Club 
Barrie 



David Barber and Associates 

Scarborough 

Robin Davidson-Arnott 

Department of Geography 
University of Guelph 

Bernie Davis 

Minden 

Chris Davis 

East Gwillimbury 

Simon Davis 

Simon Davis Architect Limited 
Toronto 

Taneda Dawes 

Westbrook 

Wilfred Day* 

Port Hope 

John de Boer* 

St. Catharines 

Marius P.M. de Bruyn 

Oakville 

Ronni de Meel 

Northwest Niagara Ratepayers 

Association 
Niagara Falls 

Hugo de Quehen 

Haldimand 

Rod Dechert 

Thornhill 

Deer Park Ratepayers Group 

Toronto 

John DeGroot 

Sarnia 

Wilfred Delene 

Arden 

Delisle Place Tenants' Association 
Toronto 

Leo DeLoyde 

Burlington 

W. Hazel Deltor 

Cambridge 

John DeMarco 

Windsor 

John DeMarco 

Vanier 

Dr. Tom DeMarco 

Toronto 

Alan Demb 

Publisher 

Toronto Planning Digest 

William Dennis 

Tarzwell 



Dr. Richard Denton 

Kirkland Lake 
Lillian Woodcock 

Swastika 

Patrick J. Devine 

Goodman and Carr 

L. deVries 

Robinson, Merritt and deVries 
North York 

John Dewar 

Richmond Hill 

Oksana Dewer* 

Richmond Hill 

Rob Deyman 

Acting Commissioner of Planning and 

Development 
City of Waterloo 

Richard Dickinson* 

Lawyer 
Pembroke 

Rosemary Dickinson 

Global Action Plan 
London 

Diana Dignam 

Cobourg 

Paul Dilse 

Toronto 

Jack Dingle* 

Brighton 

District Municipality of Muskoka 

R.C. Dixon 

Jewitt and Dixon 
Simcoe 

St. John Dixon-Warren 

Toronto 

Rob Dobrucki 

Niagara Peninsula Homes 

H.J. Doedens 

Etobicoke 

Don Mount Court Tenants' Association 

Toronto 

Murray Doner 

Charlton 

Lee D. Doran 

Toronto 

Drainage Superintendents Association 
of Ontario 

Robert Drury 

Reeve 
Township of Oro 

J. Norman Dueck 

Niagara-on-the-Lake 

Dufferin Aggregates 

North York 



FINAL REPORT 
182 



SUBMITTERS 



Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate 
School Board 

Albert W. Dugal 
Greely 

Kevin M. Duguay 

Planner 

City of Peterborough 

Durham Board of Education 

Durham Region Roman Catholic 
Separate School Board 

Mrs. Duthie* 

Presqu'ile Point 

Paul F.J. Eagles 

Department of Recreation and Leisure 

Studies 
University of Waterloo 

East Georgian Bay Historical 
Foundation 

East Gwillimbury Heights Ratepayers 
Association 

Eric Eberhardt 

Sebringville 

Barbara H. Eccles 

Thunder Bay 

Eco-Council of the Peterborough Area 

Economic Developers Council of 
Ontario 

Ecovision 

Ottawa 

Abbas Edun 

North York 

G.L. Edwards 

Owen Sound 

Jim Edwards 

Artemesia 

Whitney Edwards 

Glenelg 

Winston Egan* 

Windsor 

George Eggink 

Gibbons and Egginl< Construction 
Jarvis 

Paul M. Eker 

Guelph 

Jim Elder 

Ottawa 

Helga Elie 

Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture 

Elaine Elliott 
Cobourg 

Robert Elstone 

Burlington Historical Society 



Vera Emerson 

Ajax 

Environment Canada 

Canadian Parks Service 

Environment Canada 

Canadian Parks Service (Ontario Region) 

Environment North 

Thunder Bay 

Environmental Assessment Board 

Environmentalists Plan Transportation 

Toronto 

Eramosa Community Sounding 

Essex County Federation of Agriculture 

Essex Region Conservation Authority 

Doris and Frank M. Evans 

Dundas 

Doris Everard 

Sundridge 

Clare Eves 

East Gwillimbury Water Shortage 
Association 

Michael F. Ewasyn 

Whitby 

Stephen I. Fagyas 

Delcan Corporation 
North York 

Gord Fairfield* 

Cambridge 

Robert Fairfield 

Thornbury 

Terry Faith* 

Windsor 

Peter T. Fallis 

Fallis Fallis and McMillan 
Durham 

Linda Fardin 

Ottawa 

Ron Farrow 

Department of Political Science 
University of Western Ontario 

Paul Faulds 

Springfield 

Murray G. Fearrey 

Chairman 

Planning Advisory Committee 

Township of Dysart et al 

Paul Featherstone 

Oakville 

Federation of Citizens' Associations of 
Ottawa-Carleton 

Federation of Maganatawan Valley 
Conservation Associations 



Federation of Ontario Cottagers' 
Associations 

Federation of Ontario Naturalists 

Jim Fell* 

North Gower 

Myrna Fenton 

McKellar 

Caroline and Donald Ferguson 

Clarendon Station 

Grant H. Ferguson 

Peterborough 

Andrew Fyfe 

Orillia 

Harry Finlay* 

Stratford 

Donald J. Finn 

Minden 

Kenneth G. Fish 

Candevco Properties Group 
Guelph 

John Fisher 

Village of Rodney 

Two Tier Property Tax Committee 

Susan Fisher 

Ottawa 

Fishermen Involved in Saving Habitat 

Southern Ontario Chapter 

Flamborough Local Architectural 
Conservation Advisory Committee 

Arnold A. Flieler 

Cloyne 

Dennis R. Flood 

North York 

Cynthia Folzer 

Guelph 

Steven Fong 

Architect 
Toronto 

Donald J. Forgie 
Joanna McEwen 

North Sound Association 
Coldwater 

Charles H. Forsyth 

Hamilton 

E.J. Fothergill 

Fothergill Planning and Development 
Hamilton 

Edmund P. Fowler 

Toronto 

R.A. Fowler 

Grey County 

Marjorie Frances 

Vennachar 



FINAL REPORT 
183 



SUBMITTERS 



Richard Frank 

Department of Environmental Biology 
University of Guelph 

Margaret Frederick 

Guelph 

Aaron Freeman 

Ottawa 

Margaret R. French 

Bracebridge 

Art Frewin 

Citizens' Expressway Committee 
Stoney Creek 

Frontenac County Board of Education 

Frontenac Federation of Agriculture 

Dudley Shannon 

Cornelia Fuykschot 

Gananoque 

Stewart Fyfe 

Kingston 

Henk Gaasenbeek 

Hamilton 

Marcel L. Gagnon 

Blind River 

Robert J.P. Gale 

Toronto 

Joe Gallivan 

Kingston 

Ganaraska Region Conservation 
Authority 

Robert Gateman* 

Williamsford 

Hugh Gayler 

Department of Geography 
Brock University 

Gene Gemmell 

Stirling 

Georgian Bay Association 

Georgian Triangle Development 
Institute 

John Ghent 

Town of Oakville 

Bill Gibbons 

Frankville 

Ross Gibbons 

London 

Steve Gillespie* 

London 

Paul P. Ginou 

Eraser and Beatty 
Toronto 



Glanbrook Residents Are for a Clean 
Environment 

BLnbrook 

Glen Abbey Residents Association 

Oakville 

David Godley 

Etobicoke 

George A. Godwin 

Toronto 

Jack W.L. Goering 

Port Hope 

George A. Goetz 

Reeve 

Township of Carrick 

Pauline Golightly 

Leighland Community West 
Burlington 

Ken Gonyou 

Landcorp Group 
St. Catharines 

Ted Goodier 

Picton 

Terry Goodwin 

Thornhill 

E.J. Gordon 

Crossroads Building Corporation 
Pickering 

Joan and Lome Gordon 

Arden 

Leeroy Gordon 

Thornhill 

Tom Gostick 

Waubaushene 

Ed Goulbourne* 

Goulbourne Development 

Laurie Gourlay 

Ottawa 

Derek G. Graham 

Flora 

John F.R. Graham 

Schomberg 

Lorna Graham 

Reeve 

Camden Township 

Grand River Conservation Authority 

Jack S. Grant 

Sea ton Group 
Woodbridge 

Jeremy M. Grant 

Sea ton Group 
Woodbridge 

Grassroots Woodstock 



Roger H.W. Graves 

North Gower 

Greater Toronto Area Urban Design 
Group 

Greater Toronto Home Builders' 
Association 

Lome William Green 

Ajax 

Green Party of Ontario 

Frank de Jong 

Allan R. Gregory 

Ottawa 

Grey Association for Better Planning 

Grey Association for Development and 
Growth 

Grey-Bruce Home Builders and Trade 
Association 

Warren Dickert 

Grey County Federation of Agriculture 
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority 
Grey Survival Team 

Peter Grikes 

Northland Planning Consultants 
Dorset 

W. Ross Grinnell 

Markdale 

C.R. Groves 

Minesing 

Guelph Coalition 

Guelph Development Association 

Sam Sorbara 

Guelph and District Home Builders' 
Association 

Guelph Field Naturalists 

Alan P. Gummo 

Picton 

S. Gunaratnam 

Scarborough 

R. Gutnick 

Ottawa 

Calvin Hager 

Brantford 

Haldimand-Norfolk Federation of 
Agriculture* 

Haliburton Forest and Wild Life 
Reserve 

Haliburton, Kawartha and Pine Ridge 
District Health Council 

Wilfred Hall 

McDonald's Corners 



FINAL REPORT 
184 



Syd Halter* 

Thunder Bay 

Halton Access to Permanent Housing 

Committee 
Halton Board of Education 
Halton Region Conservation Authority 
Halton Social Planning Council 

Ted L. Halwa 

Ted Halwa and Associates 
London 

S.E. Hamill 

Merrickville 

Dale Colleen Hamilton 

Councillor 
Township of Eramosa 

Hamilton-Halton Home Builders' 
Association 

Hamilton Region Conservation 
Authority 

George A.M. Hancock 
Ayr 

Dr. Trevor Hancock 

Toronto 

Anne Hansen 

Toronto 

Helen Hansen 

North York 

Richard A. Hardie 

Richard A. Hardie and Associates 
Kitchener 

Colin Hardman 

Oakville 

Ken Harris 

Napanee 

Louise Harris 

Paris 

Jim Harrison 

Ottawa 

John Harrison 

Tempo Foundation 
Owen Sound 

Robert Harrison 

Singhampton 

Jim Hasler* 

North Bay 

Jary V. Havlicek 

Allenford 

Maureen J. Hayes 

Grimsby 

Roily and Barb Hazell 

Kitchener 



H.J. Heath 

Ottawa 

Robert Heaton 

Councillor 

Village of Glen Williams 

R.L. Heise 

Guelph 

Alan Heisey 

Toronto 

D.G. Hemple 

Woodstock 

Die Hendrickson 

Ottawa 

John R. Henricks 

Development Engineering 
London 

Heritage Canada 

Heritage Resources Centre 

Conserving Biodiversity Within the 
Canadian Great Lakes Basin 
(Conference) 

Hickory Falls Ratepayers Association 

Halton Hills 

Hike Ontario! 

