Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
March 10, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002091
(Formerly PL120217 et al)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Kerry L.W. Doughty
Appellant:
Ferma Aggregates Inc.
Appellant:
Jennifer Graham; and others
Subject:
Official Plan
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy Case No.:
PL120217
OLT File No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy File No.:
PL120217
OLT Case Name:
Graham v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J.Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 15
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy Case No.:
PL151086
OLT File No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy File No.:
PL151086
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J.Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 15
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy Case No.:
PL151086
OLT File No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy File No.:
PL151086
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 17
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy Case No.:
PL160076
OLT File No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy File No.:
PL160076
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Comhold Investments Ltd.; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 13
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy Case No.:
PL171407
OLT File No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy File No.:
PL171407
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Comhold Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
William Westcott
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 14
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy Case No.:
PL171408
OLT File No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy File No.:
PL171408
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 16
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy Case No.:
PL171409
OLT File No.:
OLT-22-002091
Legacy File No.:
PL171409
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
Heard:
February 23 and March 2, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City of Kawartha Lakes
Denitza Koev
Bromont Homes Inc.
Ian Andres Rob Howe
J. Stollar Construction Ltd. William Westcott
Denise Baker
Flato Lindsay Community Inc.
Katarzyna Sliwa Tom Halinski Diana Betlej
Comhold Investments Ltd., Medlaw Corporation and Mason Burch (collectively Comhold)
Tom Halinski
Fenelon Trails Inc. and 2185373 Ontario Inc.
Richard Taylor
Black Bear Estate Inc.
James Webster
Lindsay 2017 Developments Inc.
Paul DeMelo
Tribute (Lindsay 1) Tribute (Lindsay 2)
C. Barnet (not present)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T. PREVEDEL AND STEVEN COOKE ON MARCH 2, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Ontario Land Tribunal is a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding a number of appeals related to the adoption of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan (“CKLOP”) referred to as: Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) No. 13, OPA No. 14 , OPA No.15, OPA No.16 ,OPA No.17 and OPA No.18 .
2The City of Kawartha Lakes (“City”) submitted a Motion Record on February 16, 2022, for a partial approval Order (“Order 3”) which would have the effect of resolving a substantial number of issues that are identified on the Phase 2 Issues List. This was undertaken on consent of the Parties.
3Ms. Koev, Counsel for the City, advised the Tribunal that Council had approved a proposed settlement offer on the evening of February 22, 2022.
4She stated that there were a few remaining site-specific issues to be resolved with Flato Lindsay Community Inc. (“Flato”) and a handful of issues that could be deferred to Phase 3 of the Hearing.
5Ms. Koev further stated that the Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) have been prepared and circulated to the Parties but are not fully executed yet.
6Ms. Koev proposed to the Tribunal, on consent of the Parties, to hear the City’s Motion for Order 3 then stand down until March 2, 2022, to deal with the settlement, at which time the MOS and revised schedules will have been circulated to the Parties and the Tribunal.
7Ms. Koev advised the Tribunal that Fenelon Trails Inc. and 2185373 Ontario Inc. were not a signatory to the MOS. This was confirmed by Mr. Taylor, counsel for same, who advised he had not seen the MOS yet and would withhold comments until the MOS was circulated and he received direction from his client.
8Ms. Koev also confirmed that the MOS and revised schedules would be circulated to all the Parties before the end of the week.
9The Tribunal received e-mail correspondence from Mr. Kemerer, representing Catherine Gravely, advising that Ms. Gravely’s issues with OPA 13 have been resolved through the City’s Motion for Partial Approval and asks that the Tribunal approves this Motion. Moreover, the same e-mail advised that Ms. Gravely hereby withdraws her appeals of OPA 14, 15, 16 and 17.
The Motion and Draft Order 3
10Certain issues relating to OPA 13 were resolved during the first of several hearing phases involving the matters that are being administratively processed under OLT File No. PL120217. Specifically, the Tribunal Order issued on June 14, 2021, had the effect of approving certain modifications to OPA 13, which are reflected in what has commonly been referred to as “Order 1” in these proceedings.
