District of Muskoka Official Plan Review (MOPR) TOWARDS ESTABLISHING PLANNING POLICY DIRECTIONS OCTOBER 21, 2016 (REVISED MARCH 6, 2017)

Transcription

1 District of Muskoka Official Plan Review (MOPR) TOWARDS ESTABLISHING PLANNING POLICY DIRECTIONS OCTOBER 21, 2016 (REVISED MARCH 6, 2017) Page 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT PROVINCIAL FACTORS TO CONSIDER THE PLANNING ACT REQUIREMENT TO HAVE AN OFFICIAL PLAN MATTERS OF PROVINCIAL INTEREST PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT CURRENT VISION IN THE MOP INTRODUCTION PED COMMITTEE INPUT PRIMARY POLICY DIRECTIONS PPS 2014 IMPLEMENTATION MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS MATTERS THAT CROSS MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OTHER BROADER POLICY ISSUES Appendix A Appendix B SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON POLICY DIRECTIONS PRESENTED IN OCTOBER 21, 2016 REPORT FINAL RECOMMENDED POLICY DIRECTIONS Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 2 Page 2

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This final report is the second of two reports that represents the work completed on the preparation of policy directions that will be relied upon by the District to prepare new and updated Official Plan policies. The first report was entitled Towards Establishing Planning Policy Directions and was finalized on October 21, This report provided an overview of the many updates made to the Muskoka Official Plan (referred to as the 'MOP' in this report) between 1991 and 2009 and provided an overview of the current review of the MOP that was initiated in The report then provided an overview of the work completed on the current Muskoka Official Plan Review (referred to as the 'MOPR' in this report) and the process to be followed. The balance of the report then reviewed a number of factors that need to be considered in preparing Official Plan policies, including the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement that was updated in The first report also reviewed in detail the vision and guiding principles which were included within the MOP at the culmination of a comprehensive visioning initiative in 2013 that involved the participation of over 2,700 permanent and seasonal residents from across Muskoka. Section 4.0 in the initial report then reviewed the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) in detail and a number of policy directions were developed for discussion purposes. These draft policy directions were informed by: The significant amount of background work already completed by the District; The District priorities that have already been identified; The comments made by the PED Committee on July 21, 2016; The comments of planning staff at the District and the Area Municipalities; and The PPS (2014). The draft preliminary directions do not represent a comprehensive or exhaustive list of policy changes anticipated as part of the MOPR. Rather, they highlight those areas where significant consideration is needed to update the MOP to be consistent with Provincial policy, to respond to changes in legislation, and/or to address recognized policy gaps. As the MOPR process continues, additional directions may be identified or changes to these directions may be considered. Following the completion of the October 21, 2016 report, it was presented to the Planning and Economic Development Committee on November 7, Subsequent to that meeting, the report was circulated to the Province, other agencies, the Area Municipalities and other stakeholders. In addition, meetings were held with the development industry, the resort industry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. A public open house was also held on January 18, On each occasion, it was indicated that Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 3 Page 3

4 the policy directions contained within the October 21, 2016 report would be updated as required based on the input received. In this regard, a summary of the comments received from the Area Municipalities, the Province and agencies and at the open house, resort industry stakeholder and development industry stakeholder meetings as well as all written submissions are summarized in Appendix A. On the basis of the comments received and the further consideration of the draft policy directions, a revised set of policy directions has been prepared and they are included within Appendix B. In order to provide readers with a sense of how the originally presented policy directions have been modified (or not), Appendix B includes the policy direction as presented in the October 21, 2016 report, the revised policy direction and the rationale for the changes made (if applicable). HOW TO READ THIS REPORT Following this Executive Summary is a table containing the final consolidated directions that would act as a framework to guide detailed policy preparation in the next stage of the MOPR. These statements should be read as general guiding directions rather than specific policies. Sections 1.0 to 4.0 of the report function as background information and were not changed in response to stakeholder consultation (i.e. text and draft directions remain as presented in the October 21, 2016 report). As noted above, the appendices outline the comments received from meetings and written material and how the draft preliminary policy directions were revised in response to that feedback. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 4 Page 4

5 FINAL CONSOLIDATED POLICY DIRECTIONS POLICY DIRECTION A: The MOP is intended to be one of a series of policies, guidelines and regulations that direct the actions of the District and shapes land use planning, growth and development. It is the intent of the District to: 1. Establish a broad, upper tier policy framework that provides guidance to local municipalities in the preparation of updated local Official Plans, Official Plan Amendments and zoning by-laws; 2. Implement the Provincial Policy Statement at the District level using a made in Muskoka approach that recognizes the unique opportunities and challenges in the District provided the results are outcome oriented and evidence-based; 3. Establish a framework for coordination and cooperation amongst the local municipalities and the District on planning and development issues that cross municipal boundaries; 4. Recognizes the diversity that exists amongst the Area Municipalities and builds on the strengths of the District as a whole and each of its component parts; 5. Provide the strategic direction required to realize common goals and objectives; and 6. Recognize the importance of the land use planning responsibilities that are vested with the area municipalities. POLICY DIRECTION B: A clean and healthy environment and a strong economy are inextricably linked in the District. The environment is made up of more than 600 lakes with a vast rural area made up of contiguous forested areas. These elements combine to create the sense of place that is unique to Muskoka and is known around the world. On the economic side, the District is a premier destination for vacationers that generates upwards of 400 million dollars annually and it is one of the choice locations in Ontario for permanent and seasonal residents that are attracted to the awe inspiring environment. With this in mind, the MOP should establish as a first principle that development activity be undertaken in a manner that preserves and enhances the features, functions, and interconnections of the natural environment that sustains what is Muskoka for future generations. POLICY DIRECTION #1: The MOP should include the population, household and employment projections included within Tables 1 to 5 in this report and in accordance with the District of Muskoka Growth Strategy as best estimates for planning purposes to be used for growth and asset management including infrastructure and public service facilities. These best planning estimates should Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 5 Page 5

6 be updated as required when new information becomes available. POLICY DIRECTION #2: The MOP should include policies that require the local municipalities to identify the extent of the built up area in each of the Urban Centres in consultation with the District where intensification and redevelopment will be directed. POLICY DIRECTION #3: The MOP should identify the extent of the urban service area in each of the Urban Centres and include policies that require the optimization of existing services before considering the extension of services as a first principle. POLICY DIRECTION #4: The MOP should include policies that establish the District s commitment to monitor permanent and seasonal population growth, demographic composition, and development activity in partnership with the Area Municipalities on a regular basis. POLICY DIRECTION #5: The MOP should include policies that do not restrict the District or a local municipality from planning for infrastructure and public service facilities beyond POLICY DIRECTION #6: The MOP should include a policy that indicates that firstly, Urban Centres then secondly, rural settlement areas should be the focus of growth and development. POLICY DIRECTION #7: The MOP should establish the boundaries of each settlement area (Urban Centres and Communities) on the schedules to the Official Plan. POLICY DIRECTION #8: The MOP should include policies that require that 70% of new permanent housing growth in the District be directed to the Urban Centres and that the following Urban Centre targets be established in the Area Municipalities in accordance with the District of Muskoka Growth Strategy: Bracebridge - 80% Huntsville - 60% Gravenhurst - 80% Muskoka Lakes - 70% Georgian Bay - 80% Lake of Bays - 20% POLICY DIRECTION #9: The MOP should include policies that require the local municipality to determine how much growth is to occur within individual rural settlement areas, in a manner that is consistent with the PPS POLICY DIRECTION #10: The MOP should include policies that indicate that permanent residential development on rural lands should be limited in relation to the amount of permanent residential development occurring within settlement Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 6 Page 6

7 areas. POLICY DIRECTION #11: The MOP should establish a minimum intensification target of 25% District wide, with each Area Municipality developing specific criteria for Urban Centres through the preparation of intensification strategies in consultation with the District. POLICY DIRECTION #12: The MOP should include policies that require each local municipality develop an intensification strategy that sets out how the intensification target is to be implemented and monitored, in consideration of the targets referenced in Directions #8, 13, 31, 32, 33. POLICY DIRECTION #13: The MOP should include policies that permit, encourage and support the establishment of small scale and appropriately located home businesses and enhanced communication networks that involve the collection of knowledge and the sharing of information in a variety of settings within the Urban Centres, Community Areas, the Rural Area and the Waterfront Area. POLICY DIRECTION #14: The MOP should include policies that require the maintenance of a range and choice of suitable sites for resorts and other accommodation facilities (including tent and trailer parks and campgrounds) that take into account the needs of existing and future businesses. POLICY DIRECTION #15: The MOP should include policies that encourage the Area Municipalities to review their policies that apply to employment areas and determine how they could be modified and updated to permit a broad range of employment-supportive uses, provided that consideration is also given to protecting the viability of existing uses. POLICY DIRECTION #16: The MOP should require that Area Municipal Official Plans contain policies that set out what is required to be demonstrated if there is a request to remove lands from the Employment Area designation in the local Official Plan. In this regard, it must be demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a need for the conversion. POLICY DIRECTION #17: The MOP should require that Area Municipal Official Plans contain policies that establish what is required to be demonstrated when a sensitive land use is proposed adjacent to employment uses or vice versa. POLICY DIRECTION #18: The MOP should define agriculture in the Muskoka context and include policies that permit a wide range of agricultural uses in the Rural Area and direct the local municipalities to identify the conditions under which these uses are to be permitted. POLICY DIRECTION #19: The MOP should include policies that specifically permit the following additional uses in the rural areas (including Waterfront Areas) subject to area municipal policies that control their scale and location to ensure Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 7 Page 7

8 compatibility with surrounding character and the protection of sensitive environmental features: Bed and breakfast establishments (or rural inns) that accommodate up to 10 rooms; Home industries (which is a new permission in the PPS 2014), which could be developed within a single detached dwelling or an accessory building, subject to reasonable controls; Small-scale conference facilities and learning centres; Small-scale art galleries and exhibition space; and Small-scale restaurant and entertainment venues. POLICY DIRECTION #20: The MOP should include the following objectives that relate specifically to resort development: 1. To ensure that existing and new resorts have a commercial component, so that travellers and vacationers continue to visit the District and contribute to the local economy; 2. To ensure that appropriate guarantees are in place to ensure that the District does not become responsible for water and wastewater servicing at resorts with a residential component that are not on urban services; 3. To limit the conversion of existing resorts to residential use in support of the first objective; and 4. To ensure that new resorts are appropriately located in a manner that minimizes impacts on the environment and water quality and is compatible with the character and nature of adjacent development. POLICY DIRECTION #21: The resort policies in the MOP should generally be broad, strategic and flexible and allow for the Area Municipalities and the development community to appropriately tailor policies to their local circumstances, in consultation with the District. POLICY DIRECTION #22: The definition of 'resort' in the MOP should be sufficiently broad to distinguish resorts from other types of accommodation establishments and to provide the flexibility needed to respond to evolving trends and types of resort experiences. In addition, the policies should recognize that there are different scales, locations, and functions of resorts, which may require flexible policy approaches, including variation in the quantity and type of on-site amenities and management that are offered. POLICY DIRECTION #23: The MOP should include a principle that generally requires a minimum of 50% of the accommodation units in any resort within any designation to be available to the general public on a short-term basis subject to all servicing requirements being met. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 8 Page 8

9 POLICY DIRECTION #24: The MOP should include policies that require the first phase of any new mixed resort and resort-related residential development in any designation to be in the form of accommodation units that are available to the general public on a short-term basis. POLICY DIRECTION #25: The MOP should include policies that require resorts to offer amenities and services that are available to resort owners, guests and visitors at minimum, but also encouraging amenities to be available to the general public on a commercial basis when appropriate and feasible. However, the determination of the scale, amount and type of amenities offered will be dependent on the location, scale and function of the resort as determined by Area Municipalities, in consultation with the District. POLICY DIRECTION #26: The MOP should continue to include policies that require the establishment of a reserve fund or other type of financial guarantee to protect District interests in cases where private communal services are proposed for multi-unit resort development and especially when resort-related residential units are to be a component of the resort. POLICY DIRECTION #27: The MOP should continue to include policies that support the retention of resort properties on lakefront properties. However, the policies should generally establish less onerous tests for smaller properties and provide for the consideration of the viability of the resort use and alternative permitted uses in making a determination on whether the resort use can and/or should be converted. POLICY DIRECTION #28: The MOP should include a minimum target for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households in accordance with Section a) of the PPS Targets may potentially include percentage of units to be affordable within the District, Area Municipality, secondary planning areas or individual developments as appropriate and in consultation with the Area Municipalities, and may also address timing of provision (i.e. in the first phase of a multi-phased development). POLICY DIRECTION #29: The MOP should establish a minimum density target for new development in the designated growth area of each of the Urban Centres in consultation with the Area Municipalities. POLICY DIRECTION #30: The MOP should establish housing mix targets for new development in the designated growth area of each of the Urban Centres as outlined below and in accordance with the District of Muskoka Growth Strategy: Bracebridge: Low - 70%, Medium - 15%, High - 15% Huntsville: Low - 60%, Medium - 25%, High - 15% Gravenhurst: Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 9 Page 9