Tom Hilditch 
Rick Hubbard 

Gartner Lee Limited 
Markham 

Nick Hill 

Auburn 

Mart Himma 

J.G. Payette 
Rockland 

Douglas Hindson 

Bobcaygeon 

Brian Hinkley 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Services 

Geoffrey Hinton* 

Gatton 

John Hitchcock 

Department of Geography 
University of Toronto 

John Hitchcock 
Nigel Richardson 
Department of Geography 
University of Toronto 

Elaine Hitchman 

Commissioner of Planning 
City of North York 

R.G. Hockley 

Havelock 

Margaret Hoddinott* 

Scarborough 



Richard Hodge 
Dennis Landry 

Upper Canada Consultants 
St. Catharines 

Robert Hodgins 

Gravenhurst 

Stephen Hogbin 

Owen Sound 

Doreen Holland 

Councillor 

Township of Sioux Narrows 

E.L. Hollingsworth 

Sault Ste. Marie 

Diane Holmes 

Councillor 
City of Ottawa 

L.T. Hore 

London 

Vivian H. Hostetler 

Cobalt 

Chuck Hostovsky 

R. Cave and Associates 
Oakville 

Vicki Hotte 

Kettleby 

G. Houle 

Emsdale 

Housing Action Now* 

Toronto 

Housing Development Resource Centre 

Toronto 

Margherita Howe* 

Niagara-on-the-Lake 

Dale Hoy 

Ajax 

Bill Hrinivich* 

Dowling 

Kenneth A. Hubert 

Ottawa 

Ronald Huffman 

Aylmer 

David Hughes 

Councillor 
Town of Caledon 

Thomas E. Hughes 

Scarborough 

J. David Hulchanski 

Faculty of Social Work 
University of Toronto 

Peter Hume* 

Councillor 
City of Ottawa 



FINAL REPORT 
185 



SUBMITTERS 



Rick Hundey 

Chief Administrative Officer 
Town of Exeter 

C.G. Hunt 

Lakehurst 

Malcolm Hunt 

City of Peterborough 

James Hunter 

Director/Curator 
Huronia Museum 
Midland 

Judy Hunter 

Kanata 

Anne Hurd 

Mcllwraith Field Naturalists of London 
Ontario 

Catherine Gabrielle Hurst 

Toronto 

Stefan Huzan 

Thunder Bay 

Hynde, Paul Associates 

St. Catharines 

Inclusive Neighbourhoods Campaign 

Toronto 

Interministerial Coordinating 
Committee on Alternative Uses of 
Abandoned Railway Rights-of-Way 

Ministry of Transportation 

International Association of Public 
Participation Practitioners (Ontario) 

E. lovio 

Director of Planning 
Town of Ancaster 

Islington Ratepayers and Residents' 
Association 

Etobicoke 

Joseph Ivanski 

Grimsby 

Jane Jacobs 

Toronto 

Michael A. Jaeger 

Toronto 

Chris Jalkotzy 

Ottawa 

Ben James 

Almonte 

Charles H. Jefferson 

Ottawa 

Dave Jehk 

McDonald's Corners 

I.H. Jennings 

Municipal Electric Association 



Ame Jensen 

Brighton Township 

Carolyn Johnson 

Pickering 

Heather S. Johnson 

Greer Galloway Group 
Peterborough 

Michael Johnson 

Toronto 

June Johnston 
Lome Johnston 

Toronto 

Larry Johnston 

Thomhill 

Wallace Johnston 

Carp 

T.K. Jones 

Cavan 

Graham W. Jordan 

Gamsby and Mannerow 
Owen Sound 

G.W. Jorden 

Barrie 

Robert A. Joyce 

Kingston 

John Jung 

Toronto 

Gregory Kachmar 

Burlington 

Kanata Environmental Advisory 
Committee 

J. Kandziora 

Georgetown 

Kapuskasing and District Planning 
Board 

Lorraine Katryan* 
Toronto 

Jonathan Kauffman 

Toronto 

Kawartha Region Conservation 
Authority 

Michael Keating 

Department of Political Science 
University of Western Ontario 

Theresa Kellaway 

Belleville 

John Kelly 

Dunnville 

D.A. Kelman 

St. George 

Ross Kembar 

Lakefield 



Randall Kemp 

Ottawa 

Pearl Anne Kempen 

Haldimand 

Kenora-Keewatin Planning Board 

Kent County Farm and Rural 
Organizations 

Kent Federation of Agriculture 
Christian Farmers' Federation of Ontario 
(Kent Chapter) 

Kent Federation of Agriculture 

J.W. Ketcheson 

Belleville 

Lloyd B. Kiely 

Oakville 

Marilyn King 
Paul Robinson 

Silver Creek Environmental Association 
Halton Hills 

Philip King 

Mississauga 

King Edward Avenue Task Force 

Ottawa 

Kingston District Chamber of 
Commerce 

Kingston Environmental Action Project 

John Calvert 

Alternative Transportation Campaign 

Kingston Frontenac Home Builders' 
Association 

Austin Kirkby 

Niagara-on-the-Lake 

John D. Kirkby 

Niagara-on-the-Lake 

Laverne Kirkness 

London 

Caroline Kirkpatrick 

Toronto 

Kitchener-Waterloo Home Builders' 
Association 

Ziggy Kleinau 

Lindsay Township 

Kleinburg and Area Ratepayers' 
Association 

Mr. and Mrs. Russell Knight 

Arden 

Garnet Kranz* 

Pembroke 

Mark Krapez 

Milton 

Ralph Krueger 

Waterloo 



FINAL REPORT 
186 



SUBMITTERS 



Frank Kumapley 

Gloucester 

Michael Kusner* 

Professor of Planning 
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute 
Toronto 

Frances Labelle 

Bloor/Junction Neighbourhood 
Coalition 

B.J. Lafleur 

Kitchener 

Chris LaForest 

Bruce County 

Ian Laird 

Windsor 

Bill Lake 

Lake Huron Preservation Association 

Douglas Banks 

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation 
Authority 

Lake of the Woods District Property 
Owners' Association 

Lakefront Owners Association 

Etobicoke 

Lakehead Region Conservation 
Authority 

Lakeshore Ratepayers' and Residents' 
Association 

Etobicoke 

David Lalonde 

Councillor 

Township of North Plantagenet 

Lucien Lalonde 

Director 

Economic Development 

County of Lanark 

Peter Lambrick 

Halton 

Roger Lamont 

Owen Sound 

Lanark County Aggregate Association 

Lanark Highlands Association for 
Sustainable Development 

Land-Use Caucus 

Ontario Environment Network 

Landcorp Group 

St. Catharmes 

Gerald Landry* 

Nipigon 

Reg Lang 

Faculty of Environmental Studies 
York University 



Peter Langdon* 

Toronto 

F. Peter Langer 

Markborough Properties 
North York 

David Langstaff 

Reeve 

Township of Howard 

6. Lanktree 

Waterloo 

Ben Lansink 

London 

Robert J. Lapum 

Peterborough 

Ed Laramee 

Ompah 

Rene E.E. Larson 

Erickson Larson 

Connie Latam 

Wheatley 

Janice Lattin 

TransCanada PipeLines 
Calgary 

R.B. Latulippe 

Omemee 

Jean Laundy 

Toronto 

Maria Laurie 

Huntsville 

W.E. Lautenbach 

Director of Planning and Development 
Regional Municipality of Sudbury 

Michael Leahy 

John Leaning 

Leaning and Associates 
Ottawa 

Jeannine Lebel 

Powassan 

David M. Ledair 

Kanata 

Laurence Lee 

Mayor 

Town of Smiths Falls 

Marilyn B. Lee 

School of Environmental Health 
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute 
Toronto 

Joseph D. Legris 

Renfrew 

Bob Lehman 

Lehman and Associates 
Barrie 



Gerry Lemon 

Port Hope 

Tom Lemon 

Kitchener 

Jill Leslie 

Hike Ontario! 
Guelph 

Hok-Lin Leung 

School of Urban and Regional Planning 
Queen's University 

Neil Levac 

Reeve 

Township of West Hawkesbury 

Sandy Levin 

Political Action Caucus of Project 

Responsible City 
London 

Edward Lexton 

Student Area Neighbourhood 

Development 
Kingston 

Steven Liggett 

London and Middlesex Historical Society 

John and Helen Light 

Charlton 

Lincoln Village Community 
Association 

Waterloo 

James M. Lindamood 

Kearney 

Ed Lindgren 

Toronto 

Franklin A. Lisse 

Durham 

Robert G. List 

List Planning 
Bracebridge 

Nina-Marie E. Lister 

Department of Geography 
University of Toronto 

Little Cataraqui Environment 
Association 

Kingston 

John W. Livey 

Associate Commissioner of Planning 
Regional Municipality of York 

T.H. Lockyer 

Lockyer Brothers 
Orangeville 

Peter Loebel 

North York 

Joseph Lofaro* 

Toronto 



FINAL REPORT 

187 



SUBMITTERS 



Donald J. Logan 

Hamilton 

Logos Land Resort 

John G. Lohuis 

Ontario Parks Association 

London Chamber of Commerce 

London Development Institute 

London and District Labour Council 

London Local Architectural 

Conservation Advisory Committee 

London and Middlesex Historical 
Society 

London Society of Architects 

Clayton Long 

Port Elgin 

Stan Louttit 

Mushkegowuk Council 

Catherine Lovelock 

Sarnia 

W.A. Lovelock 

Whitby 

Robert G. Loveys 

Emsdale 

Lower Thames Valley Conservation 
Authority 

Lower Trent Region, Moira River, and 
Prince Edward Region Conservation 
Authorities 

Allan R. Lowry 

Almonte 

Robert A. Loy 

Powassan 

Mr. and Mrs. Don Lyon 

Kitchener 

Donald R. MacDonald 

OriUia 

Rod MacDonald 

Thessalon Planning Committee 

William MacDonald 

Councillor 
Town of Cobourg 

Bev MacDougall 

Sarnia 

Storm MacGregor 

Toronto 

Lou Macintosh 

Grafton 

Samm MacKay 

Waterloo 



Elizabeth MacKenzie 

Centretown Citizens' Community 

Association 
Ottawa 

Mary MacKenzie* 

Sioux Lookout 

Hugh W.S. Macklin 

Linmac Inc. 
Cobourg 

J.W. MacLaren 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
Ontario Water Services Secretariat 