11Ms. Koev explained that the Motion pertains to the resolution of the Phase 2 Issues identified at Attachment 2 to the Phase 2 Procedural Order.
12Paragraph 11 of the Phase 2 Procedural Order required like experts to meet and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the upcoming Hearing, and to prepare an agreed statement of facts. Accordingly, all the land use planners who have been identified as expert witnesses for the purposes of this proceeding (the “Planners”) attended multiple meetings at the end of 2021. Resulting from those meetings was the 3rd Agreed Statement of Facts, dated December 23, 2021 (3rd ASF), which has been executed by all the Planners.
13In the 3rd ASF, the Planners agreed, among other things, that a significant number of the Phase 2 Issues could be resolved through the recommended modifications set out in Attachment B to the 3rd ASF, a copy of which is appended at Exhibit C to the Affidavit of Rory Baksh, Registered Professional Planner (“RPP”), sworn on February 8, 2022, provided at Tab 2 of the City’s Motion Record.
14The Tribunal qualified Rory Baksh as an Expert in Land Use Planning. Mr. Baksh is a RPP and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners with 23 years of experience.
15Mr. Baksh provided the Tribunal with a thorough overview of his submitted Affidavit, the 3rd ASF which was signed by all the land use experts representing the Parties, and the proposed modifications to OPA 13.
16In his opinion, the recommended policy modifications that are set out in Attachment B to the 3rd ASF and would be implemented through Draft Order 3 are consistent with the 2020 PPS, conform with the 2019 Growth Plan, as amended, and conform with/do not conflict with the parts of the CKLOP and OPA 13 that are in effect. Further, it is his opinion that the modifications are an appropriate means of resolving a number of Phase 2 Issues and generally represent good planning.
17On the basis of the uncontested planning evidence presented by Mr. Baksh, and the consent of all the Parties regarding Draft Order 3, the Tribunal approves Draft Order 3, as attached as Attachment 1 to this Decision. Draft Order 3 is in full force and effect.
Draft Order 4 and the Settlement Hearing
18The Tribunal received fully executed MOS on February 25, 2022 and a Draft Order 4 to implement the MOS, which confirmed the previous discussions by counsel on February 23, 2022.
19The Tribunal was advised that Mr. Taylor, on behalf of his clients, intends to take issue with a portion of the proposed settlement. He told the Tribunal that he intends to request a deferral of the determination of the eastern portion of the Fenelon Falls settlement boundary.
20Ms. Koev provided the Tribunal with a background overview and chronological history for contextual purposes. She provided a thorough review of the MOS and the revised OPA 13 schedules which are appended to Draft Order 4.
21The MOS, the Draft Order 4, and the sworn Affidavits of Michael Testaguzza, Michael Bissett. Matthew Cory, Rory Baksh and Heather Sadler (the Expert Planning Witnesses) were introduced as Exhibits for the Hearing.
22Ms. Koev confirmed that the Tribunal has received written confirmation from counsel for Ms. Gravely that her remaining issues with respect to OPA 13 have been fully resolved by the Order that the Tribunal approved in its oral decision given on February 23, 2022, and that Ms. Gravely withdraws her appeals of OPA 14, 15, 16 and 17.
23She further confirmed that the Remaining Phase 1 Issues are no longer in dispute as a result of a settlement. The executed MOS , dated February 23, 2022, seek to implement the 2012 Boundaries, subject to certain further modifications permitted in accordance with Policy 2.2.8.4 of the 2019 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as amended (“Growth Plan”) and supported by the land use planning and engineering evidence that has been filed in the within proceeding.
24After her overview and submission, Ms. Koev requested the Tribunal to approve Draft Order 4 with the revised schedules to implement the MOS .