10 Low - 70%, Medium - 15%, High - 15% Muskoka Lakes: Low - 80%, Medium - 15%, High - 5% Georgian Bay: Low - 50%, Medium - 45%, High - 5% Lake of Bays: Low - 85%, Medium - 10%, High - 5% POLICY DIRECTION #31: Archaeological policies in the MOP should generally be expanded to be more comprehensive, including a policy that requires the updating of the 1994 Archaeological Potential Model for the District of Muskoka to ensure that the most up to date information is available when applications for development are being assessed. POLICY DIRECTION #32: The MOP should include a policy that requires the consideration of the archaeological potential of any lands when new lots are proposed through the development process in areas of archaeological potential. POLICY DIRECTION #33: The MOP should include encourage and support the development of educational program/materials regarding Aboriginal and cultural heritage and history in Muskoka as a heightened awareness and appreciation of the importance of cultural heritage and archaeological resources is an effective means of protecting these resources. POLICY DIRECTION #34: The MOP should include policies that recognize the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change by fostering resiliency of communities and requiring the consideration of climate change through the planning process, including environmental protection, health and resource considerations. POLICY DIRECTION #35: The MOP should include policies that require the preparation of stormwater management strategies and plans that: Minimize, or, where possible, prevent increases in contaminant loads; Minimize changes in water balance and erosion; Not increase risks to human health and safety and property damage; Maximize the extent and function of vegetative and pervious surfaces; and Promote stormwater management best practices, including stormwater attenuation and re-use, and low impact development. POLICY DIRECTION #36: The MOP should establish a definition of what a healthy and complete community is in the Muskoka context based on the following Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 10 Page 10

11 principles: Provides choices and opportunities for all residents of all ages, by providing a diverse range of housing types, transportation modes, employment options, and recreation or leisure activities; Balances the defining characteristics of the identity such as rural character and natural environment, with economic development and growth; and Efficiently manages the natural and social resources of the community to achieve the optimal benefits for all residents of all ages. POLICY DIRECTION #37: The MOP should include policies that address the goals identified in the Ryerson (April 2016) report on healthy and complete communities, including planning for an aging population, and as appropriate given the District's rural context. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 11 Page 11

12 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Paterson Report, 1969, specifically noted the need to undertake a comprehensive planning program for the District In particular, the report noted the following: The need to closely integrate planning, development control and pollution control activities into an effective program capable of preserving Muskoka s natural assets, [was] the most pressing need facing the District. The first District of Muskoka Official Plan ('MOP') was adopted in The current MOP is a strategic document that addresses issues of a broad nature and between 1991 and 2009, the MOP has been updated on an incremental basis by way of Official Plan Amendment ('OPA') to deal with the issues of the day, and these include the following: Technical OPA's (OPA's 1, 2, 5, 24, 27, 34); Resource policies (OPA 13); Height policies (OPA 15); Settlement patterns (OPA 22); Services and utilities (OPA 23); Affordable housing (OPA 29); Private communal servicing (OPA 30); Lake system health (OPA 32); and, Transportation, review of Schedule H and active transportation (OPA's 33 and 37). The current review of the MOP (referred to as the 'MOPR' in this report) was initiated in 2011, as per the recommendations made in report PED Prior to formally initiating the MOPR process, the District completed a number of background studies that were designed to ultimately inform the MOPR, ensure consistency with Provincial policy and legislation, or to address emerging issues of District significance. Each of these initiatives involved consultation with the Province, Area Municipalities, stakeholder groups, and/or the public. These projects included: Growth Strategy (2009); Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 12 Page 12

13 Economic Strategy (2009); Species at Risk: Potentially Suitable Habitat Mapping (2009); Active Transportation Strategy and OPA (2010); Moving Toward Attainable Housing in Muskoka (2011); Muskoka Moving Forward Visioning Exercise (2011) and OPA (2013); Building Strong Communities: Integrating Residential Condominiums into Urban Centres (2011); and, Urban Centres Natural Heritage Review (2011). A further report was prepared on the MOPR on June 11, 2012 (PED ). This report provided the Planning and Economic Development (PED) Committee with an update on the status of the work program. This report also came after the required special meeting of District Council was held on May 28, 2012 (held pursuant to Section 26 of the Planning Act), and which was well attended by members of the public. A number of additional studies and reports were completed between 2012 and 2013 as set out below: Muskoka's Foodshed: A Strategy for Sustainable Local Food in a Creative Rural Economy (2012); Agriculture in Muskoka: Tools for a Sustainable Future - Local Food Solutions (2012); Aboriginal Engagement Program for the Visioning Initiative (2012); Resorts and Tourism Official Plan Policy Review (2013); Second Home Study (2013); Growth Strategy Update (2013); Official Plan Amendment No. 41 Secondary Dwelling Units (2012); and, Official Plan Amendment No. 42 Vision (2013). OPA 42 was the culmination of a comprehensive visioning initiative that involved the participation of over 2,700 permanent and seasonal residents from across Muskoka. The vision and guiding principles now included within the MOP by OPA 42 functions as the framework for further policy updates through the endorsed work plan for the MOPR. The MOPR is divided into five stages to be led by Meridian Planning Consultants and managed by PED staff with regular reporting to the PED Committee: Stage 1: Start-up Meeting and Background Stage 2: Preliminary Directions Report Stage 3: Draft Policies and Aboriginal Community Engagement Stage 4: Consultation and Public Meetings Stage 5: Adoption and Approval Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 13 Page 13

14 As of July 21, 2016 and as set out in report PED , the first stage of the MOPR is now complete and policy background papers have been finalized which are intended to summarize the key land use planning issues facing Muskoka, pull together the recommendations from approximately twenty background studies and reports, highlight relevant research, and describe implementation challenges. The papers do not make recommendations, but are intended to form a basis for preliminary policy direction discussions. The second stage of the project is intended to result in the development of Policy Directions that would provide a framework to inform the development of draft policies. The second stage was initiated with a consultant-led working session with PED Committee that was held as a Special Meeting of PED Committee on the afternoon of July 21, At this Special Meeting, the PED Committee was asked a number of questions that were intended to assist in determining how priority topic areas should be addressed in the MOPR. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The purpose of this report is to present a series of recommended Policy Directions that will be relied upon to prepare new and updated Official Plan policies. There are a number of factors that need to be considered in the preparation of the required Policy Directions. These are briefly discussed below. The preparation of an Official Plan is subject to the Planning Act. The purpose of the Planning Act is a key consideration and this is discussed in Section 2.1 of this report. The Planning Act requirement for the District of Muskoka to have an Official Plan is briefly reviewed in Section 2.2 of this report. Section 26 of the Planning Act specifically requires that Official Plans be updated to ensure that it has regard to the matters of Provincial interest listed in Section 2 of the Planning Act. These matters of Provincial interest to a very large extent set the tone for the expectations of the Province (who is the approval authority for the updated MOP) and these matters of Provincial interest are presented in Section 2.3 of this report. Section 26 of the Planning Act also requires that Official Plans be revised to ensure that it is consistent with policy statements issued under Subsection 3(1) of the Planning Act. Given that the Provincial Policy Statement was recently updated in 2014 ('PPS 2014'), there is much to consider. The language used in the PPS 2014 is also key to understanding and determining how the policies should be implemented and by whom. In addition, some of the policies are mandatory, while others are not. Lastly, some of the policies may be more appropriate in a lower tier Official Plan and not in the MOP. In addition to the above, the determination of whether the MOP should be strategic or prescriptive in nature is a key factor to consider. Given that there are local Official Plans applying in each of the local municipalities, the opportunity exists for more detailed policies to be included within the local Official Plan to ensure consistency with the PPS Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 14 Page 14

15 2014. However, there will still be a need in those cases for the MOP to direct that these more detailed policies actually be included within a local Official Plan. The PPS 2014 is discussed in detail in Section 2.4 of this report. In addition to all of the above, the District went through a comprehensive and far reaching public process in 2012/2013 that resulted in the establishment of a vision and a series of guiding principles, which are now included within the MOP. This vision and series of guiding principles essentially become the starting point in the assessment of possible Policy Directions. The vision and guiding principles are discussed in Section 3.0 of this report. The vision and guiding principles were discussed in detail with the PED Committee on July 21, The results of that meeting and the themes discussed are reviewed in this section of the report as well. On the basis of the extensive and thoughtful comments made by the PED Committee, two over-arching Policy Directions have been prepared and are recommended for consideration. These two Policy Directions (Policy Directions A and B) deal with the role of the MOP in relation to the area municipal Official Plans and the strong interrelationship between the economy and the environment, which has long been a planning principle in the District of Muskoka. Section 4.0 of this report reviews the PPS 2014 in detail and a number of Policy Directions are contained within this section. These Policy Directions are informed by: The significant amount of background work already completed by the District; The District priorities that have already been identified; The comments made by the PED Committee on July 21, 2016; The comments of planning staff at the District and the area municipalities; and, The PPS The background work already completed by the District is a significant factor to consider since the work already completed is comprehensive, detailed and in many cases establishes a clear path forward in terms of policy implementation. It should be noted that the recommended Policy Directions in this report deal with the broader policy themes that need to be dealt with in the context of the MOPR and do not deal with every Provincial policy requirement nor discuss every policy change that may be considered as the process unfolds. Instead, the Policy Directions are really intended to set the direction for the more detailed work that will be undertaken in the review of the MOP. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 15 Page 15

16 Finally, in developing these recommended Policy Directions, we generally applied the following principles: The Policy Directions should: 1. Build upon the already established vision and guiding principles in the MOP in a more concrete way. 2. Focus on the opportunities and attributes of the District that exist now or will in the future. 3. Be designed to overcome current known challenges and constraints. 4. Incorporate aspirations for a better future. 5. Identify the outcomes that are to be achieved, if applicable. In addition, the recommended Policy Directions have been worded in a clear and concise manner so that they are: Generally understood by members of the community; Actionable and implementable through policy; Inspiring, uplifting and positive; and, Easy to communicate. In the end, the Policy Direction process is intended to be aspirational. It is also about: Looking to the future and making the District a better place; Not being tied to the approaches of the past but recognizing what has been effective; and, Basing directions on sustainability with future generations in mind. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 16 Page 16

17 2.0 PROVINCIAL FACTORS TO CONSIDER 2.1 THE PLANNING ACT It is the Planning Act that governs municipal decisions on land use planning matters. Section 1.1 of the Act states that the purposes of the Act are: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) To promote sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment within the policy and by the means provided under this Act; To provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy; To integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions; To provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient; To encourage co-operation and co-ordination among various interests; To recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning. The first three items above have a direct impact on the preparation of an Official Plan, which is a document that is decided upon by an elected Council. Item (b) clearly articulates the Provincial requirement that the 'land use planning system' in Ontario is 'led by Provincial policy'. 2.2 REQUIREMENT TO HAVE AN OFFICIAL PLAN The District of Muskoka is required to have an Official Plan in accordance with Ontario Regulation 352/02. There is no similar requirement for a local municipality to have an Official Plan. Section 16(1)(a) of the Planning Act states that an Official Plan shall contain: Goals, objectives and policies established primarily to manage and direct physical change and the effects on the social, economic, built and natural environment of the municipality or part of it. Given that the District of Muskoka already has an Official Plan, Section 26(1) of the Planning Act requires that any Official Plan be revised as required to ensure that it has regard to the matters of Provincial interest listed in Section 2 and is consistent with policy statements issued under subsection 3(1). Both are discussed below. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 17 Page 17

18 2.3 MATTERS OF PROVINCIAL INTEREST Section 2 of the Planning Act sets out the responsibilities of a Council of a municipality and it states the following: The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as, (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (h.1) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) (r) The protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions; The protection of the agricultural resources of the province; The conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base; The conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; The supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water; The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; The minimization of waste; The orderly development of safe and healthy communities; The accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this act applies; The adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities; The adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; The adequate provision of employment opportunities; The protection of the financial and economic well-being of the province and its municipalities; The co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies; The resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests; The protection of public health and safety; The appropriate location of growth and development; The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; The promotion of built form that, (i) Is well-designed, (ii) Encourages a sense of place, and (iii) Provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant. The process of updating the MOP has to have regard to the matters of Provincial interest above and the product of the update also has to have regard to the matters of Provincial interest as well. 2.4 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 18 Page 18

19 2.4.1 Impact on Decision Making Section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act states the following: A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Municipal Board, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision. Section 3(6)(a) of the Planning Act then states the following: Comments, submissions or advice affecting a planning matter that are provided by the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister or ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date the comments, submissions or advice are provided. The Policy Statement that is currently in effect is the PPS 2014, which came into effect on April 30, The overall context for municipal decision-making that is required to be consistent with the PPS 2014 is established in the first two paragraphs of the Part 1 Preamble to the PPS 2014: The Provincial Policy Statement provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. As a key part of Ontario s policy-led planning system, the Provincial Policy Statement sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land. It also supports the provincial goal to enhance the quality of life for all Ontarians. The Provincial Policy Statement provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The Provincial Policy Statement supports improved land use planning and management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land use planning system. The matters of Provincial interest mentioned in the first paragraph above are included within Section 2 of the Planning Act, as discussed above Provincial Vision Part IV of the PPS 2014 establishes the vision for Ontario's land use planning system and it clearly indicates that one of the keys to the long-term prosperity and social wellbeing of Ontario residents is a strong economy. Below are those components of the vision that speak to the need for a strong economy: The long-term prosperity and social well-being of Ontario depends upon planning for strong, sustainable and resilient communities for people of all ages, a clean and healthy environment, and a strong and competitive economy. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 19 Page 19