Don MacLean 
John Maskell 

Faculty of Environmental Studies 
University of Waterloo 

Ian MacMillan 

Elizabethtown Municipal Electors 
Association 

Lyn MacMillan 

Maple 

J. Don MacMillan Limited 

Listowel 

Dr. Douglas MacPherson 

Millgrove 

Maitland Trail Association 

R.M. LaFontaine 

Maitland Valley Conservation 
Authority 

H.J. Malec 

North York 

W.E. Mallory 

Mallory Insurance Brokers 
Barrie 

Dan Manahan* 

Thunder Bay 

Andrew Mantha* 

Stratford 

March Rural Community Association 

Kanata 

Barbara Marshall 

McNair and Marshall 
Barrie 

John Marshall 

Humphrey Township Committee of 
Adjustment 

Carol Marten 

St. Catharines 

Jim Martin 

Brampton 

Jim and Bill Martin 

Township of Orillia 



Larry Martin 

School of Urban and Regional Planiung 
University of Waterloo 

Lloyd Martin* 

Thessalon 

Luciano Martin* 

Toronto 

Marina Martin 

Haldimand-Norfolk Organization for a 
Pure Environment 

John Martyn 

Sparta 

Stuart Marwick* 

Chatsworth 

John Maskell 

Faculty of Environmental Studies 
University of Waterloo 

Geoff Mason 

Balderson and Area Community 
Association 

Richard and Eileen Mason 

Mississauga 

Victoria Mason 

Nepean 

W.G. Mates 

Tillsonburg 

Chris Mathew* 

Peterborough 

Keith Matthie 

Ontario Federation of Agriculture 
Prince Edward County Branch 

Vladimir Matus 

Toronto 

Larry Maughan 

Parry Sound 

Donald F. May 

May, Pirie and Associates 
Burlington 

Penny May 

Windsor 

Dr. M. Mayhew 

Pakenham 

Dennis R. McCalla 

Clarksburg 

D'Arcy McCallum 

Black River Protection Association 
Mount Albert 

Henry E. McCandless 

Ottawa 

J. Stewart McColl 

Elder 

Covenanted Baptist Church 



FINAL REPORT 
188 



SUBMITTERS 



Brian McComb 


William R. McLean 


Planner 


Consult Associates 


County of Prince Edward 


Nepean 


S.R. McCormack 


Brent McMaster* 


Councillor 


Bridgenorth 


Township of Mariposa 


Sharon McMillan 


Doris A. McCormick 


Clerk / Administrator 


Watford 


Township of Lobo 


Michele McCormick 


David McNicoll 


Community Housing Coordinator 


Ottawa 


Georgina Community Resource Centre 


R.J. McTavish 


Bill McCrae* 


Reeve 


Timmins 


Township of North Easthope 


John G. McCubbin 


Michael Measures 


Battersea Loughborough Associates 


Ottawa 


Kingston 


Peter Meisenheimer 


Steve McDermott 


Guelph 


Josh McDermott and Sons ConstrucHon 


Kris Menzies 


Port Carling 


Planning Director 


Don J. McDonald 


Township of Oro 


Cornwall 


James E. Merritt 


James K. McDonald 


Aylmer 


Hartington 


Mary Lynn Metras 


Robert Bums McDonald 


Councillor 


Kingston 


City of London 


Gordon McEachem 


Metro Toronto and Region Public 


Holstein 


Advisory Committee 


Mary Domagala McElroy 


Metro Toronto and Region Remedial 


Newmarket 


Action Plan 


Fred McGeary 


Public Advisory Committee 


Neighbourhood Institute 


Metropolitan Separate School Board 


Copper Trust Foundation 


Toronto 


Cambridge 


Metropolitan Toronto and Region 


Bill McGintry* 


Conservation Authority 


Kirkland Lake 


Metropolitan Toronto School Board 


Mcllwraith Field Naturalists of London 


R.E. Michels 


Ontario 


Executive Director 


Gord Mclntyre 


Atikokan Economic Development 


Bolton 


Corporation 


Rae Mclntyre 


Middlesex Federation of Agriculture 


Shallow Lake 


Charles Middleton* 


Stuart McKay 


Toronto 


Toronto 


J.D. Milliken 


Warren McKinney 


School of Landscape Architecture 


Ottawa 


University of Guelph 


Don McLean 


Gordon C. Mills 


Friends of Red Hill Valley 


Procor Limited 


Stoney Creek 


Oakville 


Rod McLean* 


Karen Mills 


Councillor 


Hamilton 


Ross McLean 


Kai Millyard 


Guelph 


Toronto 



Glen Milne 

Ottawa 

Ministry of Agriculture and Food 

Ministry of Culture and 
Communications 

Ministry of Culture, Tourism and 
Recreation 

Ministry of Energy 

Ministry of the Environment 

Ministry of the Environment and 
Energy 

Ministry of Government Services 

Ministry of Housing 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs 

Ministry of Natural Resources 

Ministry of Northern Development and 
Mines 

Ministry of Transportation 

Joe Miskokomon 

Union of Ontario Indians 

Miskwabi Area Cottagers' Association 

Barry Mitchell 

Federation of Ontario Cottagers' 
Associations 

Janis Mitchell 

Ajax 

Reggie Modlich 

Toronto 

Moira River Conservation Authority 

Ambrose Moran 

Apsley 

Guy W. Moreau 

Wyevale 

A.R. Morpurgo 

Toronto 

Lynda Morris 

Hamilton 

Basil Morrison* 

Wahnapitae 

Aaron Mountain 

Williamsford 

Joan Muir 

Councillor 
Township of Osprey 

Ann Mulvale 

Mayor 

Town of Oakville 

Municipal Electric Association 

Municipal Engineers Association 

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto 



FINAL REPORT 
189 



SUBMITTERS 



Bill Munson 

Toronto 

Alex Munter 

Councillor 
City of Kanata 

G.W. Murchison* 

Storrington Township 

Bill Murdoch 

MPP 
Grey 

Charlie Murphy 
Spencer Hutchison 

Planners 

City of Trenton 

Stewart Murray* 

Planner 
Belleville 

Arthur Muscovitch 

Guthrie Muscovitch Architects 
Etobicoke 

Marilyn Mushinski 

Councillor 

City of Scarborough 

Muskoka Community Workshop: 

Muskoka Lakes Association 

Muskoka Round Table on the Economy 

and Environment 
District Municipality of Muskoka 

Muskoka Lakes Association 

Muskoka Land Division Committee 

Paul Myer* 
David Young* 
Barrie 

John and Pauline Nanni 

Westminster 

Napanee Region Conservation 
Authority 

Cathy Nasmith 

Nasmith Architect 
Toronto 

National Association of Industrial and 
Office Parks — The Association for 
Commercial Real Estate 

National Capital Commission 

National Farmers' Union 

Westport 

National Farmers' Union, Region 3 
(Ontario) 

J. Gordon Nelson 

Department of Geography and Urban 

and Regional Planning 
University of Waterloo 

Kathi M. Nesbitt 

St. Catharines 



Emil Neukamm* 

Elgin County 

John C. Newell 

Toronto 

Niagara District Health Council 

Fonthill 

Niagara Escarpment Commission 

Niagara Peninsula Conservation 
Authority 

Niagara Peninsula Fruit and Vegetable 
Growers Association 

Niagara Regional Local Architectural 
Conservation Advisory Committee 

Niagara South Federation of 
Agriculture 

Rick Rempel 
President 

Mark Niblett* 

Frankford 

Philip Niblett* 

Environmental consultant 
Peterborough 

Wayne Nicholas 

Hamilton Township Ratepayers' 
Association 

Don Nickel 

Buckhorn 

Nickel District Conservation Authority 

Mike Nickerson 

Merrickville 

Victor Norman 

Reeve 

Township of Cavan 

Todd Norris 

Kemptville 

North Bay-Mattawa Conservation 
Authority 

North Fredericksburgh Township 
Ratepayers Association* 

North Simcoe Environmental Watch 

North York Board of Education 

North York University Women's Club 

Environment and Resources Group 

Northland Planning Consultants 

Dorset 

Northumberland Home Builders 
Association 

Marjut Nousiainen 

Thornhill 

Luigi Nunno 

Toronto 



Del O'Brien* 

Lawyer 
Pembroke 

Lynn O'Farrell 

Onaping 

Hugh G. O'Leary 

Thunder Bay 

Ronald Oelbaum 

Toronto 

Dan Oitzl* 

Thunder Bay 

Old University Neighbourhood 
Residents (Guelph) 

Richard Shaw 

Ray Olsen 

Waterdown 

Larry Onisto 

Puslinch 

Ontario Association of Architects 

Ontario Association of Cemeteries 
Ontario Catholic Cemetery Conference 
Toronto Hebrew Memorial Park 

Ontario Association of Committees of 
Adjustment and Consent Authorities 

Ontario Association of Landscape 
Architects 

Ontario Chamber of Commerce 

Ontario Federation of Agriculture 

Ontario Federation of Agriculture 

Prince Edward County Branch 

Ontario Federation of Anglers and 
Hunters 

Ontario Healthy Communities 
Coalition 

Ontario Historical Society 

Dennis Carter-Edwards 

Ontario Home Builders' Association 

Ontario Hydro 

Ontario Institute of Agrologists 

Ontario Institute of Agrologists 

Ottawa Valley Branch 

Ontario Municipal Recreation 
Association 

Paul Mainprize 

Ontario Museum Association 

Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat 

Ontario New Home Warranty Program 

Ontario Non-Profit Housing 
Association 

Ontario Parks Association 

Ontario Professional Planners Institute 



FINAL REPORT 
190 



SUBMITTERS 



Ontario Public School Boards' 
Association 

Ontario Real Estate Association 

Ontario Separate School Trustees' 
Association 

Ontario Social Development Council 

Ontario Society for Environmental 
Management 

Ontario Tender Fruit Producers' 
Marketing Board 

Ontario Trails Council 

Ontario Urban Transit Association 

Ontario Water Well Association 

Groundwater Resources Committee 

Orde School Parents' Council 

Toronto 

Orlando Corporation 

Mississauga 

Sue Orr 

R.J. Bumside and Associates 

Oshawa Committee of Adjustment 

Oshawa-Durham Home Builders' 
Association 

Otonabee Region Conservation 
Authority 

Ottawa-Carleton Home Builders' 
Association 

Ottawa-Carleton Round Table on the 
Environment 

Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre 

Ottawa Valley Tourist Association 

Ottawalk 

Ottawa 

Owen Sound Field Naturalists 

Pacaud-Catharine and Area Ratepayers 
Association 

Jean Jacques Morin 

David A. Paine 

A. Nelessen Associates 
Ottawa 

Paletta International Corporation 

Stoney Creek 

Alex P. Palilionis 

Inverary 

Marjory Pallister 

Councillor 
Township of Proton 

Ray Parfitt 

Orillia 

William A. Parish 

Ajax 



Seldon Parker 

Oakwood 

Chris Parnell 

Princeton 

Noel Parrott 

Norwood 

Parry Sound and Area Planning Area 

W.E. Parsons 

Parsons, Wilson and Milton 
Thunder Bay 

Paudash Lake Conservation Association 

Wayne Pearen 

Sioux Lookout 

Peel Board of Education* 

D. Roland D. Peggs 

Niagara-on-the-Lake 

Tim Pellew 

North York 

Pengally Bay Ratepayers Association 

N. Penner 
Port Hope 

Randy Percy* 

Thunder Bay 

Alan R. Perks 

R.V. Anderson Associates 
Ottawa 

K.L. Perry 

Director of Planning and Development 
City of London 

Peterborough County Board of 
Education 

Peterborough County Coalition of Lake 
Associations 

Peterborough and District 
Homebuilders Association 

Peterborough Field Naturalists 

Peterborough Real Estate Board 

Peterborough Social Planning Council 

Mark Peters* 

Peterborough 

Brad Peterson 

Guelph 

Lome Peterson 

Ottawa 

Rhys Phillip 

Ottawa 

Pickering Rural Association 

Pigeon Lake Environmental Association 

Alain Pinard 

Cambridge 



Norman Pizzale* 

Lawyer 
London 

Dave Plewes 

CoUingwood 

Phil Poirier 

Mayor 
Cornwall 

William Pol 

Senior Planner 
City of London 

Port Darlington Community 
Association 

Bowmanville 

Port Rowan Builders and Developers 
Committee of the Long Point/Port 
Rowan Chamber of Commerce 