25Mr. Halinski, on behalf of Comhold, provided an overview of his client’s interests and indicated his support of the Draft Order 4 and the MOS. He requested that the Tribunal accept the proposed boundary adjustments for Comhold.
26Mr. Howe, on behalf of Bromont Homes Inc. (“Bromont”), provided an overview of his client’s interests and indicated his support of the Draft Order 4 and MOS. He requested that the Tribunal accept the proposed boundary adjustments for Bromont.
27Ms. Sliwa, on behalf of Flato, also provided an overview of her client’s interests and indicated her support of the Draft Order 4 and MOS. She requested that the Tribunal accept the proposed boundary adjustments for Flato. She stated that there were some remaining issues (Issues 1 and 2) to be resolved in Phase 2 of the Hearings and Issue No. 28 to be resolved in Phase 3.
28In their oral submissions, counsel for Comhold, Bromont and Flato took the Tribunal to the proposed candidate sites for “land swaps” under Policy 2.2.8.4 of the Growth Plan, which were attached to the 3rd ASF. Counsel noted that all the candidate sites meet the required tests under this Policy.
Referral Request by Fenelon Trails
29Mr. Taylor provided the Tribunal with an oral submission requesting that the approval of the Fenelon Falls urban boundary, as defined in the schedules attached to the Draft Order 4, be deferred.
30He submitted that the urban boundary currently depicted dates back to the Victoria County Official Plan approved in 1978, and that the “bulge” on the easterly boundary does not follow any natural features such as a road or a watercourse.
31Mr. Taylor’s stated concern is that the current urban boundary, if approved, will not allow Fenelon Falls to grow to its forecasted 2031 population.
32Mr. Taylor submitted that his client currently owns 22 hectares (“ha”) within the urban boundary but their proposed addition of 24.78 ha (the balance of their lands) was not taken into consideration by the City during the settlement discussions with other Parties.
33Ms. Koev told the Tribunal that Fenelon Trails did not object to the previous Orders 1 and 2 issued by the Tribunal, which relied on 2031 planning horizons.
34Furthermore, she reminded the Tribunal that Fenelon Trails is a Non-Appellant Party sheltering under the Stollar appeal. As the Stollar appeal will be resolved with the settlement proposed earlier, the boundary issues are no longer in dispute making the request by Fenelon Trails out of order under Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
35She stated that no engineering evidence was put forward by Mr. Taylor’s client to support their land swap request.
36Ms. Koev concluded by opining that the City would be prejudiced if the process was delayed any further, the City needs the boundaries resolved in order to undertake the Municipal Comprehensive Review to comply with the 2051 planning horizon in the Growth Plan.
37Ms. Baker echoed the concerns expressed by the City and reminded the Tribunal that no formal Motion was put forward by Fenelon Trails. She also stated that this request would result in significant prejudice to J. Stollar Construction Ltd., and affect future phases of this Hearing.
38The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the oral submissions made by counsel, denies the request for deferral made by Fenelon Trails. There has been ample time by Fenelon Trails to challenge the boundaries as established by previous Tribunal Orders, and to bring this matter up at a Hearing at this late date would compromise the significant efforts undertaken by all of the Parties and their experts in finally putting closure to the OPA 13 schedules.
39The Tribunal agrees with City counsel that Fenelon Trails is a Non-Appellant Party sheltering under Stollar and is not permitted to introduce additional issues once Stollar has consented to the MOS.
ORDER
40The Tribunal Orders that the deferral request by Fenelon Trails is denied.
41The Tribunal further Orders that Draft Orders 3 and 4, attached as Schedules A and B to this decision are approved.
“T. Prevedel”
“T. PREVEDEL”
MEMBER
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
can
OLT Case No. PL171407
SCHEDULE A
Ontario Land Tribunal
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc.