20 Ontario is a vast province with diverse urban, rural and northern communities which may face different challenges related to diversity in population levels, economic activity, pace of growth and physical and natural conditions. Some areas face challenges related to maintaining population and diversifying their economy, while other areas face challenges related to accommodating and managing the development and population growth which is occurring, while protecting important resources and the quality of the natural environment. The Provincial Policy Statement reflects this diversity and is based on good planning principles that apply in communities across Ontario. The Provincial Policy Statement focuses growth within settlement areas and away from significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose a risk to public health and safety. It recognizes that the wise management of land use change may involve directing, promoting or sustaining development. Land use must be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate development to meet the full range of current and future needs, while achieving efficient development patterns and avoiding significant or sensitive resources and areas which may pose a risk to public health and safety. The Province s natural heritage resources, water, agricultural lands, mineral resources, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources provide important environmental, economic and social benefits. The wise use and management of these resources over the long term is a key provincial interest. The Province must ensure that its resources are managed in a sustainable way to protect essential ecological processes and public health and safety, minimize environmental and social impacts, and meet its long-term needs. Strong communities, a clean and healthy environment and a strong economy are inextricably linked. Long-term prosperity, human and environmental health and social well-being should take precedence over short-term considerations. The fundamental principles set out in the Provincial Policy Statement apply throughout Ontario. To support our collective well-being, now and in the future, all land use must be well managed. Given the significance of the natural heritage resources and the lakes and rivers in the District of Muskoka to the local economy, the introductory paragraph in Section 2.0 (Wise Use and Management of Resources) of the PPS 2014 is particularly applicable and it states the following: Ontario's long-term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being depend on conserving biodiversity, protecting the health of the Great Lakes, and protecting natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral and cultural heritage and archaeological resources for their economic, environmental and social benefits. Accordingly: It is noted that this paragraph sets the stage for the remaining policies in Section 2.0 of the PPS 2014 as a result of the use of the word accordingly at the end. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 20 Page 20

21 2.4.3 Impact of the PPS 2014 on the MOPR With respect to the implications of the PPS 2014 on the MOPR, Section 4.7 of the PPS 2014 states the following: The official plan is the most important vehicle for implementation of this Provincial Policy Statement. Comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is best achieved through official plans. Official plans shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. To determine the significance of some natural heritage features and other resources, evaluation may be required. Official plans should also coordinate cross-boundary matters to complement the actions of other planning authorities and promote mutually beneficial solutions. Official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas. In order to protect provincial interests, planning authorities shall keep their official plans up-to-date with this Provincial Policy Statement. The policies of this Provincial Policy Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of an official plan The Use of Words in the PPS 2014 The PPS 2014 significantly expanded upon Part III (How to Read the Provincial Policy Statement) from the PPS There is now a discussion in Part III on the need to read the entire PPS, the need to consider specific policy language and the geographic scale of the policies. This section also confirms that the policies represent minimum standards and it also articulates the relationship of the PPS 2014 with Provincial plans. This new section also contains direction on defined terms and meanings and guidance material. There is one enhancement in Part III of interest that was made in 2014 and it deals with the language used in the PPS This enhancement is reproduced below: When applying the Provincial Policy Statement it is important to consider the specific language of the policies. Each policy provides direction on how it is to be implemented, how it is situated within the broader Provincial Policy Statement, and how it relates to other policies. Some policies set out positive directives, such as settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development. Other policies set out limitations and prohibitions, such as development and site alteration shall not be permitted. Other policies use enabling or supportive language, such as should, promote and encourage. The choice of language is intended to distinguish between the types of policies and the nature of implementation. There is some discretion when applying a policy with enabling or supportive language in contrast to a policy with a directive, limitation or prohibition. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 21 Page 21

22 On the basis of the above, it is clear that the Province, in writing and updating the PPS 2014, was very cautious and deliberate with respect to the words used. Of particular interest to decision-makers is whether a particular policy incorporates the word shall, should, promote or encourage. The latter three are enabling or supportive, while the first (shall) when applied to a policy is a directive, limitation or prohibition. All of the shalls mentioned in the PPS 2014 have to be balanced when considering how to update the MOP (in this regard, there are 111 shalls in the PPS 2014). In addition, no single policy in the PPS 2014 is intended to act as an over-ride over other policies. In other words, all policies have to be considered and applied (subject of course to the policy having some relevance). The word 'shall' when used means that the policy requirement that follows is mandatory. This is supported by the statement in Part III of the PPS 2014, which indicates that there is some discretion when applying a policy with enabling or supportive language in contrast to a policy with a directive, limitation or prohibition. In this regard, wherever the word shall is used, it is a directive, limitation or a prohibition. With respect to the MOPR, below is a list of a few of the relevant directives, limitations and prohibitions (using the word 'shall') from the PPS 2014 that will need to be considered in the MOPR (a more fulsome discussion of the PPS 2014 is found in Section 4.0 of this report): Section Sufficient land shall be made available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of up to 20 years. Section Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Section Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses which support a number of objectives. Section e) - Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the uppertier municipality in consultation with lower-tier municipalities shall identify and provide policy direction for the lower-tier municipalities on matters that cross municipal boundaries. Section a) Planning authorities shall promote economic development and competiveness by providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment and institutional uses to meet long term needs. Section In rural areas, rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Section Infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers impacts from climate change while accommodating projected needs. Section Efficient use shall be made of existing and planned infrastructure, including through the use of transportation demand management strategies, where feasible. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 22 Page 22

23 Section Transportation and land use considerations shall be integrated at all stages of the planning process. Section Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term. Section Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in certain features. Section Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Section Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. Section Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by... Section Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored. Section Mineral aggregate resources shall be protected for long-term use and, where provincial information is available, deposits of mineral aggregate resources shall be identified. Section As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible. Section Extraction shall be undertaken in a manner that minimizes social, economic and environmental impacts. Section This Provincial Policy Statement shall be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation Balancing of Policy The word 'shall' was used on 96 occasions within PPS The number of 'shalls' in the PPS 2014 now totals 111. Given the mandatory requirement in the PPS 2014 that comes with the use of the word 'shall', there clearly is a need to determine how the many mandatory policies in the PPS 2014 are to be balanced against each other. As a starting point, Section 4.4 of the PPS 2014 states the following: This Provincial Policy Statement shall be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 23 Page 23

24 A further consideration in making a determination on how policies should be balanced in Section 4.9 of the PPS 2014 which deals with minimum standards and which states the following: The policies of the Provincial Policy Statement represent minimum standards. This Provincial Policy Statement does not prevent planning authorities and decision makers from going beyond the minimum standards established in specific policies, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of this Provincial Policy Statement. In addition, the following is also stated in Part III of the PPS 2014: The Provincial Policy Statement is more than a set of individual policies. It is to be read in its entirety and the relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. When more than one policy is relevant, a decision maker should consider all of the relevant policies to consider how they work together. The language of each policy, including the implementation and interpretation policies, will assist decision makers in understanding how the policies are to be implemented. While specific policies sometimes refer to other policies for ease of use, these cross-references do not take away from the need to read the Provincial Policy Statement as a whole. There is no implied priority in the order in which the policies appear. Given the above direction from the PPS 2014, there are always challenges with the interpretation of how relevant policies are to be balanced and ultimately, which policy is more relevant than another policy. For example, Section of the PPS 2014 states the following: New development taking place in designated growth areas should occur adjacent to the existing built up area and shall have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities. Section then states the following: Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term. In many parts of the Province, natural features and areas are located adjacent to the built up area and many disputes have arisen as a consequence with respect to which of these two policies should take priority, or alternatively, which policy should be given more weight when making a decision. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 24 Page 24

25 2.4.6 Applicability of the PPS to Central Ontario (as opposed to Southern Ontario) The District of Muskoka is considered by many to be in Central Ontario as opposed to being in Southern Ontario or Northern Ontario. However, some Federal funding programs consider the District to be in Northern Ontario' (i.e. FedNor Northern Ontario Development Program). On the other hand, the Provincial Growth Plan for Northern Ontario stops at the District s northern border. This suggests that the District of Muskoka does not clearly fit into either Northern or Southern Ontario. However, regardless of how the District is classified, it certainly is not part of Southern Ontario, which is characterized by prime agricultural areas and a number of major urban centres, although Muskoka is impacted by growth trends in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Instead, the District s geography is made of rocks and trees and pockets of development. With the above in mind, a number of changes were made to the PPS in 2014 to recognize the vastness of the Province of Ontario and the different circumstances that apply. Both the PPS 2005 and the PPS 2014 included the following within Part 4: Ontario is a vast province with diverse urban, rural and northern communities which may face different challenges related to diversity in population levels (the word 'levels' was deleted in 2014 PPS), economic activity, pace of growth and physical and natural conditions. Some areas face challenges related to maintaining population and diversifying their economy, while other areas face challenges related to accommodating and managing the development of population growth which is occurring, while protecting important resources and the quality of the natural environment. However, a few changes were made to the PPS in 2014 that expand upon this basic understanding. Firstly, a new subsection entitled 'Geographic Scale of Policies' was added to Part III of the PPS 2014, which is entitled 'How to Read the Provincial Policy Statement.' This new addition is reproduced below. The Provincial Policy Statement recognizes the diversity of Ontario and that local context is important. Policies are outcome oriented and some policies provide flexibility in their implementation provided that their provincial interests are upheld. While the Provincial Policy Statement is to be read as a whole, not all policies will be applicable to every site, feature or area. The Provincial Policy Statement applies at a range of geographic scales. Some of the policies refer to specific areas or features and can only be applied where these features or areas exist. Other policies refer to planning objectives that need to be considered in the context of the municipality or planning area as a whole and are not necessarily applicable to a specific site or development proposal. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 25 Page 25

26 The new language above in Part III of the PPS 2014 recognizes that not every policy has to be applied in the consideration of every development application. The new language also recognizes that policies dealing with features that are not present are therefore not relevant. For example, there are no prime agricultural areas in the District of Muskoka. As a result, the policies in the PPS 2014 dealing with prime agricultural areas simply do not apply. However, that does not automatically mean the agricultural policies should not be developed, with these policies being appropriate for the District of Muskoka. However, there is one particular component of the new language that is particularly relevant to the MOPR. While there was some recognition previously in the PPS 2005 of the diversity of the Province, there was no explicit recognition that the 'context of the municipality' is important. However, there is now recognition that consistency with the policies is 'outcome oriented', which means that the way in which a policy is implemented can be tailored to the specific circumstances of the upper-tier municipality, the lower-tier municipalities or both. The caveat to the above is that the solution must be evidence-based as necessary, be consistent with the PPS 2014 and have regard to the Provincial interests reflected in Section 2 of the Planning Act The PPS 2014 and Rural Areas In recognition both of the diversity of the Province from a geographic perspective and perhaps in recognition of the fact that while much of the population lives in urban areas, that there is a vast rural area as well, a number of other changes were made to the PPS 2014 affecting rural areas that will have an impact on the MOPR. The most significant change in this regard involved the re-classification of the basic land use components in the Province. The PPS 2005 essentially divided the Province into three land use categories 'settlement area', 'prime agricultural area' and 'rural area'. The PPS 2014 has reduced the number of categories to two with one being 'settlement area' and the second being 'rural area'. In order to accomplish this, a revised rural area definition has been added into the PPS 2014 and it means a system of lands within municipalities that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas, natural features and areas and resource areas. Two new paragraphs on rural areas were also added to Section of the PPS 2014: Rural areas are important to the economic success of the Province and our quality of life. Rural areas are a system of lands that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas, natural heritage features and areas, and other resource areas. Rural areas and urban areas are interdependent in terms of markets, resources and amenities. It is important to leverage rural assets and amenities and protect the environment as a foundation for a sustainable economy. Ontario s rural areas have diverse population levels, natural resources, geographies and physical characteristics, and economies. Across rural Ontario, local circumstances vary by region. For example, northern Ontario s natural Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 26 Page 26

27 environment and vast geography offer different opportunities than the predominately agricultural areas of southern regions of the Province. The first paragraph above further reinforces the other changes made to the PPS 2014 that recognize the vastness of the Province. However, there is also recognition and direction that it is important to 'leverage rural assets and amenities and protect the environment as a foundation for a sustainable economy. There is also recognition of the different population levels, types of natural resources and physical characteristics and more importantly the different types of economies that exist in Ontario s rural areas. Lastly, there is specific recognition of Northern Ontario s natural environment and vast geography, with respect to the different opportunities that it offers and the large portions of the Province that are rural in nature. Given that the terms Northern Ontario and rural in the context of Section of the PPS 2014 are contrasted with the predominately agricultural areas of the southern regions of the Province; the District appears to fit into the Northern Ontario category while also being part of Ontario's rural area. In keeping with the above, another significant policy addition resulting from this change in approach is a new Section , which states the following: Healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by: a) Building upon rural character, and leveraging rural amenities and assets; b) Promoting regeneration, including the redevelopment of brownfield sites; c) Accommodating an appropriate range and mix of housing in rural settlement areas; d) Encouraging the conservation and redevelopment of existing rural housing stock on rural lands; e) Using rural infrastructure and public service facilities efficiently; f) Promoting diversification of the economic base and employment opportunities through goods and services, including value-added products and the sustainable management or use of resources; g) Providing opportunities for sustainable and diversified tourism, including leveraging historical, cultural, and natural assets; h) Conserving biodiversity and considering the ecological benefits provided by nature; and i) Providing opportunities for economic activities in prime agricultural areas, in accordance with policy 2.3. As a consequence of the above, it is clear that one of the intents of the Province in making changes to the PPS 2014 was to provide some additional direction and support for economic development initiatives in rural areas. It is noted that there is also a new 'rural lands' definition, which applies to non-prime agricultural areas outside of urban areas. In the case of the District of Muskoka, all lands outside of the urban areas are considered to be 'rural lands' as a result of the absence of prime agricultural areas. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 27 Page 27