Sandra Poulton 

Lion's Head 

A.S.M. Pound 

Sharon 

Murray Pound 

Newmarket 

Alan Powell* 

Toronto 

Michael Power 

Mayor 

Town of Geraldton 

Jerry Prager 

Creemore 

Preservation of Agricultural Lands 
Society 

Don Preston 

Sundridge 

C. Ronald Price 

Market Vision 
Burlington 

Price Club Canada 

George B. Priddle 

Department of Environmental and 

Resource Studies 
University of Waterloo 

Ed Pridham 

Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture 

Cindy Prince 

Planning consultant 
Windsor 

F. Promoli 

Dorset 

Prospectors and Developers Association 
of Canada 



FINAL REPORT 
191 



SUBMITTERS 



Carmen F. Provenzano 
Frank S. Sarlo 
Robert Paciocco 
Joseph A. Bisceglia 
Bonnie Ostroski 
Sault Ste. Marie 

Provincial Council of Women of 
Ontario 

Public School Boards in Metropolitan 
Toronto 

Helen Purdy 

Guelph 

Frank S. Pyka 

London 

Quadrangle Architects 

Toronto 

Peter Quail 

St. George 

Leal Quarrington 

Grafton 

Leal Quarrington 
Barbara Wand 

Concerned Citizens of Haldimand 

Quinte Home Builders' Association* 

R.J. Burnside and Associates 

Orangeville 

Richard Radford 

Clerk /Planning Administrator 
Town of Walkerton 

John Radojkovic* 

Ambrose Raftis 

Charlton 

Raisin Region Conservation Authority 

Janine Ralph 

Executive Director 
Quinte Environmental Resources 
Alliance 

V.N. Rampton 
V.J. Land 
Carp 

B.R. Ransome 

B.R. Ransome Well Drilling 
Burk's Falls 

Raymond, Walton, Hunter 

Planning Consultants 
Gravenhurst 

David Raymont 

Regal Heights Residents' Association 
Toronto 

Paul Raytik 

Niagara-on-the-Lake 

Real Estate Board of Ottawa-Carleton 



J.W. Redden 

Wabigoon 

Norman C. Redick 

Wyoming 

Regal Heights Residents' Association 

Toronto 

Regional Chairs of Ontario 

Regional Municipality of Durham 

Regional Municipality of Haldimand- 
Norfolk 

Regional Municipality of Halton 

Regional Municipality of Hamilton- 
Wentworth 

Regional Municipality of Niagara 

Regional Municipality of Ottawa- 
Carleton 

Regional Municipality of Peel 

Regional Municipality of Peel 

Land Division Committee 

Regional Municipality of Sudbury 
Regional Municipality of Waterloo 

Regional Municipality of Waterloo 

ROPP Heritage Advisory Committee 
Jean Haalboom 

Regional Municipality of York 

Regional Planning Commissioners of 
Ontario 

Henry E. Regts 

Thames Valley Engineering 
Chatham 

Margaret W. Reid 

Milton 

Phil Reilly 

Kinbum 

Chuck Renaud 

Kirkendall Neighbourhood Association 
Hamilton 

Renfrew County Law Society* 

Jack Rouen 

Renfrew County Planning Committee 
Renfrew County Real Estate Board 

Paul H. Rennick 

Paul H. Rennick and Associates 
Burlington 

Residential Construction Trade and 
Supply Association of Ontario 

Lawrence S. Gold 

Residents Active in Development 
Decisions 

Halton Hills 



Paul Rhodes* 

Stratford 

Rice Capital Group 

Brampton 

S. George Rich 

Elmira 

Robert N. Richards 

North York 

Nigel H. Richardson 

Toronto 

Elizabeth Richter 
Paul Richter 

Waterloo 

Rideau Valley, Mississippi Valley, and 
South Nation River Conservation 
Authorities 

John L. Riley 

Aurora 

Barbara Rimmer 

Peterborough 

Riverdale Housing Action Group 

Toronto 

John Robert 

Regional Municipality of Sudbury 

M.L. Robertson 

Allenford 

Stephen Robichaud 

Burlington 

E.M. Robinson 

Ottawa 

Floyd Robinson 
Leo Robinson 

Sundridge 

Helen Robinson 

Collins Watershed Association 

John Rodey 

Mountainview Homes 

William Rodgers 

Rogers Real Estate Investments 

Robert Cook 
Mississauga 

Charles V. Rolfe 

Kinburn 

Joanne Rosen 

Norman Hill Realty 
North York 



FINAL REPORT 
192 



SUBMITTERS 



Dan Ross 

London: 

Broughdale Community Association 

Chesham Estates 

London North Community Association 

Peppertree Estates 

Piccadilly Area Neighbourhood 

Association 
St. George-Grosvenor Area Association 
Trudell Subdivision 
University Heights 
Woodfield Community Association 

Heather Ross 

Timmins 

Dr. Stephen G. Ross 

Tottenham 

Harvey Rotenberg 

Toronto 

Round Lake Local Service Board 

William Dennis 
Tarzwell 

Round Table on Environment and 
Economy in Owen Sound and Area 

Mahmood Rowghani 

Kingston 

Royal York Community Association 

Etobicoke 

Rupert Hotel Coalition 

Toronto 

Rural Developers in Storrington 
Township 

Speros Kanellos 

Rural Kanata Conservation Group 

Rural Land Use Planning Students 

University School of Rural Planning 
University of Guelph 

George H. Rust-D'Eye 

Weir and Foulds 
Toronto 

Gail Rutherford 

Halton Hills 

Jim Ryan 

Councillor 

City of Burlington 

Val Rynnimeri* 

Toronto 

Sables-Spanish Rivers Planning Board 

Inge Saczkowski 

Short-Changed Homeowners Against 

Faulty Towers Committee 
Niagara-on-the-Lake 

Doug Sadler 

Peterborough 



Safe City Committee 

Toronto 

Bill St. Arnaud 

Toronto 

St. Clair Region Conservation 
Authority 

St. Joseph's School 

Barrie: 
Brett Carron 
Erin Beatty 
Robert Deal 
Chad Cradock 
Pamela Quinn 
Angela Adamovich 
Sean O'Hara 

St. Marys River Binational Public 
Advisory Council 

Sault Ste. Marie 

Salter Research Services 

Thomas J. Salter 
Thorold 

Andrew Sancton 

Department of Political Science 
University of Western Ontario 

Philip J. Sanford 

McCarthy Tetrault 
Toronto 

Terry Sararas 

Director of Planning 
Building and By-law 
Town of Huntsville 

Saugeen Economic Development 
Committee 

Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority 

Frank Saul 

Ecology Retreat Centre 
Orangeville 

Sault Ste. Marie Region Conservation 
Authority 

Jim Saunders 

Stouffville 

Rod Saunders 

Walters Falls 

Savard and Area Local Services Board 

Charlton 

Save the Ganaraska AGAIN 

Save the Grove Committee 

Amprior 

Save the Rouge Valley System* 

Scarborough 

T.J. Sawyer 

North York 

Scarborough Access to Permanent 
Housing 



Michael Schierz 

Grey Association for Development and 
Growth 

Ronald Schlegel 
Scott Morgan 
James Schlegel 

Ayr 

F.P. Schneider 

Waterloo 

David Schultz 

Grimsby 

Andrew Schulz 

Scarborough 

Dan Schumacher 

Waterloo 

Rowland M. Schuster 

Richmond Hill 

Don Scott* 

Wiarton 

Norman E. Seabrook 

Walters Falls 

David J. Seal 

Gananoque 

Margaret E. Sears 

West Carleton 

Seaton Village Residents' Association 

Toronto 

Second Occupancy Steering Committee 
on Housing 

Scarborough 

Secretary-Treasurers of Northeastern 
Ontario Planning Boards: 

Blind River and Suburban Planning 

Board 
Espanola Planning Board 
Hearst Planning Board 
Himsworth South-Powassan-Trout 

Creek Planning Board 
Humphrey-Rosseau-Christie Planning 

Board 
Kapuskasing Planning Board 
Manitoulin Planning Board 
Parry Sound Area Planning Board 
Sables-Spanish Rivers Planning Board 
Sault Ste. Marie North Planning Board 
Sudbury East Planning Board 
West Nipissing Planning Board 



FINAL REPORT 
193 



SUBMITTERS 



Secretary-Treasurers of Northeastern 
Ontario Planning Boards: 

Blind River and Suburban Planning 

Board 
Espanola Planning Board 
Hearst Planning Board 
Kapuskasing Planning Board 
Manitoulin Planning Board 
Sables-Spanish Rivers Planning Board 
Sudbury East Planning Board 
Temagami Planning Board 
West Nipissing Planning Board 

Senior League Endowment Society of 
Collingwood 

Bruno E. Seppala 

Fort Frances 

Service Providers Zoning Bylaw Task 
Force 

Brantford 

Severn Sound Remedial Action Plan 

Public Advisory Committee 

Richard Shapcott 

Gore's Landing 

Lance Sherk 
Laura Torrible 

University School of Rural Planning and 

Development 
University of Guelph 

Frank Sherwood 

Owen Sound 

Robert Shipley 

Conestogo 

Lester Shoalts* 

Sierra Club of Eastern Canada 

David Siksay 

Whitby 

Simcoe-Muskoka Program Committee 
(Ontario Professional Planners 
Institute) 