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Comhold Investments Ltd.; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 13
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
PL171407
OLT File No.:
PL171407
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
BEFORE:
[date], 2022
O R D E R
THIS MATTER having come on for a hearing on February 23, 2022;
AND THE TRIBUNAL has granted partial approval of certain modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 13 (“OPA 13”) to the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan (“CKLOP”) pursuant to the Order issued on June 14, 2021, which resolved the OPA 13 appeals, in part;
AND THE TRIBUNAL has received the 3rd Statement of Agreed Facts, dated December 24, 2021, which is executed by six land use planners listed as expert witnesses for the purposes of this proceeding and contains recommendations for further modifications to OPA 13;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having heard the submissions of counsel for the City relating to the proposed partial approval of OPA 13, as modified in accordance with the recommendations contained within the 3rd Statement of Agreed Facts and reflected within Schedule “A” hereto;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having heard the submissions of counsel for certain other parties related to the proposed partial approval of OPA 13;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having received the affidavit evidence of Rory Baksh, RPP, pertaining to the proposed partial approval of OPA 13;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having been advised that the parties to these proceedings consent to, or do not oppose, an Order approving the modifications set out in Schedule “A” hereto to resolve all of the Phase 2 Issues with respect to OPA 13 appeals, as identified in Attachment 2 to the Procedural Order issued December 1, 2021, save and except for Phase 2 Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4, which remain to be determined at the Phase 2 hearing, scheduled to commence on March 21, 2022, and those issues relating to OPA 13 Policy 18.4.4, which are being deferred to the Phase 3 Hearing, scheduled to commence on August 2, 2022;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having been advised by counsel for Catherine Gravely (“Ms. Gravely”) that any issues Ms. Gravely had with respect to the Schedules to OPA 13 are withdrawn and that the modifications contemplated by this Order fully resolve her appeal of OPA 13;
AND THE TRIBUNAL may make modifications to the parts of OPA 13 that are before it under this proceeding and approve all or part of those parts, as modified, in accordance with subsections 17(50) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended;
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
OPA 13 is further modified as set out in Schedule ‘A’ to this Order and that the sections, policies, tables, and text so modified are hereby approved.
All of the modifications approved herein are brought into force and effect as of the date of this Order.
The following appeals have been partially resolved through the partial approval of OPA 13 in this Order:
a. The appeal of Comhold Investments Ltd., Medlaw Corporation, and Mason Burch (collectively referred to as “Comhold”), save for Phase 2 Issues 3 and 4;
b. The appeal of J. Stollar Construction Limited, save for the issues pertaining to the settlement boundaries for Bobcaygeon, Lindsay, Omemee, Fenelon Falls and Woodville shown on Schedules A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5.
The appeal of Catherine Gravely is fully resolved through the partial approval of OPA 13 in this Order.
The Schedule which is attached to this Order shall form part of the Order.
The Tribunal may be spoken to should any matters arise respecting the implementation of this Order.
Registrar
Explanation:
The modifications herein are based upon the recommendations contained in the Expert Land Use Planners’ 3rd Statement of Agreed Facts, dated December 23, 2021 (“SAF”), and are being presented to the Tribunal for partial approval by the City and the parties in this proceeding. The modifications contained herein are in addition to the modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 13 (OPA 13), which are set out in Phase 1 Order 1 and were approved by the Tribunal on June 14, 2021.*
Mod #
Modification*
1
Revise Sections 1.1, 2.1. 2.2 and 3.1 in the Preamble to OPA 13 as follows:
Section 1.1
The Secondary Plans identify effective and efficient development patterns and opportunities, and take into account current municipal conditions, reflect Provincial land use planning policy as outlined in the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and co-ordinate with and implement the policies of the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan (OP).
Section 2.1
[…] Lindsay is located on the Trent-Severn Waterway and is home to Lock 33.
Section 2.2
Bobcaygeon is located at the confluence of Pigeon Lake to the east and Sturgeon Lake to the west. Bobcaygeon is home to Lock 32, which is the first lock on the Trent-Severn Waterway within the City's limits.