28 Within the rural lands section in Section of the PPS 2014, the following uses are permitted in Section as set out below: On rural lands located in municipalities, permitted uses are: a) The management or use of resources; b) Resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings); c) Limited residential development; d) Home occupations and home industries; e) Cemeteries; and f) Other rural land uses. Home occupations, home industries and cemeteries have been added as permitted uses. In addition, the previous permission in the PPS 2005 for 'resource based recreational activities' has been replaced by 'resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings)' in recognition firstly of the difficulty in determining what an 'activity' is and secondly to recognize that recreational dwellings do exist and are common in many rural areas. It is noted that while limited residential development is permitted, no definition of limited is provided. There is also recognition in the PPS 2014 that within rural areas, rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth, which is not new. However, the servicing and related lot creation policies in the PPS 2014 have not changed in a significant way that would provide for more development within rural settlement areas. In fact, in both cases, development is restricted to infilling and rounding out. However, it is recognized that the PPS 2014 no longer references the restriction to a maximum of five lots to be on private services in rural settlement areas Additional Provincial Guidance for Rural Areas In August 2016, the Province released a report entitled: An Introduction to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014: Rural Ontario. The following is indicated early on in the document with respect to its relevance and applicability: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has prepared this document, including the scenarios set out in the appendix, to assist participants in the land use planning process to understand the Provincial Policy Statement, As this document deals in summarized fashion with complex matters and reflects legislation, policies and practices that are subject to change, it should not be relied upon as a substitute for specialized, legal or professional advice in connection with any particular matter. The following is indicated in the context section of the report with respect to rural Ontario: In order to accommodate the realities of rural Ontario, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 includes new rural policies and promotes flexibility in recognizing the differences in rural Ontario communities. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 28 Page 28

29 The following is also indicated with respect to the differences that exist across the province and the municipal role: The policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 were designed to respect the differences that exist across the province. Municipalities play a key role in implementing them through their Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws and their decisions on development applications. Local conditions must be taken into account when applying the policies and when developing Official Plan policies. For example, policies encouraging public transit may not be applicable in areas where the current and projected populations are not expected to support public transit service. Notwithstanding the statement above, there are no actual policies in the PPS 2014 that establish a different policy context for different geographic areas. For example, the policies that apply to rural lands and rural areas apply across the Province without exception. While there is recognition that local context plays a role in making decisions, there are no specific locational criteria attached to any policy in the PPS 2014 that takes local context into account. In the section entitled 'applying the Provincial Policy Statement' there is a discussion of 'local planning context. In this regard, it is indicated that the focus of the PPS 2014 is on desired outcomes and 'may not always prescribe the process that must be followed. In addition, the language of the specific policies used is identified, along with the geographic scale of the policies and the minimum standards established. However, none of these establish different roles or approaches based on geographies. Notwithstanding the lack of context provided in the report, a number of practical scenarios are presented in the appendix. Within the preamble of this appendix, the following is stated: The analysis of the scenarios of this section is focused on only some of the key policies in the PPS 2014 that may be relevant to the proposals. Based on the above, it is not clear whether these practical scenarios are intended to represent specific proposals only, which require some level of municipal review or can be applied much more broadly. The following is further stated to add value to the practical scenarios that have been established: The focus on only some of the key Provincial Policy Statement 2014 policies in this section is designed to highlight certain key policies and provide a sample of some planning considerations that would need to be assessed. It was necessary to avoid significant detail to ensure the scenarios in the analysis were not overly long and complicated. Scenario 3 in the Appendix deals with limited residential development on rural lands. The scenario tests the submission of an application to create an eight lot residential Plan of Subdivision in a rural area. However, other than providing some general guidance on what should be considered, nothing new is offered in this scenario that assists with the determination of what is considered limited under the PPS Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 29 Page 29

30 With respect to 'limited residential development', the report acknowledges that the term is not defined. The following is provided as the reason for not having a definition: One standard definition of limited residential development may not be meaningful and appropriate for all Ontario communities. Individual communities should identify how much development is limited within the context of local conditions. Some considerations are provided in the report to assist in determining and providing a rationale for what is considered limited residential development within a local context include: Population; Character; Land use patterns and density; Proximity of settlement areas, both urban and rural; Type and availability of infrastructure and public service facilities; Presence of agricultural land and agricultural operations; Presence of natural resources; Presence of natural heritage features in areas; and, Presence of significant cultural heritage and archeological resources. No context is provided in the report to assist with the application of the above considerations Strategic versus Prescriptive Approach The District of Muskoka is an upper tier municipality that is required to have an Official Plan according to Ontario Regulation 352/02. While there is no similar requirement for a lower tier municipality to have an Official Plan, the six lower tier municipalities in the District have Official Plans and will continue to have Official Plans into the foreseeable future. As a consequence of the above, every effort should be made in the context of updating the MOP to ensuring that policy duplication is minimized and that the local context and direction being taken by lower tier municipalities is supported to the greatest extent possible. Given that the PPS 2014 is the primary document to consider in updating the MOP, there is a need to carefully consider how the policies in the PPS 2014 are to be implemented and whether they need to be implemented in a prescriptive manner in the upper tier Official Plan. The determination of when the MOP should be prescriptive or not, is dependent on two factors. The first is whether the PPS 2014 actually requires an upper tier Official Plan to specifically include policy on certain matters (such as Section 1.2.4), which is discussed in detail later in this report. The second factor to consider, and this would be in addition to the first factor, is whether there is a need for prescriptive policies on an issue that is considered to be of District Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 30 Page 30

31 significance. In cases such as these, a determination is made that there is a clear need to provide consistent direction to the local municipalities on how this issue or policy area is to be dealt with and/or implemented. As a consequence of the above, it is anticipated that the updated MOP will contain the following types of policies: 1. Prescriptive policies that are required by the PPS 2014; 2. Prescriptive policies that are intended to ensure that a particular issue is dealt with in a consistent manner across the District; 3. Strategic goals and objectives that are required to be implemented by the local municipality in a manner that reflects the local context; and, 4. Strategic directions, goals, objectives and policies that encourage (but not explicitly require) local municipalities to develop local Official Plan policies on an issue that reflects the local context. The determination of which types of policies will be prepared in accordance with the above will be a key discussion item throughout the MOPR process, with the overall goal of creating a clear, concise and user-friendly document. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 31 Page 31

32 3.0 CURRENT VISION IN THE MOP 3.1 INTRODUCTION In 2013, the District of Muskoka finalized Official Plan Amendment #42 ('OPA 42'). The effect of OPA 42 was to include a new and in some cases updated up-front section that established the vision and guiding principles that are intended to underpin the remaining policies within the MOP. Prior to the adoption of OPA 42 by Council in March 2013, there were: 8 public meetings and open houses; 20 meetings with stakeholder groups; and, 2,148 surveys received from the public. Extensive consultation with the First Nations and Provincial Ministries was also undertaken at the time. The first part of the new section inserted into the MOP by OPA 42 is below: INTRODUCTION The Official Plan sets the overall direction for physical development and growth in Muskoka. The Plan includes strategic land use designations, and environmental and infrastructure policies to help ensure the long-term sustainability of Muskoka and to achieve the desired growth. In the context of this Plan, sustainability is defined as balancing the environmental, economic and social needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Today, Muskoka consists of a predominately forested landscape that supports diverse and functioning ecosystems. Interspersed in the natural setting are small to midsized communities and rural and waterfront development that provides a wide range of economic opportunities and lifestyle options. The vision and guiding principles in this Section build on these existing conditions and express the values and desires of the people of Muskoka in achieving long-term sustainability. The goal and objectives further expand upon the vision and guiding principles. Together they form a basis for the policies in this Plan. Of note in the above introduction is the notion that the MOP includes strategic land use designations, which implies that there will be reliance placed on the local municipalities to establish more detailed land use designations to implement the MOP and ultimately ensure that consistency with the PPS 2014 is achieved. It is also indicated in the Introduction section that the MOP contains environmental and infrastructure policies to 'help ensure the long term sustainability of Muskoka and to achieve the desired growth.' A definition of sustainability is also provided and it is defined, as the balancing of the environmental, economic and social needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It is lastly noted in the Introduction section that the vision, guiding principles, the goal and the objectives that follow are intended to form the basis for the policies in the MOP. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 32 Page 32

33 Below is the vision with key elements underlined: Muskoka will be a place where people can live, work, and play. The overall prosperity of Muskoka will rely on the integration of a vibrant economy and a healthy natural environment along with a caring community that fosters a sense of belonging and supports those in need. Sustainable development will allow for desirable growth and change that respects the small-town, rural and waterfront character of Muskoka. All residents will be valued and community well being will be promoted. Below are the guiding principles (some of which were amended/added by OPA 42) with key action items underlined: a) The natural environment, especially water, is Muskoka s key asset and it will be protected for the values it provides including support for diverse ecosystems and a vibrant economy. b) A diverse economy will provide for a range of year-round, full-time and living-wage employment opportunities in a variety of sectors. Growth in a broad range of sectors will be supported, including the traditionally important tourism and recreation industries and emerging creative, arts and knowledge-based sectors. c) Growth and settlement patterns will be sustainable by making efficient use of land, energy and infrastructure and waste will be minimized. d) The small-town, waterfront and rural character of the area will be maintained and Muskoka s culture will be valued and preserved. e) Renewable and non-renewable natural resources will be managed in a way that maximizes economic benefits while minimizing social and environmental impacts. f) Healthy communities will be promoted by ensuring that development patterns contribute positively to public health and safety. Safe, healthy and active lifestyles will also be encouraged through the delivery of or support for quality human services. g) A range of housing options will be available and attainable for all demographic groups and income levels. h) Transportation options that are efficient, cost effective and provide alternatives to the personal vehicle will be promoted. i) While planning for the needs of all residents, young people and families will be encouraged to stay in, return, or come to Muskoka. To implement the vision and guiding principles above, the goal in Section B.2 was amended by OPA 42 to indicate the following: To protect the quality of the cultural and natural environments of Muskoka and accommodate sustainable growth by facilitating development that supports healthy communities and recognizes the character of Muskoka. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 33 Page 33

34 OPA 42 also amended many of the objectives that follow the goal and they are presented below. The key action items included within these objectives are underlined: B.3) B.4) B.5) B.6) B.7) B.8) B.9) To strengthen the settlement structure of Muskoka as a composite of urban, rural and waterfront areas by focusing growth to Urban Centres and supporting appropriate development in Community, Rural and Waterfront designations, which maintains the character and integrity of each of these areas. To manage growth in a sustainable way that will make the most efficient use of land, infrastructure, public services and facilities. To provide the infrastructure and District services necessary to support growth in a fiscally responsible manner. To protect and enhance the natural environment, including features, functions and systems. To conserve and build upon the cultural heritage and traditions of Muskoka. To encourage the growth, diversification and vitality of the economy of Muskoka, particularly the tourism and recreation sectors as principal components of the economic base and other emerging or innovative sectors that maintain the character of Muskoka. To promote land use and development patterns that support the health and well-being of the people of Muskoka and contribute to a higher quality of life. B.10) To encourage the wise and proper management of renewable and nonrenewable resources. B.11) To minimize potential costs, social disruption, and risks to public health and safety by directing development away from natural and human-made hazards. B.12) To maintain and improve transportation and communication networks to provide a variety of options to connect people and places. B.13) To encourage the provision of a wide array of housing opportunities, including housing that is attainable to a full range of income and demographic groups in Muskoka. B.14) To promote improved accessibility for persons with disabilities and the elderly. On the basis of the inclusion of a vision, guiding principles and an updated goal and series of objectives in the MOP, a clear forward looking direction has been established. The job is now to determine how they will be implemented in the update of the MOP. 3.2 PED COMMITTEE INPUT The vision and guiding principles above were discussed in detail with the PED Committee on July 21, The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the MOPR, Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 34 Page 34

35 summarize the background and the other initiatives that have been completed prior to this process being initiated and identify potential District land use planning priorities and interests. It was the intent of this session that the input received would help inform the drafting of the Policy Directions in this report. Below is a summary of the questions that were posed, as they relate to each guiding principle, to the PED Committee and a summary of the responses that were received. a) The natural environment, especially water, is Muskoka s key asset and it will be protected for the values it provides including support for diverse ecosystems and a vibrant economy. It was identified at the PED Committee meeting that natural environment areas clearly cross municipal boundaries (as per Section of the PPS 2014). The PED Committee was then asked the following questions: 1. Should the District OP only focus on natural heritage features of Provincial or regional significance? 2. Should the District establish the guidelines rules under which development is to be permitted within or adjacent to natural heritage features? 3. What else should be absolutely covered in the District OP to protect the natural environment? 4. What kinds of cultural heritage protection policies are needed at the District level? Below is a summary of the comments that we heard in response to the questions above. Please note that the discussion also provided general feedback on the content, level of detail, and length of the District OP: Desire to be consistent with the PPS but also be flexible with implementation in the context of regional circumstances (i.e. non-gta). Desire to reduce the length and detail in the MOP, provide a more concise, simplified and strategic framework for implementation at the Area Municipal level. Request to reduce duplication between the District and Area Municipal OPs. The District OP should generally cover cross-jurisdictional issues where consistency is desired across Area Municipalities. Recognition that some policy areas will require more detail at the upper tier where there is a clear District interest (e.g. water quality). b) A diverse economy will provide for a range of year-round, full-time and living-wage employment opportunities in a variety of sectors. Growth in a broad range of sectors will be supported, including the traditionally important tourism and recreation industries and emerging creative, arts and knowledge-based sectors. It was identified at the PED Committee meeting that the desire to attract and retain employment is typically a common interest. The PED Committee was then asked the following questions: Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 35 Page 35