S.G. Simmering 

Oliver, Mangione, McCalla and 

Associates 
Nepean 

Ron Simmons 

Durham 

Six Nations Council 

Oshweken 

Robert H. Skeoch 

Clerk /Treasurer 
Township of Maryborough 

Vladimir Skok 

Kanata 

James Slack 

Chair 

Sables-Spanish Rivers Planning Board 



Allan Slater 

Lakeside 

Jamie Slingerland 

Niagara-on-the-Lake 

T. Slomke 

Commissioner of Planning 
City of Waterloo 

R. Alan Smart 

Guelph 

Tom Smart 

Miller O'Dell Planning Associates 
St. Catharines 

Fred Smith 

Mountain Grove 

G. Douglas Smith 

East Parry Sound Municipal Committee 

Gerald L. Smith 

Parham 

Jean Smith 

Loretto 

Morry Smith 

North York 

Nancy Smith* 

Ottawa 

Rodney L.K, Smith 

Blaney, McMurtry, Stapells 
Toronto 

Stephen Smith 

North York 

Harold Snell 
James R. Peck 

Kingston 

Ross Snetsinger 

Toronto 

Social Planning Council of Kingston 
and District 

Social Planning Council of 
Metropolitan Toronto 

Social Planning Council of Niagara 
Falls 

Social Service Research and Advisory 
Group 

Sudbury 

Society of Industrial and Office 
Realtors/Canada 

Soil and Water Conservation Society 
(Ontario) 

D. Scott Slocombe 
Ray H. Tufgar 

Dawn Sommerer 

Kanata 

Sam Sorbara 

Guelph 



South Eastern Ontario Rails to Trails 
Association 

Kingston 

South Gloucester Community 
Association* 

Charlotte Greer 

South Nation River Conservation 
Authority 

Alex Speigel 

General Leaseholds 
Toronto 

CM. Spek 

Midhurst 

Gilbert Sperry 

Ennismore 

Al Speyers 

Nepean 

Janet and Gunter Springer 

EcoAction 
Meaford 

Susan Springthorpe 
Richmond 

Darwyn Sproule 

Ompah 

Stuart Starbuck* 

New Tecumseh 

Harry Stark 

Waubaushene 

Ron Steele* 

St. Catharines 

David Steen 

Cheltenham 

Bob Stevenson 

Gloucester 

Gary Stewart 

Warden 

County of Peterborough 

JT. Stewart 

Sudbury Naturalists 

James Stiver 

Markham 

Kay M. Stone 

County Planner 

United Counties of Stormont, Glengarry 
and Dundas 

STORM (Save the Oak Ridges 
Moraine) Coalition 

Storrington Committee Against Trash 

Storrington Ratepayers Association 

Battersea 

Student Area Neighbourhood 
Development 

Kingston 



FINAL REPORT 
194 



SUBMITTERS 



Student Planning Issues Group 

Brock University 

George Suba* 

Niagara-on-the-Lake 

Sudbury Real Estate Board 

Michael J. Sullivan 

Reid and Associates 
Barrie 

Sue Sullivan 

Natural Heritage League 

Betty Summerhayes 

Mount Pleasant 

Paul Sutherland 

Chairman 

Committee of Metro Local Area Councils 

Swansea Area Ratepayers' Association 

Toronto 

R. Swanson 

North Bay 

Bob Swayze* 

Pittsburgh Township 

Sydenham Ward Tenants' and 
Ratepayers' Association 

Kingston 

M. Forbes Symon 

Bruce County 

Peter Tabuns 

City Councillor 
Toronto 

Gordon Tanton 

Stebbins Paving and Construction 
Thamesford 

Lev Tarasov 

Rockwood 

Mary Tasi-Wood 

Tasi Wood and Associates 
Ottawa 

Arthur Tate 

Township of Lavant, Dalhousie, and 
North Sherbrooke 

Charles E. Taylor 

Pallett Valo 
Toronto 

John Taylor 

Taylor, Debrue and Johnson 
Tilbury 

Dick Teather 

Ontario Tender Fruit Producers' 
Marketing Board 

Donald E. Tedford 

Barry's Construction and Installation 
Bauble Beach 



Tenant Advocacy Group 

Toronto 

Tenant/Landlord Coalition for Equal 
Taxation 

Toronto 

Andy Terauds 

Ontario Institute of Agrologists 
Ottawa Vallev Land Use Committee 

Thames Regional Ecological 
Association 

Daniel J. Thomey 

Port Hope 

Lome Thompson 

Councillor 
Township of Sidney 

Timothy E. Thompson 

Owen Sound 

Tommy Thompson 

Whitevale 

Bill Thomson 

Kitchener 

Doug Thomson 

Toronto 

James M. Thomson 

Toronto 

Louise Thomson 

Almonte 

Sheila C. Thomson 

Ottawa 

Ken Thorn 

Residents Active in Development 

Decisions 
Halton Hills 

Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce 

Thunder Bay Home Builders' 
Association 

Thunder Bay Real Estate Board* 

W. Dennis Tieman 

Mining and Lands Commissioner 

Timmins Chamber of Commerce 

Civic Affairs Committee 

Timmins Chamber of Commerce 

Resources Committee 

William Tindale* 

Halton/Milborough Inc. 

Brenton Toderian 

Waterloo 

Toronto Area Chief Building Officials 
Committee 

Toronto Board of Education 

Toronto Environmental Alliance 

Toronto Food Policy Council 



Toronto Historical Board 

Toronto Region Architectural 
Conservancy 

Toronto Society of Architects 

Town of Ancaster 

Town of Amprior 

Town of Aurora 

Town of Blenheim 

Town of Blind River 

Town of Bothwell 

Town of Bracebridge 

Town of Brighton 

Town of Caledon 

Town of Campbellford 

Planning Committee 

Town of Carleton Place 
Town of Cobourg 
Town of Collingwood 
Town of Dresden 
Town of Dundas 
Town of Englehart 
Town of Espanola 
Town of Exeter 
Town of Flamborough 

Town of Flamborough 

Committee of Adjustment 

Town of Georgina 
Town of Gravenhurst 
Town of Grimsby 
Town of Halton Hills 
Town of Hanover 
Town of Hearst 
Town of Huntsville 
Town of Innisfil 
Town of Kincardine 
Town of Kirkland Lake 
Town of LaSalle 
Town of Lincoln 

Town of Lindsay 

Max Radiff 
Mayor 

Town of Markham 

Town of Massey 

Town of Meaford 

Town of Meaford 

Committee of Adjustment 



FINAL REPORT 
195 



SUBMITTERS 



Town of Meaford-Township of St. 
Vincent 

Joint Planning Committee 

Town of Midland 

Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake 

Town of Orangeville 

Town of Parry Sound 

Town of Pelham 

Town of Penetanguishene 

Town of Penetanguishene 

Committee of Adjustment 

Town of Petrolia 

Town of Pickering 

Town of Port Elgin 

Town of Port Hope 

Town of Richmond Hill 

Town of Ridgetown 

Town of Rockland 

Town of St. Marys 

Town of Simcoe 

Town of Sioux Lookout (Staff) 

Town of Tecumseh 

Town of Thessalon 

Town of Tillsonburg 

Town of Walkerton 

Committee of Adjustment 

Town of Wasaga Beach 

Committee of Adjustment 

Town of Westminster 

Town of Whitby 

Town of Whitchurch-Stouf fville 

E.G. Townsend 

Stayner 

Township of Admaston 
Township of Alberton 
Township of Aldborough 
Township of Alice and Eraser 
Township of Amabel 
Township of Amaranth 
Township of Ameliasburgh 
Township of the Archipelago 
Township of Armour 
Township of Athol 
Township of Bagot and Blythfield 
Township of Baldwin 
Township of Bathurst 



Township of Bayham 

Township of Bentinck 

Township of Black River-Matheson 

Township of Bosanquet 

John Russell 
Deputy-Mayor 

Township of Brighton 

Township of Bromley 

Township of Bruce 

Township of Burleigh and Anstruther 

Township of Camden 

Township of Camden 

Lorna Graham 
Reeve 

Township of Cardiff 

Township of Cavan 

Township of Chandos 

Township of Chapleau 

Township of Chisholm 

Township of Clarendon and Miller 

Township of Cockburn Island 

Township of Collingwood 

Township of Conmee 

Township of Cramahe 

Township of Culross 

Township of Cumberland 

Township of Dalton 

Township of Dover 

Township of Dunwich 

Township of Dysart et al 

Township of East Zorra-Tavistock 

Township of Eastnor 

Township of Ekfrid 

Township of Elderslie 

Township of Elizabethtown 

Township of Ellice 

Township of Ennismore 

Township of Erin 

Township of Emestown 

Township of Essa 

Township of Euphemia 

Township of Foley 

Township of Galway and Cavendish 

Township of Georgian Bay 

Township of Glanbrook 



Township of Glenelg 

Township of Golden 

Township of Grattan 

Township of Greenock 

Township of Grey 

Township of Hagarty and Richards 

Township of Hallowell 

Township of Hamilton 

Township of Harvey 

Township of Harwich 

Township of Raleigh 

Township of Hibbert 

Township of Hillier 

Township of Himsworth South 

Township of Holland 

Township of Hope 

Township of Horton 

Township of Howard 

Township of Humphrey 

Township of Huron 

Township of Kingston 

Township of Lake of Bays 

Township of Lavant, Dalhousie and 
North Sherbrooke 

Township of Limerick* 

Township of Longueuil 

Township of Lutterworth 

Township of Macdonald, Meredith and 
Aberdeen Additional 

Township of Malahide 

Township of Maiden 

Township of Maryborough 

Township of Matchedash 

Township of McGillivray 

Township of McKellar 

Township of McMurrich 

Township of Medonte 

Committee of Adjustment 

Township of Melancthon 
Township of Mersea 
Township of Minto 
Township of Montague 
Township of Moore 
Township of Murray 
Township of Muskoka Lakes 



FINAL REPORT 
196 



SUBMITTERS 



Township of Muskoka Lakes 
Ratepayers' Association 

TownsFiip of Nichol 

Township of Nipigon 

Township of Norfolk 

Township of North Algona 

Township of North Crosby 

Township of North Dumfries 

Township of North Fredericksburgh 

Township of North Monaghan* 

Township of Nottawasaga 

Township of Oliver 

Township of Onondaga 

Township of Orillia 

Township of Oro 

Planning Advisory Committee 

Township of Osgoode 
Township of Osprey 
Township of Otonabee 
Township of Pakenham 
Township of Petawawa 
Township of Pickle Lake 
Township of Pittsburgh 
Township of Plummer Additional 
Township of Prince 