Section 3.1
The 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development […] The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan) has been prepared under the Places to Grow Act, 2005. It is a framework for implementing the Government of Ontario’s vision for building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
2
Revise Section 18.1 as follows:
18.1.1
Growth in these four urban settlement areas shall be based on the following vision: “Over 20 years, the Kawartha Lakes settlement areas will grow as healthy communities, provide new employment and educational opportunities to its residents, preserve the natural environment and cultural heritage, develop affordable and adequate housing for the changing population, and provide healthy, active recreational opportunities for local residents and tourists.”
18.1.2(e)
To provide adequate housing (barrier-free) for persons with disabilities and older persons.
3
Revise Section 18.2 as follows:
18.2.(i) Integrate intensification with the local character of the settlement areas historic downtowns and main streets and established neighbourhoods.
18 2.(j) Provide opportunities for active transportation-supportive, mixed use, compact development.
4
Revise Policy 18.4.3 as follows:
The City recognizes that it has a surplus of designated greenfield land to support future residential and non-residential development. In accordance with policy 4.1.3, the City may adjust settlement boundaries outside of a municipal comprehensive review. Except as provided for in policy 4.1.3, the City shall only designate additional greenfield land if justified through a comprehensive Official Plan review, which includes updates to the growth management, transportation, and municipal servicing strategies.
5
Revise Section 18.5 as follows:
18.5.2
In accordance with the Growth Management Strategy (May 2011), this plan seeks the following overall mix of housing types across all of the urban settlement areas to achieve a target density of 40 units and jobs per hectare: 75% of new units will be detached/semi-detached (low density), 19% will be townhouse units, row houses, walk-up apartment and similar housing forms (mid density) and a 6% will be apartment units (high density).
18.5.5
This Plan will support zoning provisions that are flexible enough to permit an appropriate range of housing forms, including secondary suites.
18.5.6
Additional dwelling units are permitted as of right, in addition to the principal dwelling unit, of single-detached, semi-detached, and row houses dwellings through a Zoning By-Law or minor variance application. The following criteria shall be considered when evaluating proposals for the creation of additional dwelling units:
i. Shall be secondary to the main/primary dwelling unit;
ii. One apartment unit per dwelling;
iii. The floor area of the additional dwelling unit is equal to, or less than, the gross floor area of the principal unit without any modification to the building’s bulk or massing;
iv. One (1) additional on-site parking space is provided exclusively for the additional dwelling unit;
v. The additional dwelling unit is not located in an attached garage;
vi. There is sufficient capacity of municipal sanitary sewer and water supply;
vii. Compliance with the provisions of the Ontario Building Code, Fire Code, City’s Zoning By-Law and all other relevant municipal and provincial standards;
viii. Registration of the additional dwelling unit in accordance with the City’s Secondary Suites Registration By-law; and
ix. A lot may not have both an additional dwelling unit and a garden suite.
18.5.8
The City recognizes the definition of “affordable” as stated in the Provincial Policy Statement (2020). The City’s affordable housing initiatives are designed to provide a full range of housing by type, tenure and affordability, within all urban residential neighbourhoods, with a focus to produce housing for low income residents of the City.
6
Revise Section 18.6 as follows:
18.6.5
Intensification corridors are generally located along arterial roads, and along main streets within the settlement areas’ built-up area as delineated in the Secondary Plans. Intensification corridors will be planned to:
a) achieve increased residential and employment densities;
b) support and ensure the viability of existing and planned transit service levels where applicable; and,
c) achieve a mix of residential, office, institutional, and/or commercial development wherever appropriate.