36 1. How can District-wide or local economic development aspirations be supported by the District OP? 2. Are there particular sectors that deserve special attention (e.g. creative economy, arts and culture, tourism)? 3. Are there any current barriers to economic development in the District OP? Below is a summary of the comments that we heard in response to the questions above: Reinforce that housing and employment growth is to be directed to settlement areas. Need to ensure that growth in settlement areas can be supported with needed services, infrastructure and communication networks. Connectivity between and within urban centres is also important. Limit District OP direction on economic development, which should be dealt with by the Area Municipalities. The District OP should not limit economic innovation by prescriptive or predictive policies; flexibility is key provided the environment is protected. Overall the environment is the economy and the broad policy direction in the District OP should recognize this connection. Best way to grow the economy is to ensure there are attainable housing opportunities, mainly in urban centres, to support the service and construction sectors. Need to make our communities attractive to those involved in the creative economy such as permitting small businesses in many locations and maintaining public access to water. The District OP need a youth focus and to have a strong statement encouraging youth to stay or return to the area. Much has been discussed, researched and said about resort development. With this in mind the PED Committee was asked the following questions: 1. Should the District OP continue to be generally supportive of new resort development in the right locations? 2. Should the District OP recognize some of the economic challenges inherent in resort development? 3. Should the District OP be more flexible with the requirement for a portion of the resort to be commercial? 4. Should the District OP be more flexible with the requirement for responsibility agreements when communal services are proposed? 5. Should the District OP establish the rules under which the conversion of existing resorts to other uses will be considered? Below is a summary of the comments that we heard in response to the questions above: Need to support resorts in the right locations and permit downzoning where it is best for the local economy. Need for flexibility to recognize newer models of resort development. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 36 Page 36

37 Do not include specific downzoning policies in the MOP; each situation should be looked at individually and by the Area Municipality. Desire to encourage both on-site staff housing and resort management. Resorts are expensive and there is a need to encourage affordable recreational access to Muskoka such as tent and trailer parks. A balanced approach to downzoning is needed because resorts are integral to the economy, but some are struggling and are no longer feasible. Look into temporary residential uses for resort properties rather than downzoning, this would maintain flexibility. Water access in Muskoka is too private in nature; there is very limited public access for tourists. One solution is for municipalities to buy old resort lands and convert them to temporary public parks. If the land is needed in the future for a resort, the municipality could sell the land to a developer. c) Growth and settlement patterns will be sustainable by making efficient use of land, energy and infrastructure and waste will be minimized. It was identified at the PED Committee meeting that it is generally recognized across Ontario in a two-tier system that the local municipalities take the lead on planning policy in settlement areas. However, broad settlement patterns and overall guidance may have a place at the upper tier. The PED Committee was then asked the following questions: 1. Are there certain forms of development that should be strongly encouraged by the District OP in urban areas? 2. Should the District OP include policies that guide development design to support the enhancement and renewal of the Urban Centres and Communities over the long term (Bill 73 now requires built form policies in OPs)? 3. What policies are needed to direct development to settlement areas in a way that makes sense in Muskoka, while ensuring rural areas remain healthy and integrated? Below is a summary of the comments that we heard in response to the questions above: Mixed use is particularly important in settlement areas and should be emphasized in the District OP, especially in transition zones between residential and commercial areas. Growth policies should be strategic and direct most permanent growth to urban centres and communities, leaving the details up to the Area Municipalities and keeping the District policies more strategic. Some additional detail is needed for District interests such as attainable housing, which will become increasingly important with an aging population. Some areas of Muskoka are not seeing a strong demand for rural development outside of aggregate and forestry industries, other areas are seeing a strong demand for smaller lots close to major transportation corridors. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 37 Page 37

38 District OP is currently too restrictive for rural lot creation and creative ways should be explored to be consistent with the PPS and allow the type of affordable rural development that is in demand, perhaps in certain designated nodes. d) The small-town, waterfront and rural character of the area will be maintained and Muskoka s culture will be valued and preserved. It was asked of the PED Committee meeting whether there is such thing as a Muskoka character. The following was also asked: Is the protection of the character of these areas a District issue: Small-town yes or no, or maybe at a high level Waterfront areas yes or no, or maybe at a high level Rural areas yes or no, or maybe at a high level It was indicated to the PED Committee that if the answer is no character would be almost exclusively be dealt with by the local Official Plans. Below is a summary of the comments that we heard in response to the questions above: There is a District character that should be addressed strategically in the District OP without limiting the unique character of each community or lake, which should be addressed at the Area Municipal level. Need a general definition of character based on the environment. District OP should protect scenic corridors. e) Renewable and non-renewable natural resources will be managed in a way that maximizes economic benefits while minimizing social and environmental impacts. It was identified at the PED Committee meeting that the Province requires that resource areas be mapped. The PED Committee was then asked the following questions: 1. Should the District OP establish the rules under which new and expanding uses are to be established? 2. Should a District OPA be required for new resource uses? Below is a summary of the comments that we heard in response to the questions above: District OP policies should address renewable energy on a broad scale (e.g. solar and wind energy) because this is an economic growth area. A District OPA should not be required for resource development. Standards for resource development can be included in the District OP, but would likely be overridden by Provincial legislation such as the Aggregate Resources Act and the Green Energy Act. Forestry should be restricted around lakes, communities and residential areas. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 38 Page 38

39 f) Healthy communities will be promoted by ensuring that development patterns contribute positively to public health and safety. Safe, healthy and active lifestyles will also be encouraged through the delivery of or support for quality human services. The PED Committee was asked the following: How can this be achieved in a predominantly small town and rural setting? Below is a summary of the comments that we heard in response to the question above: Active transportation should be encouraged in the District OP and should come with more funding and upgrading of District roads to increase safety. Active transportation is key to health, the economy and retaining/attracting youth and there should be no barriers in the District OP to developing more active transportation routes/facilities. See a big role for the District in trails, signage and coordinating the efforts of the Area Municipalities to encourage a connected active transportation network. g) A range of housing options will be available and attainable for all demographic groups and income levels. It was indicated to the PED Committee that housing affordability has been identified as a significant issue. The PED Committee was then asked the following questions: 1. Should the District OP require that a certain percentage of new development in the Urban Centres be in the form of intensification? 2. Should the District OP require that a minimum number of housing units in larger urban developments be semis, townhouses and apartments? 3. Should the District OP establish minimum densities in new development areas? 4. How can we think outside the box to support attainable housing in Muskoka? Below is a summary of the comments that we heard in response to the questions above: Attainable housing is a major focus of discussion through official plan reviews at the local level and is being redefined through creative thinking. Live near work opportunities are critical; this could include reduced back-lot and rural lot sizes near communities for more affordable housing opportunities for youth and people working in service industries. While income-assisted housing is a District interest, the District OP should not put up barriers to attainable housing such as only permitting one dwelling per lot. Should continue District leadership in attainable housing, but the rural areas need to be considered as viable for creative affordable housing options. Need better ties between policies and funding opportunities available through the District for smaller apartments and secondary dwelling units. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 39 Page 39

40 Need to consider how people can stay in their homes on the lake even if they are aging or have health care issues. Lock out units and secondary dwelling units are two possibilities. Should also consider several smaller houses (i.e square feet) on a single lot with communal services. Flexibility and out of the box thinking are key in this area. h) Transportation options that are efficient, cost effective and provide alternatives to the personal vehicle will be promoted. i) While planning for the needs of all residents, young people and families will be encouraged to stay in, return, or come to Muskoka. It was indicated to the PED Committee that the District is connected by a series of District Roads that feed into the Provincial Highway system. The PED Committee was then asked the following: How should the District OP promote the establishment of alternative transportation options? The following was also asked with respect to item i): How should the District OP support this objective through land use planning? Below is a summary of the comments that we heard in response to the questions above: District is already too involved in transportation connectivity. There is a District role for connectivity by train and bus to allow youth to access affordable transportation options. Transportation is a challenge in a large geography like Muskoka but there are creative options being pursued by other jurisdictions (i.e. those highlighted in the Ryerson Report on Healthy Rural Communities). Need to consider communication connectivity as well to increase work from home opportunities and less reliance on the transportation system. 3.3 PRIMARY POLICY DIRECTIONS It is clear that the PED Committee generally believes that there is a need for the District to be more strategic in its approach to planning policy and that the area municipalities should be more responsible for the preparation of the more detailed and prescriptive policies that reflect local perspectives. There was also general agreement that the MOP should allow for the establishment of flexible approaches and responses to changes in the economy and changing trends in general to stimulate economic development and renewal. On the basis of the above, the Policy Direction below has been prepared to capture the sentiments of the PED Committee: Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 40 Page 40

41 POLICY DIRECTION A: The MOP is intended to be one of a series of policies, guidelines and regulations that direct the actions of the District and shapes land use planning, growth and development. It is the intent of the District to: 1. Establish a broad, upper tier policy framework that provides guidance to local municipalities in the preparation of updated local Official Plans, Official Plan Amendments and zoning by-laws; 2. Implement the Provincial Policy Statement at the District level in a manner that recognizes the unique opportunities and challenges in the District provided the results are outcome oriented and evidence-based; 3. Establish a framework for coordination and cooperation amongst the local municipalities and the District on planning and development issues that cross municipal boundaries; 4. Recognizes the diversity that exists amongst the area municipalities and builds on the strengths of the District as a whole and each of its component parts; 5. Provide the strategic direction required to realize common goals and objectives; and, 6. Recognize the importance of the land use planning responsibilities that are vested with the area municipalities. To signify the importance of this Policy Direction in the MOPR process, the Policy Direction above and the one presented in the next paragraphs are considered to be the two primary Policy Directions in the context of this report. To somewhat temper Policy Direction A, it should be recognized that there are Provincial policy requirements that do need to be implemented in the MOP in some way and it is anticipated that there will be considerable discussion on how this is to be achieved in accordance with Policy Direction A. There is much more on this point in Section 4.0 of this report. The PED Committee also made it clear, as it always has been, that the environment and the economy are linked. On this basis, the second recommended Primary Policy Direction has been prepared: POLICY DIRECTION B: A clean and healthy environment and a strong economy are inextricably linked in the District. The environment is made up of more than 600 lakes with a vast rural area made up of contiguous forested areas. These elements combine to create the sense of place that is unique to Muskoka and is known around the world. With this in mind, the MOP should establish as a first principle that development activity be undertaken in a manner that preserves and Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 41 Page 41

42 enhances the features, functions, and interconnections of the natural environment that sustains what is Muskoka for future generations. As noted previously, Policy Directions A and B are the two over-arching Policy Directions that help inform the remainder of the Policy Directions in this report. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 42 Page 42

43 4.0 PPS 2014 IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS Section of the PPS 2014 below indicates very clearly what is required, when an upper tier municipality (such as the District) is responsible for planning: Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with lower-tier municipalities shall: a) Identify, coordinate and allocate population, housing and employment projections for lower-tier municipalities. Allocations and projections by upper-tier municipalities shall be based on and reflect provincial plans where these exist; b) Identify areas where growth will be directed, including the identification of nodes and the corridors linking these nodes; c) Identify targets for intensification and redevelopment within all or any of the lower-tier municipalities, including minimum targets that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy ; d) Where transit corridors exist or are to be developed, identify density targets for areas adjacent or in proximity to these corridors, including minimum targets that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy ; and, e) Identify and provide policy direction for the lower-tier municipalities on matters that cross municipal boundaries. Given the mandatory nature of Section 1.2.4, there is a need to develop a series of Policy Directions as part of the MOPR that appropriately implement the PPS 2014 and which are generally consistent with Policy Directions A and B presented in the last section. A review of each of the components of Section is below Section a) Section a) states the following: Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities shall: identify, coordinate and allocate population, housing and employment projections for lower-tier municipalities. The above policy is mandatory and has been consistently applied across the Province. This work has already been completed by the District in 2013 and the five tables below (which have been prepared based on the work completed in 2013) are intended to ensure that Section a) of the PPS 2014 is implemented in the MOP. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 43 Page 43

44 Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 44 Page 44

45 Source: Based on Growth Strategy Update (2013) prepared by Watson and Associates. On the basis of the above, Policy Direction #1 is as follows: POLICY DIRECTION #1: The MOP should include the population, household and employment projections included within Tables 1 to 5 in this report. Section a) and Related Section There are a number of other directly relevant policies in the PPS 2014 that are related to Section a) and which result in the formulation and related Policy Directions. The first of these is Section 1.1.2, which states the following: Sufficient land shall be made available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of up to 20 years. Within settlement areas, sufficient land shall be made available through intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas. Nothing in policy limits the planning for infrastructure and public service facilities beyond a 20-year time horizon. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 45 Page 45

46 This policy requires that there must be sufficient land available across the District and within each local municipality to support the allocation of population, housing and employment. The determination has already been made that there is sufficient land available to The second part of Section prioritizes intensification and redevelopment over development in designated growth areas as a result of the use of the words 'if necessary'. Given the requirement in Section b) for the upper tier municipality to identify where growth and development will be directed, the following Policy Direction #2 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #2: The MOP should identify the extent of the built up area in each of the Urban Centres where intensification and redevelopment will be directed. The establishment and identification of built up areas in the MOP will allow for the monitoring of the amount of intensification occurring in the future in comparison to within new development areas. Related to the above is the need to ensure that existing infrastructure is optimized and that new development makes the best use of existing infrastructure wherever possible. In this regard, Section of the PPS 2014 is applicable: Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities: a) the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized; and b) opportunities for adaptive re-use should be considered, wherever feasible. In addition to the above, Section of the PPS 2014 states the following: Infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers impacts from climate change while accommodating projected needs. Planning for infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated with land use planning so that they are: a) financially viable over their life cycle, which may be demonstrated through asset management planning; and b) available to meet current and projected needs. The two sections above are essentially indicating that new development should be directed to existing serviced areas. Given the requirement in Section b) for the upper tier municipality to identify where growth and development will be directed, and the need to optimize existing infrastructure, the following Policy Direction #3 is recommended: Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 46 Page 46