Township of Puslinch 

Planning Advisorv Committee 

Township of Raglan 

Township of Ramsay 

Township of Rideau 

Township of Robb Taxpayers 
Association 

Township of Roxborough 

Township of St. Edmunds 

Township of St. Vincent 

Township of Saugeen 

Township of Sebastopol 

Township of Shedden 

Township of Sheffield 

Township of Shuniah 

Township of Sidney 

Township of Snowdon 

Township of South Algona 

Township of South Dorchester 

Township of South Dumfries 



Township of South Dumfries 

Committee of Adjustment 

Township of South Fredericksburgh 

Township of South Fredericksburgh 

Committee of Adjustment 

Township of South Gower 

Township of the Spanish River 

Township of Stafford 

Township of Pembroke 

Township of Stephen 

Township of Storrington 

Township of Strong 

Township of Sullivan 

Township of Tarbutt and Tarbutt 
Additional 

Township of Tay 

Township of Vespra 

Township of West Carleton 

Township of West Garafraxa 

Township of West Lincoln 

Township of Wilberforce 

Township of Williamsburg 

Township of Wilmot 

Township of Wolfe Island 

Township of Woolwich 

Townships of Barrie, Bedford, 
Clarendon and Miller, 
Hinchinbrooke, Kennebec, Olden, 
Oso, Palmerston and North and 
South Canonto 

Townships of Belmont and Methuen 

Townships of Griffith and 
Matawatchan 

Townships of Howe Island, 

Loughborough, Portland, Storrington 
and Wolfe Island 

Simon Ainley 

Townships of Rolph, Buchanan, Wylie 
and McKay 

Townships of Sherwood, Jones and 
Burns 

Sidney H. Troister 

Torkin, Manes, Cohen and Arbus 
Toronto 

Trout Unlimited Canada* 

Toronto 

Rita Ubriaco 

Thunder Bay 



Union Gas 

Chatham 

Union of Ontario Indians 

United Counties of Stormont, Dundas 
and Glengarry 

United Counties of Stormont, Dundas 
and Glengarry 

Land Division Committee 

United Townships of Head, Clara and 
Maria 

University of Guelph 

Graduate School of Landscape 
Architecture 

University of Waterloo 
Ph.D. Planning Forum 

Unterman McPhail Cuming Associates 

Toronto 

Upper Thames River Conservation 
Authority 

Stephen Upton 

Tridel 
Toronto 

Urban Development Institute 

Urban Forest Citizens' Committee of 
the City of Ottawa 

Urban League of London 

Sandy Levin 

Urban and Regional Information 
Systems Association 

Ontario Chapter 

Urban Tomorrow 

Toronto 

Sheila Urquhart 
Kathleen Popadick 

Riverside Park Green Team 
Ottawa 

Anthony Usher 

Toronto 

John E. Valeriote 

Guelph 

David Vallance 

Toronto 

John D. Vallee 

G. Douglas Vallee Limited 
Simcoe 

Peter van Ballegooie* 

Thunder Bay 

Jim Vanden Hoek 

Wolfe Island 

Bessel J. VandenHazel 

St. Thomas 

Ted Vanderlans 

Harley 



FINAL REPORT 
197 



SUBMITTERS 



Jan Vandermeer 

Timmins 

Joell Vanderwagen 

Toronto 

Michael B. Vaughan 
Toronto 

John Veltkamp 

Millgrove 

Bob Verdun 

Elmira Indpendent/The Independent 
National Edition 

Victor Veri 

Hamilton 

Jerrine Verkaik 

Bentinck Community Action Network 
Elmwood 

C. Robert Vernon 

Toronto 

Victoria County Board of Education 

Victoria County Federation of 
Agriculture 

Reino J. Viitala* 

Thunder Bay 

Village of Bancroft* 
Village of Barry's Bay 
Village of Beachburg* 
Village of Braeside 
Village of Colbome 
Village of Dundalk 
Village of Hilton Beach 
Village of Killaloe 
Village of Lakefield 
Village of Lancaster 
Village of Lion's Head 
Village of Merrickville 
Village of Millbrook 
Village of Omemee 
Village of Point Edward 
Village of Rockcliffe Park 
Village of Vienna 

Noble A. Villeneuve 

MPP 

Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East 
Grenville 

Audrey Voice 

Gloucester 

Ernst von Bezold 

Maple 



George C. Wadlow 

Scarborough 

Victor Wagner 

Dorval 

Wilfred Walker* 

Toronto 

George A. Wallace 

Cobden 

Ken Wallenius 

Sault Ste. Marie 

Norman K. Walpole 

Waterford 

David Walsh 

Realco Property Limited 

Barbara Wand 

Haldimand 

G.D. Wame 

Randy Warwick 

R.T. Warwick Construction 
Perth 

Waterloo Federation of Agriculture 

Waterloo Strategic Planning Board 

Steven Watt* 

Lawyer 
Sudbury 

Catherine E. Webb 

Etobicoke 

Len Weber 

Amy Hoffarth- Weber 

Hanover 

Klaus Wehrenberg 

Aurora 

Barry Wellar 

Department of Geography 
University of Ottawa 

Glenn Wellings* 

Georgetown 

Wellington County Board of Education 

Wellington Federation of Agriculture 

Properties Committee 

John W. Wells 

Courtice 

Susan Wells* 

Dryden 

Wentworth County Board of Education 

West Carling Association 

Nobel 

West Humber Naturalists 

Woodbridge 

West Rouge Community Association 

Scarborough 



Elma Westlake 

Bolton 

Westnor Limited 

Janet Dey 
Toronto 

Wetlands Preservation Group of West 
Carleton 

Harry R. Whale 
Hanover 

Randy Whaley 

Whitby 

Whaley's Corners Ratepayers 
Association* 

Brampton 

Dan White 

Otonabee Region Conservation 
Authority 

George E. White 

Minesing 

James White 

InfoResults Limited 
Brampton 

Ken Whiteford 

Planning Commissioner 
County of Oxford 

Ted Whitworth 

Port Rowan 

Frank Wieland 

Councillor 
Village of Lanark 

Brian Wilcock 

Guelph 

Linda Wilcox* 

Lawyer 
Peterborough 

Wildlife Habitat Canada 

David J. Neave 

Warren W. Wiley 

St. Catharines 

Sherrill Willard 

Ajax 

Simon Willemse 

Parkhill 

Blair Williams 

Councillor 
Township of Kenyon 

Ray Williamson* 

Thunder Bay 

Albert Willis 
Guelph 

Donald E. Willmott 

Owen Sound 



FINAL REPORT 
198 



SUBMITTERS 



Willow Beach Field Naturalists 

Port Hope 

Wilmot Local Architectural 

Conservation Advisory Committee 

D.W. Wilson 

Oshawa 

Hamish Wilson 

Edifix 
Toronto 

Wilson, Jack and Grant 

Fergus 

Charles J. Winfield 

Kirkfield 

Mark S. Winfield 

Canadian Institute for Environmental 

Law and Policy 
Toronto 

Peter J. Wintemute 

Farlane Environmental Protection 

Association 
Winnipeg 

Lee Wisener 

Sounding of Eramosa 

Women Plan Toronto 

J. David Wood 

Department of Geography 
York Universitv 

WoodGreen Community Housing 

Toronto 

Christine and Richard Woodley 

Kanata 

Woolwich Sustainable Development 
Committee 

Elmira 

H.F. Wright 

Ministry of the Environment 
Thunder Bay 

R.H. Wright 

City Engineer 
City of Thunder Bay 

Lloyd Yeates 

Callander 

Yonge Street Area Ratepayer 
Associations 

North York 

York Region Board of Education 

Peter Zabarauckas 

Gridnet 
Mississauga 

Joe R. Zammit 

Mississauga 

Richard Zelinka 

London 



George J. Zeller 

Peterborough 

Richard Zohr 

Bonnechere Metis Association 

Michael Zudel 

Timmins 



FINAL REPORT 
199 



Appendix F 

Publications of 
the Commission 
on Planning and 
Development 
Ref onn in 
Ontario 



Draft Report of the Commission on 
Planning and Development 
Reform in Ontario. 1992. 

Planning and Development 
Approval Activity. Background 
Report to the Commission on 
Planning and Development 
Reform in Ontario. Lehman & 
Associates. July 1992. 

New Planning Nezus. Ann 
Silversides (Editor). 1991-1992. 



Articles in New Planning News 

Volume 1, Number 1 
(September/October 1991) 

These days, almost everyone is unhap- 
py with the planning process in 
Ontario 

The New Planning Commission: 
Commissioners spell out goals, 
objectives 

Commission's impartiality questioned 

Volume 1, Number 2 
(November/December 1991) 

Planning goals: what kind of future do 
we want? 

"Toronto solutions," 0MB, environ- 
ment cited as key concerns 
province-wide 

Working group volunteers keen on the 
process 

Goals: a shared direction in plan- 
ning/common ground 

Draft goals: 

Urban Working Group 
Urban Fringe Working Group 
Rural /Small Centres Working 

Group 
Northwestern Working Group 
Northeastern Working Group 

Volume 1, Number 3 (December 1991) 

Septic issue "a sleeping giant": wide- 
spread use raises contamination 
concerns 

Broadening process is challenge of 
phase 2 

Draft goals: 

Northeastern Working Group 
Lake, Riverine, and Cottage 
Country Working Group 

Septic system failures turn upscale 
subdivision into public health haz- 
ard 

About septic tank systems 



Volume 2, Number 1 (March 1992) 

Commissioners learn on the road: 
forums draw crowds 

Cost, environment put intensification 
on the agenda 

Thoughtful presentations help identify 
issues: 

Major issues raised at the January 
forums 

Intensification: 

Shopping centres: a new lease on 

life? 
Compact communities: rethinking 

new development 

Provincial and municipal spending: 
does it discourage efficiency? 

Planning process scrutinized as work 
begins on phase 2 

Volume 2, Number 2 (April 1992) 

Province would set policies, munici- 
palities would gain new approval 
powers: discussion papers product 
of extensive meetings 

Planning issues aired on radio 

Widespread consultation forms basis 
of Commission's approach 

Draft goals, spring '92: 
Planning goals — a second 

draft/planning direction should 
reflect "provincial truths" 

Reforming the planning process: 
Ideas for discussion 
A summary of proposals for reform 
Principles and objectives 
The provincial role 
The municipal role 
Public involvement 
The role of developers 
Conflicts, disputes and conformity 



FINAL REPORT 
200 



PUBLICATIONS 



Volume 2, Number 3 (July 1992) 

Rural planning: doing things different- 
ly in the country 

Septic update 

Interim report 

Joint planning issues highlighted at 
forums 

Strategic planning helps prepare for 
the future: a new local option 

Trend to lower densities in smaller 
centres hard to reverse 

Alternative systems for treating waste- 
water 

Urban intensification: rules, misunder- 
standing inhibit progress 

Commission background report: plan- 
ning and development approvals 

Volume 2, Number 4 (September 1992) 

Commission presents some proposals 
on nitty gritty of planning reform: 
okay, but how will it work? 