[In addition to the modification already approved pursuant to the Order issued on June 14, 2021, policy 18.6.6 is further amended as follows:]
18.6.6
The City’s strategy for achieving its intensification target includes the following:
a) Providing land use compatibility policies including those within Sections 3.8 Separation and Buffering of Uses and 3.9 Noise Studies in this Plan to ensure that intensification occurs in an appropriate manner;
b) Providing policies in accordance with Sections 18.5.11 and 18.5.12 in this Plan which allow for appropriate infilling throughout the Built-Up Area;
c) Providing policies in accordance with Sections 5.7.5, 5.7.6 and 5.7.7 in this Plan which allow for the creation of secondary suites; […]
18.6.11
New development in existing neighbourhoods (redevelopment, intensification or infill) shall complement the character defined by the existing built form and landscaping prevalent in that neighbourhood. The City will maintain and improve existing neighbourhoods through tools such as By-laws (e.g., property standards, tree cutting), civic beautification, heritage conservation
initiatives, and urban design guidelines.
18.6.12
Intensification or infill in residential areas may require a different lot pattern and configuration, but should address the following principles:
a) Land use and neighbourhood character compatibility;
b) Pedestrian connectivity and accessibility;
c) Parking requirements;
d) Potential for transit ridership in communities where transit is provided;
e) Natural (including natural hazards) and built heritage conservation / protection, and where
appropriate, enhancement;
f) Available servicing capacity of municipal infrastructure; and,
g) Residential intensification targets identified in this Plan.
7
Revise Policy 18.7.9 as follows:
New neighbourhoods shall be connected to the rest of the City by public streets and public trails. New streets and blocks should be consistent with, and extend from, the existing street pattern.
8
Revise Section 18.9 as follows:
18.9.3
Council shall ensure employment areas are serviced to attract new businesses and to support the Employment Lands policies in this Plan.
18.9.5(h)
Promote the downtowns of Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon, and Omemee as a cultural heritage and recreational destination, including the Trent-Severn Waterway locks, the lakes and rivers system and the trail systems, where these features are present.
18.9.6(g)
Ensure that all new commercial and retail development is designed in a manner, which is accessible to all and accommodates the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and all other modes of applicable transport.
18.9.7(b)
Consider the development of land uses within the settlement areas that support the City’s agriculture sector as long as they do not create land use conflicts.
[delete Policy 18.9.7(h)]
9
Revise Section 18.10 as follows:
[18.10.3, third bullet]
- Working, in partnership with all levels of government and the private sector to ensure that viable employment lands are provided and protected in the settlement areas which create job opportunities and economic diversity.
18.10.6
The City will consider the geographic location and transportation connections when planning new employment areas.
18.10.7
The City will attempt to minimize adverse impacts associated with industrial uses by ensuring that issues related to impacts of air, noise, vibration and odour are addressed in a manner which is consistent with City and Provincial standards, and in accordance with Sections 3.8 Separation and Buffering of Uses and 3.9 Noise Studies in this Plan. Any proposed use which has the potential for negative impacts (including, but not limited to, noise, vibration, dust/debris, and odour) will be required to demonstrate, through a special study, how the appropriate federal or provincial guidelines will be met and maintained while the use is in existence. Environmental Compliance Approvals may be required as a condition of Site Plan Approval. The City may require special studies to address negative impacts for which Ministry of Environment guidelines do not exist (e.g., light emissions). These studies shall demonstrate how the negative impacts will be mitigated.
18.10.8
The City’s urban design guidelines should provide direction on increasing the attractiveness of employment areas.
10
Revise Section 18.11 as follows:
18.11.1
The downtowns and main streets are where commercial retail, office, and service uses are focused in a pedestrian-oriented environment. As mixed use areas, these areas function as the cultural, community and administrative centres of the settlement areas and the entire City of Kawartha Lakes. The city will support investments in the downtowns and main streets so that they continue to be attractive and viable hubs for residents, destinations for visitors, and function as vibrant, mixed-use neighbourhoods linked to the recreation opportunities in, and around, the settlements.
18.11.3
Development or redevelopment, including intensification in downtowns and main street areas shall, complement and enhance the historical and/or architectural character of these areas. Refer to the applicable urban design policies for the downtowns and main streets in Section 18.13 and in the Secondary Plans for Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Fenelon Falls, and Omemee.