47 POLICY DIRECTION #3: The MOP should identify the extent of the urban service area in each of the Urban Centres and include policies that require the optimization of existing services before considering the extension of services as a first principle. With respect to the monitoring of growth, it has been indicated by Jamie Cook of Watson & Associates (the author of the 2013 Growth Strategy Update) that it is currently very challenging to monitor and track population and housing growth due to the influence of seasonal residents. Added to this challenge is determining how seasonal residents should be counted (or not) depending on the circumstance. The monitoring of permanent and seasonal population growth is also challenging as a result of 'housing conversions', from seasonal occupancy to permanent occupancy and vice versa. Added to this challenge, the Statistics Canada Census does not specifically track seasonal population and housing growth in Canada. Given the magnitude of seasonal growth in Muskoka, understanding seasonal growth trends is extremely important for the District in carrying out land use planning, infrastructure planning and service delivery planning. In this regard, it is noted that planning studies such as the Muskoka District Second Home Study (which is prepared internally) are critical for the District in establishing and monitoring seasonal population and housing trends. In accordance with the above, it has been recommended that the MOP should recognize such studies and encourage further efforts to track and monitor permanent and seasonal population growth. In addition to stressing the need to monitor permanent growth (including affordable housing, urban land needs, intensification, and urban/rural development) it would also be beneficial to expand on the concept of monitoring in the MOP when it comes to seasonal growth. In addition to the work already carried out by the Second Home Study, it is also recommended that the MOP should encourage the monitoring of housing conversions between permanent and seasonal occupancy. It has also been recommended in the Growth Strategy that the District, working with the Area Municipalities, should develop a tracking system that would allow staff to monitor development activity (i.e. building permits) by structure type and geographic area on an annual basis. Imperative to the success of this tracking system is an accurate, complete and up-to-date residential building permit inventory, including demolition permits. Other relevant data which can be used to monitor and track development conditions should also be regularly updated (i.e. annually), including designated vacant residential land/lot supply, residential active development applications, vacant rural and waterfront lot supply and employment business directories. On the basis of the above, the following Policy Direction #4 is also recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #4: The MOP should include policies that establish the District s commitment to monitor permanent and seasonal population growth and development activity in partnership with the Area Municipalities on a regular basis. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 47 Page 47

48 The second part of Section is permissive and allows municipalities to plan beyond 20 years for infrastructure and public service facilities. As a result, the following Policy Direction #5 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #5: The MOP should include policies that do not restrict the District or a local municipality from planning for infrastructure and public service facilities beyond Section a) and Related Section Section of the PPS 2014 states the following with respect to where growth shall be directed: Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development, and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. This section of the PPS 2014 clearly directs growth to occur in settlement areas. The PPS 2014 defines settlement areas as urban areas and rural settlement areas within municipalities. The location of boundaries of each settlement area should be mapped in the MOP to ensure that there is clarity on their boundaries. As a result, the following two Policy Directions #6 and #7 are recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #6: The MOP should include a policy that indicates that firstly, urban centres then secondly, rural settlement areas should be the focus of growth and development. POLICY DIRECTION #7: The MOP should establish the boundaries of each settlement area (Urban Centres and Communities) on the schedules to the Official Plan. In addition, it was recommended in the Growth Strategy Update that the MOP should "include long term targets for percentage of permanent residential development to be directed to Urban Centres, based on an overall target of 70% municipally serviced growth to 30% privately serviced growth." Including such a policy would be consistent with Section of the PPS As a result, the following Policy Direction #8 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #8: The MOP should include policies that require that 70% of new growth be directed to the Urban Centres. Section a) and Related Section Section of the PPS 2014 provides direction on how decisions should be made when deciding on how much growth should be directed to each rural settlement area (which are classified as Community Areas currently in the MOP): Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 48 Page 48

49 When directing development in rural settlement areas in accordance with policy 1.1.3, planning authorities shall give consideration to rural characteristics, the scale of development and the provision of appropriate service levels. The above section directs that planning authorities consider the characteristics of each Community Area when considering the amount of growth it should accommodate. However, the role of the District of Muskoka is to allocate population to the lower tier municipality, not individual rural settlement areas. As a result, and in accordance with Policy Direction #1, it should be the local municipalities that decide on how much growth should be allocated to each Community Area. As a result, the following Policy Direction #9 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #9: The MOP should include policies that require the local municipality to determine how much growth is to occur within individual rural settlement areas, in a manner that is consistent with the PPS Section a) and Related Section c) Section c) of the PPS 2014 states the following with respect to residential development on rural lands: On rural lands located in municipalities, permitted uses are: Limited residential development. Rural lands are any lands outside of urban and rural settlement areas. It is noted that 'residential development' is different than 'resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings). It was recommended in the Growth Strategy Update in 2013 that the District should: "Develop aggressive and action oriented policies, implementation tools and incentives to encourage development within designated urban areas and restrict rural development activity, including new lot creation. It was further recommended that the District should: "Generally direct growth to serviced areas and limit boundary expansions (i.e. compact growth) to support good planning and to protect the character of other areas (i.e. waterfront, rural and un-serviced communities)." As a result, the following Policy Direction #10 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #10: The MOP should include policies that indicate that residential development on rural lands should be limited in relation to the amount of residential development occurring within settlement areas. Notwithstanding the above, an opportunity exists as part of the MOPR process to also consider the types of residential uses that could be permitted on rural lands. In this regard, the MOP has undergone significant updates in the past 10 years to establish affordable housing as an important planning consideration and to encourage the creation of secondary dwellings in Urban, Rural and Community designations, respectively. However, this permission has not been extended to the Waterfront designation. In this regard, Section 16(3) of the Planning Act states the following: Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 49 Page 49

50 Without limiting what an official plan is required to or may contain under subsection (1) or (2), an official plan shall contain policies that authorize the use of a second residential unit by authorizing, (a) The use of two residential units in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse if no building or structure ancillary to the detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse contains a residential unit; and (b) The use of a residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse if the detached house, semidetached house or rowhouse contains a single residential unit. The Planning Act in this instance does not differentiate between different geographies - in other words, all Official Plan are requires to permit second residential units in all parts of the municipality. However, the Province has recognized that it may not be appropriate to permit second units in all locations and has supported the inclusion of policies in Official Plans that permit second units, but defer the actual decision on exactly where they will be permitted to the implementing zoning by-law. It is also noted that permitting second units in the MOP cannot be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. As a result, the following Policy Direction #11 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #11: The MOP should permit the Area Municipalities to include policies within their Official Plans that permit secondary dwellings in the Waterfront Area, subject to area municipal policies, zoning and potentially licensing requirements Section b) Section b) of the PPS 2014 states the following: Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities shall: Identify areas where growth or development will be directed, including the identification of nodes and the corridors linking these nodes. Nodes the context of above and as it relates to the District of Muskoka include downtown areas and clusters of commercial uses and corridors would primarily include the main roads in the Urban Centres that lead to the downtown areas and connect the downtowns with other commercial areas. On the basis of the above, and to be consistent with Policy Direction A, the following Policy Direction #12 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #12: The MOP should require the Town of Huntsville, Bracebridge and Gravenhurst to identify nodes and corridors within the Urban Centres where growth and redevelopment will be directed and include policies in the area municipal Official Plans to support development within these nodes and corridors. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 50 Page 50

51 4.1.3 Section c) Section c) of the PPS 2014 states the following: Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities shall: identify targets for intensification and redevelopment within all or any of the lower-tier municipalities, including minimum targets that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy The above policy is supported by the following recommendation made in the Muskoka Economic Strategy prepared by Malone Given Parsons in 2009: "Encourage and support infill and compact development [in settlement areas] consistent with Provincial Policies." In addition, the following was also recommended in the same report: "Include long term targets for dwelling type mix to encourage a combined proportion of medium and high density units over and above forecasted trends to help promote a range of housing forms, densities and price points." On the basis of the above, the following Policy Direction #13 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #13: The MOP should establish intensification targets for each Urban Centre, in consultation with each affected area municipality. Section c) and Related Section Section of the PPS 2014 is related to Section c) and it states the following: Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. In order to ensure that intensification targets can be met, there is a need to identify intensification areas within the built up area that would be established in accordance with Policy Direction #2. However, beyond identifying the nodes and corridors identified in Section b), the responsibility for identifying intensification areas should rest with the area municipalities in accordance with Policy Direction A. However, it is recommended that there be some guidance in the MOP on this issue and the following Policy Direction #14 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #14: The MOP should include policies that require each local municipality develop an intensification strategy that sets out how the intensification target is to be implemented and monitored Section d) Section d) of the PPS 2014 states the following: Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 51 Page 51

52 Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities shall: where transit corridors exist or are to be developed, identify density targets for areas adjacent or in proximity to these corridors, including minimum targets that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy This policy is much more relevant in larger urban areas beyond the District of Muskoka. However, in recognition of the caveat in the policy where transit corridors exist or are to be developed, there may be a need for general transit-supportive policies to be included in the District OP. This will be explored further later in the MOPR process Section e) Section d) of the PPS 2014 states the following: Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities shall: identify and provide policy direction for the lower-tier municipalities on matters that cross municipal boundaries. Section of the PPS 2014 provides some insight into what those matters that cross municipal boundaries may be: A coordinated, integrated and comprehensive approach should be used when dealing with planning matters within municipalities, across lower, single and/or upper-tier municipal boundaries, and with other orders of government, agencies and boards including: a) Managing and/or promoting growth and development; b) Economic development strategies; c) Managing natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources; d) Infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, multimodal transportation systems, public service facilities and waste management systems; e) Ecosystem, shoreline, watershed, and Great Lakes related issues; f) Natural and human-made hazards; g) Population, housing and employment projections, based on regional market areas; and h) Addressing housing needs in accordance with provincial policy statements such as the Ontario Housing Policy Statement. The above list is expansive. The degree to which they are dealt with in the MOP will be a function of the language used in the PPS 2014 and the vision, guiding principles, the goal and the objectives that were included within the Official Plan by OPA 42. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 52 Page 52

53 A number of changes were made to Sections of the PPS 2014 to encourage greater coordination with other levels of government agencies and boards and Aboriginal communities. In this regard, a number of additional matters have been identified in the carrying out of a 'coordinated integrated and comprehensive approach' to dealing with planning matters within municipalities, across lower, single and/or upper-tier municipal boundaries, and with other orders of government. These additional matters include: Economic development strategies; Multimodal transportation systems; Electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems; Great Lakes related issues; and, Housing needs in accordance with the Ontario Housing Policy Statement. Some of the matters that cross municipal boundaries are discussed in Section 4.2 below. 4.2 MATTERS THAT CROSS MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES Economic Development Sections a), b) and g) of the PPS 2014 are related with the common thread being economic development. One of the guiding principles already included within the MOP states the following: A diverse economy will provide for a range of year-round, full-time and livingwage employment opportunities in a variety of sectors. Growth in a broad range of sectors will be supported, including the traditionally important tourism and recreation industries and emerging creative, arts and knowledge-based sectors The key components of the above guiding principle are that there should be employment opportunities in a variety of sectors with a particular focus on tourism, recreation and the emerging creative, arts and knowledge based sectors. One of the objectives of the MOP already reinforces this guiding principle: B.8 To encourage the growth, diversification and vitality of the economy of Muskoka, particularly the tourism and recreation sectors as principal components of the economic base and other emerging or innovative sectors that maintain the character of Muskoka. The challenge now is to translate the above guiding principle and objective in the MOP into action, with consideration given to Policy Direction A. There are a number of angles to consider with respect to economic development and they include the following: Economic development in all parts of the District; Economic development in traditional employment (industrial) areas; Regulating the conversion of employment lands to other uses; Restricting sensitive land uses in employment areas; Economic development in rural areas and the waterfront; and, Resort related development. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 53 Page 53

54 Each of these is discussed below and a number of policy directions are recommended Economic Development in all parts of the District There are a number of policies in the PPS 2014 that deal with economic development generally. In this regard, Section indicates that sufficient land shall be made for all uses, including employment uses for up to a 20-year period. The use of the word 'shall' in the context of this policy means that this policy is a directive and therefore mandatory. Section of the PPS 2014 in particular provides additional guidance to municipalities: Planning authorities shall promote economic development and competitiveness by: a) Providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment and institutional uses to meet long-term needs; b) Providing opportunities for a diversified economic base, including maintaining a range and choice of suitable sites for employment uses which support a wide range of economic activities and ancillary uses, and take into account the needs of existing and future businesses; c) Encouraging compact, mixed-use development that incorporates compatible employment uses to support liveable and resilient communities; and d) Ensuring the necessary infrastructure is provided to support current and projected needs. This section begins by indicating that planning authorities 'shall' promote economic development and competiveness by doing certain things, which are set out in subsections a) to d). The use of the word 'shall' means that the policy is a directive and therefore mandatory and is required to be met to the greatest extent possible by every planning authority. Section a) indicates that planning authorities (which in this case includes the District and the local municipalities) shall promote economic development and competiveness by providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment and institutional uses to meet long term needs. Section b) indicates that planning authorities shall promote economic development and competiveness by providing opportunities for a diversified economic base, including maintaining a range and choice of suitable sites which support a wide range of economic activities and ancillary uses and take into account the needs of existing and future businesses. This is one of the very few occurrences in the PPS 2014 where the user of land becomes a consideration in a policy that is directive. One of the key components of Sections a) and b) is making sure that there is support for a wide range of businesses in the District in appropriate locations. While there are many businesses in the District, significant employment growth in the traditional industrial sectors has not occurred over the past decade and is anticipated to Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 54 Page 54