Provincial roles: 

Provincial policy-making 
Provincial planning ideas 

Municipal roles: 

Upper-tier and lower-tier municipal 

planning 
Planning in the North 
Strategic planning 
Proposed requirements for munici- 
pal plans 

Environment: 
Planning and the environment 
Conservation authorities and water- 
shed planning 

Development: 

Development control — ideas for 

change 
Development standards 
Encouraging intensification 



Volume 2, Number 5 (November 1992) 

Tying it all together: draft Report, fur- 
ther consultation on the horizon 

First Nation, North Bay, enjoy "open- 
door policy" 

Letter from Minister of Municipal 
Affairs, Dave Cooke 

Participants focus on details at third 
set of public forums 

Draft proposal on municipal planning 
and Aboriginal peoples 



FINAL REPORT 
201 



Selected 
Bibliography 

The following publications were 
used as background information 
by the Commission in completing 
its worl<;. Some of the Icey publi- 
cations from the Commission's 
entire library collection of several 
thousand items will be integrated 
eventually into the library at the 
University of Guelph. 



Acres International Limited and Proctor 
& Redfern Limited. 1993. Watershed 
strategy: final report. Thunder Bay, 
Ont.: Lakehead Conservation 
Authority. 

Association of Conservation Authorities 
of Ontario. 1992. A conservation strategy 
for the conservation authorities of Ontario. 
Toronto: the Association. 

Beak Consultants Limited, Aquafor 
Engineering Limited, and Douglas 
Weatherbe Associates Inc. 1992. Credit 
Valley water management strategy: phase 
U. Meadowvale, Ont.: Credit Valley 
Conservation Authority. 

Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg Ltd. 1991. 
Study of the reurbanisation of 
Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto: 
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. 

Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg Ltd. and 
Steven Fong Architect. 1991. The City 
of Toronto: building on main streets. 
Toronto: City of Toronto, Planning 
and Development Department. 

Burlington (Ont.: Municipality). 1991. 
Burlington future focus: strategic plan- 
ning: a process that works. Burlington, 
Ont.: City of Burlington. 

Canada. Environment Canada. 1991. The 
state of Canada's environment 1991. 
Ottawa: Government of Canada. 

Canada. Environment Canada, State of 
the Environment Reporting Office. 
1991. A report on Canada's progress 
towards a national set of environmental 
indicators. Ottawa: the Department. 



Canada. Royal Commission on the 
Future of the Toronto Waterfront. 
1990. Watershed: interim report. David 
Crombie, Commissioner, Toronto: the 
Commission. 

Canada. Royal Commission on the 
Future of the Toronto Waterfront. 
1992. Regeneration: Toronto's waterfront 
and the sustainable city: final report. 
David Crombie, Commissioner. 
Toronto: the Commission. 

Comay Planning Consultants Ltd. and 
others. 1973. Subject to apiproval: a 
review of municipal planning in Ontario. 
Toronto: Ontario Economic Council. 

The Coopers & Lybrand Consulting 
Group. 1990. Ontario Municipal Board: a 
report on a comprehensive reviezv of opera- 
tions. Toronto: Ontario. Ministry of the 
Attorney General. 

Doering, Ronald L. and others. 1991. 
Planning for sustainability: towards inte- 
grating environmental protection into 
land-use planning. A discussion paper 
prepared for the Royal Commission on 
the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. 
Toronto: Canada. Royal Commission 
on the Future of the Toronto 
Waterfront. 

Eagles, Paul F.J. 1984. The planning and 
management of environmentally sensitive 
areas. New York: Longman. 

Fisher, John. 1992. Planning for ecological 
integrity on a watershed basis around lake 
Ontario. A thesis submitted to the 
Committee on Graduate Studies in 
partial fulfilment of the requirements 
for the Degree of Master of Arts in the 
Faculty of Arts and Science, Canadian 
Heritage and Development Studies 
MA Program-June 1993. Peterborough, 
Ont.: Trent University. 

Fowler, Edmund P. 1991. Building cities 
that -work. Kingston, Ont.: McGill- 
Queen's University Press. 

Gartner Lee. 1993. City ofVaughan siibwa- 
tershed study (part U): afunctional 
ecosystem assessment: draft. Maple, Ont.: 
City of Vaughan. 

Colder and Associates. 1990. 
Hydrogeological study: Township of 
Kingston, Ontario. Kingston, Ont.: 
Township of Kingston. 



Griffiths, Ronald W. 1990. Establishing the 
carrying capacity for environmentally sus- 
tained development in Grey County: an 
ecosystem approach applied on a catch- 
ment basis. London, Ont.: Ontario. 
Ministry of Natural Resources, Water 
Resources Assessment Unit, 
Southwestern Region. 

Halton (Ont.: Regional Municipality). 
Planning and Development 
Department. 1993. Draft nexv regional 
plan: official plan for the Halton Planning 
Area. Oakville, Ont.: the Department. 

Hemson Consulting Ltd. 1990. 
Comparative analysis of planning 
approval systems. 4 volumes. Toronto: 
Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 

IBI Group and others. 1990. Greater 
Toronto Area urban structure concepts 
study: background reports 1-7. Toronto: 
Greater Toronto Co-ordinating 
Committee. 

Insight Educational Services Limited. 
1992. Provincial interests and land use 
planning: how to deal effectively with 
escalating provincial involvement in the 
planning process. Mississauga, Ont.: 
Insight Educational Services Limited. 

Kanter, Ron. 1990. Space for all: options for 
a Greater Toronto Area greenlands strate- 
gy. Toronto: Ontario. Ministry of 
Natural Resources. 

Krieger, Alex (Editor). 1992. Andres 
Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk: 
towns and town-making principles. 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard 
University Graduate School of Design 

Michael Michalski Associates and 

Anthony Usher. 1988. Rideau lakes boat- 
ing management study. Ottawa: Canada. 
Environment Canada. 

Mitchell, Bruce and Dan Shrubsole. 1992. 
Ontario conservation authorities: myth 
and reality. Department of Geography 
Publication Series No. 35. Waterloo, 
Ont.: University of Waterloo, 
Department of Geography. 

Municipal Engineers Association. 1993. 
Class environmental assessment for 
municipal sewage and water projects: final 
draft 2. n.p.: the Association. 

New Jersey State Planning Commission. 
1992. Communities of place: the New 
jersey state development and redevelop- 
ment plan. Trenton, New Jersey: the 
Commission. 



FINAL REPORT 
202 



SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Newman, Peter G. and Jeffrey 

Kenworthy. 1989. Cities and automobile 
dependence: an international sourcebook. 
Aldershot, Hants., England: Gower 
Publishing. 

Nova Scotia. Department of Municipal 
Affairs, Provincial Planning Section, 
Community Planning Division. 1991. 

Provincial planning-Canadian overview: 
background paper. Halifax, N.S.: the 
Department. 

Ontario. 1978. Food land guidelines. A poli- 
cy statement of the Government of 
(Ontario on planning for agriculture. 
Toronto: Government of Ontario. 

1986. Mineral aggregate resources: 



policy statement. A statement of 
Ontario Government policy issued 
under the authority of section 3 of the 
Planning Act 1983. Toronto: 
Government of Ontario. 

_. 1988. Flood plain planning: policy 



statement. A statement of Ontario 
Government policy issued under the 
authority of section 3 of the Planning 
Act 1983. Toronto: Government of 
Ontario. 

_. 1989. Land use planning for hous- 



ing: policy statement. A statement of 
Ontario Government policy issued 
under the authority of sechon 3 of the 
Planning Act 1983. Toronto: 
Government of Ontario. 

1992. Wetlands: policy statement. 



A statement of Ontario Government 
policy issued under the authority of 
section 3 of the Planning Act 1983. 
Toronto: Government of Ontario. 

Ontario. AMO/ Industry /Government 
Steering Committee. 1992. The planning 
and development approvals process: 
towards a more effective planning system. 
Toronto: Ontario. Ministry of Housing 
and Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 

Ontario. Advisory Committee to the 
Minister of Municipal Affairs on the 
Provincial-Municipal Financial 
Relationship. 1991. Report. Toronto: 
Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 

Ontario. Conditional Grants Review 
Committee. 1990. Final report: condi- 
tional grants review. Toronto: Ontario. 
Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 



Ontario Environmental Assessment 
Advisory Committee. 1988. Request for 
designation of redevelopment of the motel 
strip lands in the City ofEtobicoke. 
Report No. 33 to the Minister. 
November 10, 1988. Toronto: the 
Committee. 

_. 1989. The adequacy of the exist- 



ing environmental planning and 
approvals process for the Ganaraska 
Watershed. Report No. 38 to the 
Minister. November 15, 1989. Toronto: 
the Committee. 

Ontario Fair Tax Commission. 1992. 
Searching for fairness. Toronto: the 
Commission. 

Ontario. Minister's Advisory Committee 
on New Heritage Legislation. 1992. 
Report. Toronto: Ontario. Ministry of 
Culture and Communications. 

Ontario. Ministry of Agriculture and 
Food. 1992. An agricultural land protec- 
tion program for Ontario: a discussion 
paper. Toronto: the Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 
1990. Toiuard improving the environmen- 
tal assessment program in Ontario. 
Toronto: the Ministry. 

. 1992. Guideline for the responsibil- 
ity for communal water and sewage works 
and communal seiuage systems. Toronto: 
the Ministry. 

1992. Guideline on planning for 



sewage and loater services. Toronto: the 
Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of the Environment, 
Environmental Assessment Branch. 
1992. Guideline for preparing environ- 
mental assessment proposals. Toronto: 
the Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of the Environment, 
Operations/Central Region Muskoka- 
Haliburton District Office. 1992. 
Cottage pollution control program 1989 
survey. Toronto: the Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of the Environment, 
Water Resources Branch and Regional 
Operations Division. 1992. Report on 
the 1990 discharges from municipal 
sewage treatment plants in Ontario. 2 
volumes. Toronto: the Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of the Environment 
and Ministry of Natural Resources. 
1992. Interim guidelines: water resource 
management on a watershed basis: imple- 
menting an ecosystem approach: draft. 
Toronto: the Ministries. 



Ontario. Ministry of the Environment, 
Ministry of Natural Resources, and 
Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1992. 
Interim guidelines for integrating provin- 
cial ivater resource management objectives 
into municipal planning documents. 
Toronto: the Ministries. 

Ontario. Ministry of Housing and 
Ministry of Government Services. 
1991. Government land for housing: ques- 
tions for consultation. Toronto: the 
Ministries. 

Ontario. Ministry of Housing and 

Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1992. 
Apartments in houses: a consultation 
paper on legislative amendments to allow 
one apartment in a house. Toronto: the 
Ministries. 

Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 
1985. Niagara Escarpment plan. Toronto: 
the Ministry. 

. 1991. Open local government. 

Toronto: the Ministry. 

. 1992. Groxoth and settlement: poli- 



cy guidelines. Toronto: the Ministry. 
_. 1992. Municipal financial informa- 



tion 1990. Toronto: the Ministry. 
_. 1992. Provincial financial assis- 



tance to municipalities, boards and com- 
missions 1992-93. Toronto: the 
Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 
Community Development Branch. 