11
Revise Section 18.13 as follows:
18.13.1
It is the policy of this Plan to consider urban and community design as an integral component of new development and redevelopment in the settlement areas. The preparation of a set of Urban Design Guidelines for sub-areas within settlement areas to ensure that new development and redevelopment are attractive and consistent with the Policies of this Plan is encouraged, but shall not be required prior to advancement of individual development applications.
18.13.2
It is the policy of this Plan to encourage that the design of new development and redevelopment is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Compatible housing forms and appropriate transitions shall be developed at the edge of existing residential communities, heritage buildings, historic downtowns and abutting the environmental constraint areas.
18.13.3
It is the policy of this Plan to ensure that new development and redevelopment considers the range of elements that contribute to an aesthetically pleasing and architecturally appropriate character in the settlement areas. Development proposals should, as appropriate:
(d) Avoid the use of cul-de-sacs when designing new internal local road networks, except in instances where environmental features, topography, or previous development patterns prevent through-streets; and,
(e) Follow the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), including, but not limited to, site safety and security, natural surveillance, enhanced lighting, visibility from the street, well-located and clearly marked building entries, and accessibility for emergency services.
18.13.14
Development outside of downtowns and main streets shall be consistent with the Community Design policies of this Plan and/or give consideration to area-specific urban design guidelines when available.
18.13.15
New buildings in downtowns and mainstreets should be designed to take into account:
a) Close to zero front setback except where existing narrow sidewalks warrant greater setbacks (while providing variation along the street edge);
b) Parking lots located in the rear;
c) Addressing the public sidewalk with main entrances and glazing facing the public realm to reinforce the streetscape;
d) Directing pedestrian connections from building entrances to public sidewalks, and key amenities; and,
e) Building heights sensitive to existing development.
18.13.18
Lighting of buildings located within downtowns and main streets should be designed as an integral component of the overall site design. It shall provide safe illumination for pedestrians and motorists and may be used strategically to provide a distinct building identity. Illumination ofsite features should be designed together. Lighting should be designed to reduce light pollution and reflect “dark sky” design principles.
18.13.23
Streetscape design should integrate and coordinate a variety of elements to create visually attractive public spaces and a sense of place. These include appropriate right-of way width to accommodate landscaping, street trees, decorative paving, street lighting, street furniture, signage,and special corner treatments.
18.13.24
The City shall encourage, where feasible, the improvement of streetscapes within the downtowns and main streets through the use of landscaping including trees, wide sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, special signage, lighting, seating, street furniture, public art, and special paving, and opportunities for seasonal displays and/or seating, which promote a positive sense of place and create a safe and attractive pedestrian environment.
12
Revise Section 18.15 as follows:
18.15.3
The general location of new parks in the settlement areas are denoted with the symbol “NP” on Schedules F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4, and F-5. A park may be situated anywhere within the extent of the underlying land use designation denoted with the symbol “NP,” and the City will determine the type of park and its final location prior to draft plan approval.
18.15.4(b)
The final grading and landscaping of new parks to be undertaken by a developer shall be set out in the draft plan of subdivision conditions and secured through a subdivision agreement;
18.15.4(g)
At least one side of a new park shall have frontage on a public street;
[Add 18.15.4(h)] Open spaces and facilities shall be designed to be accessible;
18.15.5
Until such time that these requirements are updated by a Parks Master Plan, the City intends to achieve an overall ratio of 4 hectares of park space per 1,000 persons of population. The planning of new parks and/or rectifying deficiencies in the provision of parks will be in accordance with the following general standards: […]
[Amend the Table under Policy 18.5.5 as follows:]
Hierarchy
General Size / Minimum Standard
Parks Planning Policy
Neighbourhood Parks
1.8 to 4.0 ha / 1.0 ha per 1,000 Population
…Where there is a majority of young families and/or older persons in an area, facilities should be tailored more specifically to the particular needs of these groups. The park should be designed for visibility and safety and should be co-ordinated with public or separate elementary school sites where possible.