55 experience only modest growth to the year 2041, as per the Growth Strategy Update (2013). According to Jamie Cook from Watson & Associates (the primary author of the Growth Strategy Update in 2013), the on-going structural changes occurring in the macroeconomy means that the focus of non-retail development within the District in the future will be geared toward knowledge, innovation and the creative class economy in general. In addition, it is noted that people engaged in arts, culture and tourism form a large part of the foundation that creates the 'quality of place' that attracts new residents to many of the District s Urban Centres areas and surrounding urban and rural areas. The economic base is also highly oriented towards small businesses and home-based occupations, and this does need to be recognized as well. It is clear that the economy is changing and that focus in many municipalities is now on attracting new entrepreneurs to the District. While the growing of firms led by entrepreneurs is not as visible as the development of a new factory employing hundreds of people, the smaller entrepreneurial firms have the same impact, if there are number of such firms being established in a community. This is because there is a need for goods and services to support any business, large or small, and the more businesses there are, the greater the need for support services. In addition, businesses require space and the need for space supports the construction industry and helps to ensure that existing buildings are used and generate income. While some of the growth in the number of entrepreneurial businesses comes from within the District, there are others that are seeking opportunities in the District and make the decision to move to the area to realize and capitalize on those opportunities. The primary motivating factor behind this choice is the quality of life in the District and the many opportunities it offers. There has been a considerable amount of interest in the creative economy in the last few years. The creative economy is an economy that is based on the collecting of information and the sharing of knowledge. It also involves arts and culture and the pursuit of education. Proponents of the creative economy point to data that indicate that where there is a significant cluster of generally younger professionals in these industries, the resulting economy is more robust and resilient where there is a need for the constant evolution of ideas, idea-generation and new product development. However, while there will always be a desire to cluster firms and people, the ability to work from anywhere also means that elements of the creative economy can also locate anywhere and this is where a focus for economic development efforts can be established. This means that instead of thinking about hard infrastructure like sewage treatment and water treatment plants and roads, there is a need for softer elements of that infrastructure such as high speed internet. Cities such as Chattanooga Tennessee have realized this and have wired their city to allow for the greatest data transfer possible (1 gb per second) to encourage those entrepreneurs who work with lots of data to locate. Another factor however, and this cannot be overlooked, is that entrepreneurs are attracted to places if those places offer a high quality of life. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 55 Page 55

56 On the basis of the above, and the comments made by the PEDC on this issue, the following Policy Direction #15 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #15: The MOP should include policies that permit, encourage and support the establishment of small scale home businesses and enhanced communication networks that involve the collection of knowledge and the sharing of information in a variety of settings within the Urban Centres, Community Areas, the Rural Area and the Waterfront Area. In addition to the above, there is a need to recognize the resort and accommodation industry in the District as a significant employer and economic driver. As noted above, Section of the PPS 2014 deals with economic development and competiveness in general and given that the District of Muskoka is a world-class destination that is well known beyond Ontario, the number of jobs and the economic impacts of the resorts and other accommodation facilities in the District is a significant consideration. In this regard, and as of 2011, there were an estimated 87 resorts with 3,200 rooms operating in the District. It was also estimated that there was 24 hotel/motel properties as well with approximately 900 rooms. As a consequence, the total Muskoka accommodation market is made up of 111 properties and over 4,000 rooms. It has also been estimated that the resort sector generates 400 million dollars annually or $50,000 per rental unit. In addition to the commercial resorts mentioned above, it was estimated in 2011 that there were about 2,000 private cottage rental units and 30 private trailer parks and campgrounds with about 3,000 campsites. Lastly, there are about 35 children s and community camps in the District with a typical camp having an average of 350 beds for overnight stays, which would provide for overnight accommodation for about 10,000 people. However, the development of new tent and trailer parks and campgrounds is not necessarily encouraged by the local Official Plans, even though these types of accommodation facilities provide alternatives to those who cannot afford to stay at the higher end resorts. Given the above, resorts and other forms of accommodation are a significant source of employment and as a consequence, their value to the local economy should continue to be recognized in the MOP and the development of a range of accommodation facilities should be promoted where appropriate. On this basis, it is recommended that there is clear direction on the importance of the resorts and other accommodation facilities to the local economy in the MOP on this issue and the following Policy Direction #16 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #16: The MOP should include policies that require the maintenance of a range and choice of suitable sites for resorts and other accommodation facilities (including tent and trailer parks and campgrounds) that take into account the needs of existing and future businesses. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 56 Page 56

57 Economic Development in Employment Areas Employment areas are those lands that are designated for employment purposes in local Official Plans. At the present time, employment areas are not specifically identified in the MOP. Section of the PPS 2014 deals specifically with employment areas: Planning authorities shall plan for, protect and preserve employment areas for current and future uses and ensure that the necessary infrastructure is provided to support current and projected needs. This section of the PPS deals specifically with employment areas, which is defined by the PPS as 'those areas designated in an Official Plan for clusters of business and economic activities including, but not limited to, manufacturing, warehousing, offices and associated retail and ancillary facilities. Employment Areas are currently identified in each Area Municipal Official Plan, but there is likely a need for the District OP to provide some strategic direction. The continued shift in forecasted employment growth towards knowledge based sectors means that there is a need to ensure that the policies applying to these traditional employment areas (i.e. large parcels of industrial lands) support the widest range of permitted uses, including employment supportive uses. In terms of what constitutes and employment supportive use in employment areas, it has been recommended by Jamie Cook from Watson & Associates that the District should encourage local municipalities to consider the introduction of more defined criteria or descriptions regarding the appropriate type, size and location of complementary nonindustrial uses in employment areas (e.g. eating establishments, personal and health care services and smaller-scale, service-oriented businesses) at strategic and accessible locations in existing and future employment areas, where appropriate. On this basis, the following Policy Direction #17 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #17: The MOP should include policies that encourage the area municipalities to review their policies that apply to employment areas and determine how they could be modified and updated to permit a broad range of employment-supportive uses, provided that consideration is also given to protecting the viability of existing uses. It has been suggested that the larger resorts in the District could be or should be considered employment areas as per the definition of employment area in the PPS While these larger resorts do employ a significant number of people and have a significant impact on the local economy, the definition of employment areas in the PPS 2014 appears to limit the application of the term to more traditional employment areas. While the definition does leave the door open for the consideration of a range of business and economic activities, the specific examples provided are manufacturing, warehousing, offices and associated retail and ancillary facilities. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 57 Page 57

58 The area of employment definition in Section 1(1) of the Planning Act is much more specific and therefore limiting. This definition states the following: Means an area of land designated in an Official Plan for clusters of business and economic uses including, without limitation, the uses listed in Subsection 5 or as otherwise prescribed by regulation. Section 1(5) of the Planning Act then states the following: The uses referred to in the definition of area of employment in Subsection (1) are a) manufacturing uses, b) warehousing uses, c) office uses, d) retail uses that are associated with the uses mentioned in Clauses a) and b), and e) facilities that are ancillary to uses mentioned in Clauses a) to d). Notwithstanding the above, the importance of the existing resorts and other accommodation facilities in the District cannot go unrecognized and many of the same principles that are considered when an application to convert employment land could also be considered when an application convert a resort use to another use is submitted Regulating the Conversion of Employment Areas to Other Uses Whether employment lands are identified on the MOP land use schedules or not, there is a need to consider the conversion policies in the PPS 2014 as set out below: Planning authorities may permit conversion of lands within employment areas to non-employment uses through a comprehensive review, only where it has been demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and that there is a need for the conversion. In this case, only a planning authority can initiate a comprehensive review. Given the importance of protecting employment areas for future employment uses, the following Policy Direction #18 is recommended to guide future conversion requests: POLICY DIRECTION #18: The MOP should require that area municipal Official Plans contain policies that set out what is required to be demonstrated if there is a request to remove lands from the Employment Area designation in the local Official Plan. Possible criteria are below: a) There is a need for the conversion; b) The municipality is able to accommodate expected employment growth on other lands within the municipality; c) The conversion will not adversely affect the overall viability of nearby employment lands; d) The subject lands are better suited from a land use compatibility perspective, for alternative uses; e) The proposed use serves a greater long-term public interest than employment uses; and, f) The lands are not required over the long-term for the employment purposes for which they are designated. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 58 Page 58

59 Restricting Sensitive Land Uses in Employment Areas Related to the above discussion is the issue of land use compatibility. In this regard, Section of the PPS 2014 states the following: Major facilities and sensitive land uses should be planned to ensure they are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent or mitigate adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term viability of major facilities. The range of uses that would be considered sensitive as per this definition is extensive since any building, amenity area or outdoor space is sensitive if routine or normal activities occurring at reasonably expected times would experience adverse effects. In this regard, it is those sensitive uses that are proposed within an employment area that are a concern. It is noted that a significant addition was made to the PPS 2014 as it relates to this section. Previously, much of the wording that is now in Section was in Section 1.7 e) of the PPS However, the following words in underline have been added: Major facilities and sensitive land uses should be planned to ensure they are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent or mitigate adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term viability of major facilities. This means that the consideration of the nature of the adverse effects is not the only consideration the separation of uses may be required to ensure the long-term viability of major facilities. With respect to permitted uses, as the District economy continues to evolve from a goods-producing economy to a service-based economy, there are increasing pressures on employment lands to accommodate commercial service, retail and community/institutional uses. To ensure that the integrity of the District's employment lands base is not jeopardized over the long-term, the provision for select commercial, community and institutional uses within employment areas should be assessed on the degree to which the use: Supports/complements the primary industrial uses within employment areas; Does not adversely affect the stability of the employment area; Does not adversely impact other designated employment uses (i.e. increased road traffic); Is compatible with neighbouring land uses; and, Does not detract from the potential for the subject lands to be utilized for industrial purposes. The provision for select commercial services and accessory retail within employment lands which rank favourably against the criteria identified above should generally be Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 59 Page 59

60 permitted. Stand-alone retail, however, which is largely population serving and not compatible with industrial uses, should not be permitted. Further, the provision for community/ institutional uses should be carefully examined against the criteria identified above, particularly for large-scale uses such as recreational centres, which typically are not well suited to be accommodated in employment areas. Given the importance of protecting employment areas for future employment uses, the following Policy Direction #19 is recommended on the issue of land use compatibility: POLICY DIRECTION #19: The MOP should include policies that provide for an appropriate mix and range of employment uses and appropriate employment supportive uses in employment areas and include detailed policies that establish what is required to be demonstrated when a sensitive land use is proposed Permitted Agricultural Uses in Rural Areas While the District of Muskoka does not contain prime agricultural areas, there are agricultural uses occurring in various areas. In this regard, there were two recommendations in the report entitled Agriculture in Muskoka: Tools for a Sustainable Future Recommendations (Ryerson University School of Urban and Regional Planning, 2011) that should be considered in the MOPR: 1. Create a new Muskoka specific definition of agriculture that is more appropriate for the needs of the District s local farmers and specialty crop producers including, but not limited to cranberries, syrup, bee keeping and sprouts and is more reflective of local conditions. 2. Include policies that define and support agriculture as a land use across Muskoka. This definition should recognize that not all farming operations, especially at the small scale, have the same negative externalities associated with them, such as potential water quality concerns or unpleasant odours, and as such should not be subject to overly restrictive policies. The above recommendations are supported by Section of the PPS 2014 below: Opportunities to support a diversified rural economy should be promoted by protecting agricultural and other resource-related uses and directing non-related development to areas where it will minimize constraints on these uses. The opportunity exists as a result of this new policy direction in the PPS 2014 to further promote the rural economy by permitting agricultural uses that reflect the context of the District throughout the rural area in the MOP. On the basis of the above, the following Policy Direction #20 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #20: The MOP should include policies that permit a wide range of agricultural uses in the Rural Area and direct the local municipalities to identify the conditions under which these uses are to be permitted. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 60 Page 60

61 Other Permitted Uses in Rural Areas (Including Waterfront Areas) As mentioned previously, attracting new entrepreneurs into any community is increasingly becoming a focus of municipal economic development efforts. In addition, municipalities are increasingly looking to increase the range of uses that could be permitted in rural and waterfront areas. With the above in mind, the following recommendations were made in the Muskoka Economic Strategy in 2009 in the early stages of the MOPR: Promote economic diversification and year round economic opportunities, particularly in the higher paying, green industry, knowledge and creative sectors. Continue to encourage permissive home-based business policies, as many creative industries get their start as home-based businesses. Given the changes made to the PPS 2014 that are intended to support the rural economies and given the increasing attention being paid to encouraging creative industries to locate in areas that have an exceptional quality of life, such as the District of Muskoka, an opportunity exists as part of the MOPR to provide some guidance on what types of uses should be permitted within the rural area (which includes waterfront areas) in accordance with Policy Direction A. On the basis of the above, the following Policy Direction #21 is recommended: POLICY DIRECTION #21: The MOP should include policies that specifically permit the following additional uses in the rural areas (including Waterfront Areas) subject to area municipal policies that control their scale and location: Bed and breakfast establishments (or rural inns) that accommodate up to 10 rooms; Home industries (which is a new permission in the PPS 2014), which could be developed within a single detached dwelling or an accessory building, subject to reasonable controls; Small-scale conference facilities and learning centres; Art galleries and exhibition space; and, Small-scale restaurant and entertainment venues that are subject to reasonable controls Resort Policies Tourism operations and resorts have been an important part of the economy, cultural heritage and visitor experience of Muskoka since before the turn of the century. To a very large extent, the 'Muskoka' brand was developed many years ago with the establishment of resorts that attracted the 'city-people' to an attractive natural setting. Other similar districts that are near major urban areas in Eastern North America include the Laurentians and Eastern Townships in Quebec, the Catskills and Poconos in New York State and New Jersey and the Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 61 Page 61