1991. Profiles of local strategic planning 
initiatives: strategic planning at the local 
level. Toronto: the Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 
Community Planning Wing, Research 
and Special Projects Branch. 1986. 
Maps: map index for community planning 
in Ontario. Toronto: the Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
and Ministry of Housing. 1992. 
Streamlining guidelines: the development 
review process. Toronto: the Ministries. 

Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs 
and Housing. 1982. Urban da'elopment 
standards: a review. Toronto: the 
Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources. 

1992. Flood plain planning in Ontario: 
technical guidelines. Toronto: the 
Ministry. 



FINAL REPORT 

203 



SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 



Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, 
Parks Recreational Branch, Outdoor 
Recreation Group. 1988. 
Implementation strategy: areas of natural 
and scientific interest. Toronto: the 
Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, 
Provincial Parks and Natural Heritage 
Branch, Policy Division. 1992. A natur- 
al heritage areas strategy for Ontario: 
responding to the endangered spaces chal- 
lenge: draft for discussion. Toronto: the 
Ministry. 

Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources 
and Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 
1992. Manual of implementation guide- 
lines for the loetlands policy statement. 
Toronto: the Ministries. 

Ontario. Ministry of Transportation and 
Ministry of Municipal Affairs. 1992. 
Transit-supportive land use planning 
guidelines. Toronto: the Ministries. 

Ontario. Native Affairs Secretariat and 
Ministry of Citizenship, Native 
Community Branch. 1992. Akwesasne to 
Wunnumin Lake: profiles of Aboriginal 
communities in Ontario. Toronto: the 
Secretariat and the Ministry. 

Ontario. Office of the Greater Toronto 
Area, Human and Social Development 
Working Group. 1992. Planning for peo- 
ple and communities in the Greater 
Toronto Area: report of the human and 
social development working group. 
Toronto: the Office. 

Ontario. Planning Act Review 

Committee. 1977. Report of the Planning 
Act Review Committee. Eli Comay, 
Chairman. Toronto: the Committee. 

Ontario Planning Administration Grant 
Review Committee. 1990. Report. 
Toronto: the Committee. 

Ontario Round Table on Environment 
and Economy. 1992. Restructuring for 
sustainability. Toronto: the Round 
Table. 

Ontario Round Table on Environment 
and Economy, Native People's Circle 
on Environment and Development. 
1991. Draft Report. Toronto: the Round 
Table. 

Ontario Round Table on Environment 
and Economy, Urban Development 
and Commerce Task Force. 1992. 
Urban development and commerce: sec- 
toral task force report. Toronto: the 
Round Table. 



Ontario Task Force on the Environmental 
Bill of Rights. 1992. Report. Toronto: 
Ontario. Ministry of the Environment. 

Ontario Wildlife Working Group. 1991. 
Looking ahead: a wildlife strategy for 
Ontario. Toronto: Ontario. Ministry of 
Natural Resources. 

Oregon. Department of Land 

Conservation and Development. 1990. 
Oregon's statewide planning goals. 
Salem, Oregon: the Department. 

Ottawa (Ont.: Municipality). Department 
of Engineering and Works, 
Environmental Branch. 1993. The City 
of Ottawa's municipal environmental 
evaluation process (MEET): guidelines for 
application. Ottawa: the Department. 

Ottawa-Carleton (Ont.: Regional 
Municipality). Regional Working 
Committee on Alternative 
Development Standards. 1991. 
Alternative development standards: pro- 
posals to reduce housing costs. Ottawa: 
Regional Municipality of Ottawa- 
Carleton, Planning Department. 

Ottawa-Carleton Regional Review 
Commission. 1992. Final report. 
Graeme M. Kirby, Commissioner. 
Ottawa: Ontario. Ministry of 
Municipal Affairs. 

Paehlke, Robert. 1991. The environmental 
effects of urban intensification. Toronto: 
Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 
Municipal Planning Policy Branch. 

Paragon Engineering Limited. 1992. 

Review of private sewage disposal systems 
in the Province of Ontario: Ontario New 
Home Warranty Program. Toronto: 
Ontario New Home Warranty 
Program. 

Planning Initiatives Ltd. 1992. Aggregate 
resources of southern Ontario: a state of 
the resource study: draft. Toronto: 
Ontario. Ministry of Natural 
Resources. 

Prince Edward Island. Royal 
Commission on the Land. 1990. 
"Everything before us": report of the 
Royal Commission on the Land. Douglas 
B. Boylan, Chairman. Charlottetown, 
P.E.I.: the Commission. 

Romanelli, Terry Ann and Claude 
Marchand. 1991. The delegation of plan- 
ning responsibilities in Canada. Toronto: 
Intergovernmental Committee on 
Urban and Regional Research. 



RuBino, Richard G. and Harvey M. 
Jacobs. 1990. Mediation and negotiation 
for planning, land use management, and 
environmental protection: an annotated 
bibliography of materials for the period 
1980-1989. CPL Bibliography No. 264. 
Chicago, Illinois: Council of Planning 
Librarians. 

Sancton, Andrew. 1991. Local government 
reorganization in Canada since 1975. 
Toronto: Intergovernmental 
Committee on Urban and Regional 
Research. 

Sonntag, N.C. and others. 1987. 

Cumulative effects assessment: a context 
for further research and development. A 
background paper. Ottawa: Canadian 
Environmental Assessment Research 
Council. 

United States. Environmental Protection 
Agency. 1992. Manual of appropriate 
wastewater treatment/disposal technolo- 
gies for small communities. Washington, 
D.C.: the Agency. 

Waterloo (Ont.: Regional Municipality). 
Planning and Development 
Department. 1991. State of the environ- 
ment report 1991: final report and discus- 
sion paper. Waterloo, Ont.: Regional 
Municipality of Waterloo. 

Waterloo Centre for Groundwater 
Research (University of Waterloo) and 
others. 1992. Ontario farm groundwater 
quality survey: winter 1991/92. Ottawa: 
Canada. Agriculture Canada. 

World Commission on Environment and 
Development. 1987. Our common 
future. G.H. Brundtland, Chairman. 
Oxford and New York: Oxford 
University Press. 

Yaro, Robert D. and others. 1990. Dealing 
with change in the Connecticut River val- 
ley: a design manual for conservation and 
development. Cambridge, 
Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of 
Land Policy and the Environmental 
Law Foundation. 



FINAL REPORT 
204 



New Planning for Ontario 



John Sewell 


Tom Moull 


Diana Crosbie 


Chair 


Senior Researcher 


Crosbie Communications 


George Penfold 

Commissioner 


Greg Tokarz 

Senior Planner 


Darlene Varaleau 

Public Forum Coordinator 


Toby Vigod 

Commissioner 


David McLaughlin 

Planner 


Ann Silversides 


Wendy Noble 


Dale Moore 


Editor 


Executive Director 


Librarian 


Dan Liebman 




Allison Savaria 


Editor 




Assistant to the Chair 
Elizabeth Sinclair 


Blair Kerrigan/Glyphics 

Designer 




Secretary 


Excelcom-Translex 




Marilyn Gillis 


French Translation 




Receptionist 






Inge Sardy 

Administrator 






Linda McClenaghan 

Secretary 





The Commission would also like to thank 
planners Laura Atkins and Barbara Muirhead 
for their work in analysing submissions. In 
addition, the work of Gary Boyer, Margaret 
Groves, Alan Hayter, Kirsten Johnson, and 
Christine Mitchell has been much appreciated. 



FINAL REPORT 
205 



Commissioners and Executive Director 




(clockwise from top left) John Sewell, Chair; George Penfold, Commissioner; Toby Vigod, 
Commissioner; Wendy Noble, Executive Director 



John Sewell, Chair 

John Sewell is a lawyer by train- 
ing, but has spent a diverse career 
as a writer, teacher, journalist, 
and politician. He worked as a 
community organizer in Toronto 
after graduating from the 
University of Toronto with a B.A. 
in 1961 and an LL.B. in 1964. 
From 1969 to 1978, and 1981 to 
1984, he served as an alderman 
with Toronto City Council. He 
was mayor of Toronto from 1978 
to 1980. Mr. Sewell has been a 
regular urban affairs columnist 
for The Globe and Mail and NOW 
magazine, was chair of the Metro 
Toronto Housing Authority from 
1986 to 1988, and has taught law 
and political and social science at 
York University. As well, he has 
written two books on urban 
issues, with a third to be pub- 
lished later this year. 



FINAL REPORT 
206 



George Penfold, Commissioner 

George Penfold has spent his 
entire professional life specializing 
in rural and agricultural issues. 
A professor at the University of 
Guelph's University School of 
Rural Planning and Development, 
he took a leave of absence to serve 
with the Commission. Professor 
Penfold began his career in 1968 
as an agricultural extension 
engineer with the Ontario 
Department of Agriculture and 
Food. Between 1976 and 1981, he 
was a rural planner with the 
Huron County planning 
department in Goderich. He 
joined the School of Rural 
Planning and Development in 
1981. Professor Penfold is a 
member of the Canadian Institute 
of Planners and the Association 
of Professional Engineers of 
Ontario. He has a B.Sc. in 
engineering from the University 
of Guelph and an M.Sc. from the 
Centre for Resources Development 
and Agricultural Economics at 
Guelph. 



Toby Vigod, Commissioner 

Toby Vigod has been practising 
environmental law since 1980. 
During her tenure with the 
Commission, she has been on 
leave from her position as 
executive director of the 
Canadian Environmental Law 
Association (CELA). Ms. Vigod 
received her B.A. from the 
University of Toronto and her 
LL.B. from Queen's University, 
and she was called to the Ontario 
Bar in 1980. She has been counsel 
to CELA since that time. She has 
written extensively in the area of 
environmental law and has 
appeared as counsel before a 
variety of federal and provincial 
administrative tribunals and 
courts on environmental matters. 
Ms. Vigod has taught at the 
Faculty of Law and the School of 
Public Administration at Queen's 
University, as well as at the 
University of Toronto's Faculty of 
Law. From 1988 to 1992, she was 
a member of the Ontario Round 
Table on Environment and 
Economy. 



Wendy Noble, Executive Director 

Wendy Noble has 20 years of 
experience dealing with planning 
and municipal policy issues. 
Before joining the Commission, 
she was the director of the 
Municipal Planning Policy 
Branch with the Ontario Ministry 
of Municipal Affairs. Ms. Noble 
has worked for the Province of 
Ontario since 1980 in a variety of 
capacities, including various 
assignments involving reviews of 
regional and county governments 
and a stint in Cabinet Office. 
From 1973 to 1978, she worked as 
a municipal planner for the City 
of Toronto and then ran her own 
consulting firm before joining the 
provincial government. Ms. Noble 
has an M.Sc.Pl. in planning from 
the University of Toronto. 



FINAL REPORT 

207 



:;'o -,:■,;* a^'-?<^^.'iTWTO,^ 



"-|'l."'-^k