Community Parks
6.0 to 10.0 ha / 1.0 ha per 1,000 Population
…The location of Community Parks should be co-ordinated with secondary school sites where possible. The parks should be developed as focal points for organized and non-organized team sports, athletic activities and casual recreation, which may include regulation-size softball and baseball diamonds, soccer fields with night lighting and spectator facilities, major playgrounds, tennis courts, and visitor service centres.
18.15.10
Parkland dedication may also be required in accordance with Section 34.13 of this Plan as a condition of provisional consent, or development or redevelopment of land in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning Act. This may require the dedication either in the form of parkland or cash-in-lieu of parkland as appropriate.
13
Revise Section 18.16 as follows:
18.16.3
The City shall implement, in a staged program, the development of a continuous and safe system of non-motorized multi-use trails to support active transportation and active recreation. The City shall establish safe walking, cycling and water routes within settlement areas on routes to schools, parks, playgrounds, fairgrounds, downtowns/main streets, and safe corridors connecting the settlement areas and trails within the City.
18.16.8 [Note: This revision is shown as 18.16.7 in SAF]
Parking areas shall be designed as functional areas and shall reduce their environmental and visual impact.
[Add new Policy number 18.16.8.1 in front of the part of Policy 18.16.8, which reads as follows:]
Low Impact Development measures, such as pervious paving, bioswales, and landscaping islands with trees, should be incorporated to minimize stormwater runoff and reduce heat island effect.
18.16.9 [Note: This revision is shown as 18.16.8 in SAF]
Long stretches of on-street parking on local roads should be broken up with landscaped "bump-outs" sufficiently sized to support appropriate landscaping.
18.16.10 [Note: This revision is shown as 18.16.9 in SAF]
The design of parking and landscaping should have regard to the City’s urban design guidelines, which considers the following:
a) Parking location on site.
b) Screening between parking areas and adjacent residential properties.
c) Landscape buffers at the perimeter of the property line adjacent to sensitive land uses.
d) Landscaped islands where appropriate.
e) Location of pedestrian sidewalks.
18.16.11 [Note: This revision is shown as 18.16.10 in SAF]
In new Employment, Commercial, Institutional and mixed use developmentsas well as apartment buildings, parking areas should generally be located to the side or at the rear of buildings wherever possible, and shall be sited and/or designed in such a way as to
minimize impact of such parking on abutting sensitive land uses. Where parking areas abut a street they should be screened with landscaping. Limited parking between the street edge and building may be provided. Parking may also be addressed through on-street parking in appropriate locations. Parking and landscaping for commercial, mixed-use, and residential development should be designed in accordance with the design criteria of Section 18.16.9.
18.16.12 [Note: This revision is shown as 18.16.11 in SAF]
Service and loading areas should be located away from street frontages to minimize views from adjacent streets. Location to the rear or sides of buildings is preferable wherever possible except in instances where the abutting property contains a sensitive land use, in which case the siting of the servicing and loading areas will be at a location on the property which minimizes the impact of such service and loading area. Where service areas are visible to the street or abutting sensitive land uses, they may require screening with walls and landscaping.
14
Revise Policy 18.17.3 by adding a new Policy number 18.17.4 before the last three bullets and new opening language, which reads as follows:
18.17.4 As part of an application for site plan approval, the following may be required:
Urban design brief, respecting the policies of Section 18.13 of this Plan;
Landscape master plan;
Comprehensive development plan when dealing with a development comprised of two or more buildings or phases.
15
Revise Policy 29.1.9 as follows:
Where there is a conflict between one or more policies in the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan and a secondary plan, development plan, area-specific, or site-specific policy, then the policy in such secondary plan, development plan, area-specific, or site-specific policy shall prevail.
*All comments that have been made in bold or that are italicized and made in [square brackets] are intended to capture an action item or other note pertaining to the proposed modification and do not form part of that modification