62 Various studies carried out by the District have continued to identify that tourism and resorts are central to the local economy and landscape of the area, as confirmed most recently through the Muskoka Economic Strategy (2009) and the Growth Strategy Update (2013). Because of the importance of tourism and resorts, the MOP already includes policies that generally encourage resorts and related tourism infrastructure, outline tests to ensure that resorts are commercial in nature, protect resort commercial properties from down zoning to residential uses, outline matters to be addressed when considering the establishment of new resorts and identify servicing requirements to minimize the risk to the District and its taxpayers. Based on a reading of these policies, it would appear as if the policies in the current MOP are generally designed to accomplish four objectives: 1. To ensure that existing and new resorts have a commercial component, so that vacationers continue to visit the District and contribute to the local economy; 2. To ensure that appropriate guarantees are in place to ensure that the District does not become responsible for water and wastewater servicing at resorts with a residential component that are not on urban services; 3. To limit the conversion of existing resorts to residential use in support of the first objective; and, 4. To ensure that new resorts are appropriately located in a manner that minimizes impacts on the environment and water quality and is compatible with the character and nature of adjacent development. It is my opinion that the four objectives above are sound and should be maintained and are consistent with Policy Direction A. On the basis of the above, it is recommended that the following Policy Direction #22 be considered (keeping in mind that these are 'objectives', not policies in of themselves): POLICY DIRECTION #22: The MOP should include the following objectives that relate specifically to resort development: 1. To ensure that existing and new resorts have a commercial component, so that vacationers continue to visit the District and contribute to the local economy; 2. To ensure that appropriate guarantees are in place to ensure that the District does not become responsible for water and wastewater servicing at resorts with a residential component that are not on urban services; 3. To limit the conversion of existing resorts to residential use in support of the first objective; and, 4. To ensure that new resorts are appropriately located in a manner that minimizes impacts on the environment and water quality and is compatible with the character and nature of adjacent development. The means by which objectives 1, 2 and 3 above are implemented is potentially the most significant issue to resolve as part of the MOPR. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 62 Page 62

63 Over the last number of years, a number of stakeholders have indicated that the policy framework in the MOP needs to be updated to reflect current economic considerations. In this regard, and in response to the concerns raised, the District retained PKF Consulting Inc. to prepare a report ('the PKF Report') on this issue in The PKF Report includes an analysis of the state of resorts in Muskoka and provides a number of recommendations that would, in the view of the authors of the report, create an environment that is supportive of resort development if the appropriate economic conditions exist. Based on the conclusions reached in the PKF Report, below are Policy Directions #23, #24, #25, #26, #27, #28, #29 and #30 that implement the more significant of their recommendations and which are consistent with Policy Directions A and B: POLICY DIRECTION #23: The resort policies in the MOP should generally be broad, strategic and flexible and allow for the area municipalities and the development community to appropriately tailor policies to their local circumstances, in consultation with the District. POLICY DIRECTION #24: The definition of 'resort' in the MOP should be sufficiently broad to distinguish resorts from other types of accommodation establishments and to provide the flexibility needed to respond to evolving trends and types of resort experiences. POLICY DIRECTION #25: The MOP should include policies that require a minimum of 50% of the accommodation units in any resort within any designation to be available to the general public, subject to all servicing requirements being met. POLICY DIRECTION #26: The MOP should include policies that require that first phase of any new mixed resort and resort-related residential development in any designation to be in the form of accommodation units that are available to the general public. POLICY DIRECTION #27: The MOP should continue to include policies that require resorts to offer amenities and services that are available to the general public, however, the determination of the scale, amount and type of amenities offered will be determined by area municipalities. POLICY DIRECTION #28: The MOP should not include a requirement that a new resort proceed by way of Local Official Plan Amendment if the resort is to be developed on full municipal services and/or if 100% of the accommodation units will be available to the general public - the determination of whether a Local Official Plan Amendment is required will be at the discretion of the area municipalities. POLICY DIRECTION #29: The MOP should continue to include policies that require the establishment of a reserve fund to protect District interests in cases where private services are proposed and if residential units are a component of the resort. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 63 Page 63

64 POLICY DIRECTION #30: The MOP should continue to include policies that support the retention of resort properties on lakefront properties. However, the policies should establish less onerous tests for smaller properties and provide for the consideration of the viability of the resort use and alternative permitted uses in making a determination on whether the resort use can and/or should be converted Attainable Housing Sections a), g) and h) of the PPS 2014 are related with the common thread being the need to provide for housing for all incomes and age groups. Section of the PPS 2014 provides a considerable amount of direction on this issue: Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by: a) Establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households. However, where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities may identify a higher target(s) which shall represent the minimum target(s) for these lower-tier municipalities; b) Permitting and facilitating: 1. All forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements; and 2. All forms of residential intensification, including second units, and redevelopment in accordance with policy ; c) Directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs; d) Promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation and transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed; and e) Establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety. 'Attainable housing' refers to a supply and type of housing that is readily available, affordable and that meets peoples needs. 'Affordable' and 'social' housing are not the same. As outlined in the PPS 2014 and the MOP, affordable pertains to market housing that is the least expensive of: housing that costs less than 30% of gross annual household income, or; housing that is priced at least 10% below the average permanent residential resale price, and below the average market rental price for non-ownership housing. Social housing is subsidized housing for households that would otherwise spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 64 Page 64

65 The MOP has undergone significant updates in the past 10 years to establish affordable housing as an important planning consideration and to encourage the creation of secondary dwellings in Urban, Rural and Community designations, respectively. In addition and in recognition of the importance of housing for the social and economic well being and competitiveness of Ontario, the Provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) released in 2016 strategies, including new proposed Planning Act tools and regulations, to increase the supply of adequate affordable housing. As part of the work leading up to the MOPR, the District retained Watson & Associates to prepare a Growth Strategy in 2009, which was then updated in Below are a number of key recommendations from the Growth Strategy that have an impact on the formulation of Policy Directions: 1. Establish District wide housing unit mix targets and require the establishment of corresponding Area Municipal housing mix targets. Area Municipal housing mix targets should encourage a proportion of medium and high density units which is beyond current/forecast market trends to help encourage a broader range of housing forms and densities. 2. Establish average lot frontage maximums and minimum density requirement for all new subdivision/condominium applications in order to assist with the provision of housing that is attainable to new home buyers, as smaller lots and higher density residential units are generally more affordable than larger, less dense developments. 3. Encourage area municipalities to permit secondary dwellings as of right in zoning by-laws, to increase the supply of housing (while such policies are currently included in the MOP through OPA 41, these could be expanded). In addition to the above, the District also retained Malone Given Parsons to prepare a report entitled 'Muskoka Economic Strategy', which was completed in 2009, and which included the following two recommendations that are related to the recommendations made above: 1. Include long term targets for dwelling type mix to encourage a combined proportion of medium and high density units over and above forecasted trends to help promote a range of housing forms, densities and price points. 2. Support compact development by restricting the size of new lots in Urban Centres to an average lot/unit frontage of 15 metres (50 feet) and an average minimum density of 17 units per net hectare (7 units per net acre) within subdivision/condominiums to encourage a broader range of market choice while still keeping with character of established neighbourhoods. The recommendations above are based on the premise that much more must be done to improve choice in the marketplace. With the above in mind, and in recognition of the policy requirements set out in the PPS 2014, below are a number of recommended Policy Directions: Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 65 Page 65

66 POLICY DIRECTION #31: The MOP should include a minimum target for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households in accordance with Section a) of the PPS POLICY DIRECTION #32: The MOP should establish a minimum density for new development in the designated growth area of each of the Urban Centres in consultation with the area municipalities. POLICY DIRECTION #33: The MOP should establish housing mix targets for new development in the designated growth area of each of the Urban Centres in consultation with the area municipalities. 4.3 OTHER BROADER POLICY ISSUES Aboriginal Engagement A number of changes were made to the PPS in 2014 with respect to the Aboriginal communities in the Province. In this regard, the following sentence was added to Part IV, which is the vision for Ontario s Land Use Planning System: The Province recognizes that importance of consulting with Aboriginal communities on planning matters that may affect their rights and interests. A new Section was also added as follows: Planning authorities are encouraged to coordinate planning matters with Aboriginal communities. A new Section was also added as follows: Planning authorities shall consider the interests of Aboriginal communities and conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. It is noted that this policy uses the word shall, which means that it is mandatory. A new Section 4.3 was also added and it states the following: This Provincial Policy Statement shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in Section 35 of the Constitution Act, Lastly, Section was added in an effort to encourage municipalities to firstly identify and then protect archaeological resources: Planning authorities should consider and promote archaeological management plans and cultural plans in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 66 Page 66

67 On March 19, 2012 the PED reported on the Aboriginal Engagement Program that was undertaken as a component of the visioning process leading to OPA 42 (PED ). In this regard, Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) was retained by the District to carry out the above noted Aboriginal Engagement Program, which was completed in ASI made a number of recommendations at the conclusion of that process. However, the Aboriginal Communities that were consulted generally expressed interest in strengthening archaeological and natural heritage policies in the District OP. With respect to First Nations engagement, ASI made the following recommendations: Continue the Aboriginal Engagement program for the duration of the Official Plan Review with a focus on natural and cultural heritage policies. Consider facilitating a relationship with the Metis Nation of Ontario which may involve researching best practice policy across Ontario and/or developing a consultation protocol that is suitable for both parties. In response to the above, it is anticipated that the MOPR will continue to involve the aboriginal community as policies are developed ASI also recommended that policies be added to the MOP that: Require the review and update the District s Archaeological Potential Model to ensure that the sites identified in the last 15 years have been located in the identified areas of high/medium/low potential. Apply the Archaeological Potential Model to small-scale consents in areas of archaeological potential. In this regard, policies could be added to the MOP that will require the Archaeological Master Plan for the District of Muskoka (last done in 1994) to be regularly updated to reflect more stringent Provincial policies (Planning Act) and align with the Ontario Cemeteries Act and Ontario Heritage Act to proactively plan for the conservation of archaeological resources, rather than reactively. It is further suggested that policies should be added to the MOP that encourage and support the development of educational program/materials regarding Aboriginal and cultural heritage and history in Muskoka as a heightened awareness and appreciation of the importance of cultural heritage and archaeological resources is an effective means of protecting these resources. With the above in mind, and in recognition of the policy requirements set out in the PPS 2014, below are a number of recommended Policy Directions: POLICY DIRECTION #34: Archaeological policies in the MOP should generally be expanded to be more comprehensive, including a policy that requires the updating of the 1994 Archaeological Potential Model for the District of Muskoka to ensure that the most up to date information is available when applications for development are being assessed. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 67 Page 67

68 POLICY DIRECTION #35: The MOP should include a policy that requires the consideration of the updated Archaeological Potential Model when new lots are proposed through the development process in areas of archaeological potential. POLICY DIRECTION #36: The MOP should include encourage and support the development of educational program/materials regarding Aboriginal and cultural heritage and history in Muskoka as a heightened awareness and appreciation of the importance of cultural heritage and archaeological resources is an effective means of protecting these resources Natural Heritage and Water A number of minor changes were made to Section 2.1 of the PPS 2014, which deals with natural heritage. This section begins with the mandatory requirement set out in Section that natural features and areas shall be protected for the long-term. However, it is noted that the words 'natural features and areas' is not italicized and therefore not a defined term. This is contrasted with Section 2.1.2, which states the following: The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features in areas, surface water features and ground water features. In this case, natural heritage features in areas are defined as follows: Natural heritage features and areas: means features and areas, including significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, other coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E, fish habitat, significant woodlands and significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River), habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, which are important for their environmental and social values as a legacy of the natural landscapes of an area. A new requirement that natural heritage systems be identified has been included within the PPS However, this new requirement in Section only applies to lands within Ecoregions 6E and 7E, which are generally located to the south and east of the Canadian Shield. As a consequence, the requirement to establish a natural heritage system in the District of Muskoka is not applicable to the District, which is in Ecoregion 5E. Below is a map with some explanatory text that explains the different policy approaches in the different Ecoregions. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 68 Page 68

69 As per the above, the PPS 2014 continues to prohibit development and site alteration in Provincially significant wetlands in the District of Muskoka and Provincially significant coastal wetlands as well. Section has also been clarified or modified to make it clear that the restriction on development and site alteration within significant woodlands and significant valleylands only applies again in Ecoregions 6E and 7E, which means that there is no requirement to firstly identify significant woodlands and significant valleylands in the District of Muskoka and secondly to protect them. This is not to say that they should not be protected, however, the PPS 2014 does not require it. The one new addition to Section is that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in coastal wetlands in the District of Muskoka that are not identified as Provincially significant coastal wetlands. The restriction on development and site alteration in the habitat of engendered species and threatened species has also been modified slightly to indicate that provincial and federal requirements are to be considered in making such a determination. Policy Directions Report (March 6, 2017) 69 Page 69