MEMORANDUM Date: January 16, 2018 To: Planning & Development Committee From: Michael Di Lullo, City Clerk Re: Items Further to the Agenda January 16, 2018 Delegations 1. Dwarka Persaud, President, Lebreche Patterson & Associates Inc., re: Public Meeting B 0 Royal Oak Road Zoning By-law Amendment Cambridge Hindu Society Ward 1 2. Ram Dharamdial, Lebreche Patterson& Associates Inc., re: Public Meeting B 0 Royal Oak Road Zoning By-law Amendment Cambridge Hindu Society Ward 1 3. Carol Wiebe, MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscape Architecture, re: Public Meeting B 0 Royal Oak Road Zoning By-law Amendment Cambridge Hindu Society Ward 1 Correspondence 1. Carol Wiebe, MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscape Architecture, PP. 3-10 re: Public Meeting B 0 Royal Oak Road Zoning By-law Amendment Cambridge Hindu Society Ward 1 Michael Di Lullo City Clerk 1
2
KITCHENER WOODBRIDGE LONDON KINGSTON BARRIE BURLINGTON January 15, 2018 Mr. Matthew Blevins City of Cambridge Community Development Department 50 Dickson Street, 3 rd Floor Cambridge, ON N1R 58W Dear Mr. Blevins: RE: Application R16/17 Comments regarding Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment for 0 Royal Oak Road OUR FILE 14139 C On behalf of our client, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada ( TMMC), we are submitting comments regarding the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the above noted property on Royal Oak Road from (E) A1 (Agriculture) to N1 ( Institutional) to permit the construction of a Place of Worship. The lands are currently designated as Future Urban Reserve in the City s Official Plan. Policy 8.2.1 of the Official Plan states that the Future Urban Reserve designation is applied to areas of undeveloped or underdeveloped land within the urban area of the City. Within these areas only existing uses or those uses permitted in all designations, including agriculture uses without livestock operations, will be allowed. Policy 8.1.2 h) indicates that institutional uses, except in the Prime Agricultural designation, are permitted within all land use designations in the city, subject to the provision of adequate infrastructure, including potable water and wastewater treatment where needed. The proposed place of worship would be considered an institutional use. The lands are located immediately to the southeast of the TMMC facility and are separated only by the intersection of Cherry Blossom Road and Boxwood Drive. The TMMC facility is a major employer within the City of Cambridge and has operated at this location for 30 years. During this time frame, consideration has been given to ensuring that the facility is well positioned to grow. This includes the provision of sufficient land for expansion, the provision of sufficient municipal infrastructure and the provision of sufficient land use controls to address compatibility concerns between this facility and incompatible land uses. MHBC was previously retained by TMMC in 2014 and 2015 to review and provide comments on proposed changes to the City s Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw within the Boxwood Business Campus. The key thrust of this review was to assess proposed changes that would permit the introduction of sensitive land uses within the Boxwood Business Campus that could have potential for land use conflicts for the existing manufacturing operations of TMMC. Through open dialogue with the City, a number of concerns had been identified and revisions recommended to the documents. Municipal staff in the 3 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE / KITCHENER / ONTARIO / N2B 3X9 / T 519 576 3650 / F 519 576 0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM
planning and economic development departments, along with Council, incorporated these changes in the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw in recognition of the need to minimize land use conflicts surrounding the TMMC facility. A copy of our final correspondence to the City is enclosed. Most recently, we were contacted by TMMC to review and respond to the proposed zoning amendment on the subject lands at Royal Oak Road. As part of our assessment, we reviewed the following documents: City of Cambridge Official Plan City of Cambridge Zoning By-law Provincial Policy Statement ( 2104) Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ( 2017) Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Land Use ( D- Series) Guidelines Planning Justification Report prepared by Hans Madan on behalf of the applicant Site Plan, building elevations, grading, servicing and erosion control plans prepared by Ram Engineering Inc. Noise Feasibility Assessment prepared by RWDI Functional Servicing Report prepared by Ram Engineering Inc. The following is a summary of the relevant policies and regulations that are applicable to the proposed zoning amendment based on our review. City of Cambridge Official Plan The subject lands are designated at Future Urban Reserve. Permitted uses within this designation include existing uses or those uses permitted in all designations. Institutional uses, such as religious or social organization uses are considered uses permitted in all designations. As such, an institutional use would be permitted within the Future Urban Reserve designation. Notwithstanding the above, the Official Plan policies included in Section 8.1.6 state that the City will encourage institutional uses to locate in the Urban Growth Centre, Community Core Areas, Nodes, Regeneration Area, Reurbanization Corridors and Major Transit Station Areas. The intent of these policies is to promote complete communities by providing a wide range of goods and services to support people throughout their entire life cycle and to encourage a range and mix of uses in appropriate locations. Even though the applicant is not seeking to amend the Official Plan to designate the subject lands as Institutional, it is worth noting that the Official Plan directs institutional uses to specific locations and designations within the City. The subject lands do not fall within any of these specific locations or designations. Further, policy 8.1.6.3 states that New institutional uses or expansion of existing institutional uses will be evaluated based on Compatibility Guidelines contained in this Section and the Provincial Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. Institutional uses are considered sensitive land uses under the provincial Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. These guidelines are to provide guidance and direction to municipalities in assessing land use compatibility when considering development applications that require permission to rezone and/or re-designate lands. The Planning Justification Report prepared for the applicant did not include any review and/or analysis of how the proposed development application complies with the Provincial D-Series Guidelines. The Cambridge Official Plan contains specific policies pertaining to land use compatibility for industrial land uses. Section 8.5.2.5 Industrial Land Use Compatibility is particularly relevant in this circumstance 2 4
as it speaks to the need to restrict sensitive land uses in or near industrial uses and near major facilities. The relevant policies are as follows: 8.5.2.5 Industrial Land Use Compatibility 1. Industry and major facilities will be protected, where practical, from sensitive land uses. This may include restricting sensitive land uses in or near industrial uses and near major facilities Compatible uses may be located between sensitive land uses and industrial uses or major facilities, where the intervening use is compatible with both the industry or major facilities and the sensitive land use. 2. The City will attempt to minimize any proven or recognized impacts of industrial uses and/or stationary noise sources by regulating separation of those uses from other non-industrial uses in accordance with legislation, policy and guidelines established by the Province. Separation distances are intended to supplement, not replace, adequate controls at the source to safeguard against fugitive emissions (for which there is no practical means of control), process upsets, and breakdown or malfunction of technical control and/or spills. In situations where incorporating separation distances into a development is not a feasible option, alternative approaches such as building orientation, materials, fences berms, etc should be assessed and incorporate into the development where appropriate. In addition, Policies 2.7.1.2 c) and 8.5.1 d) both speak to the need to protect and preserve employment areas to support current and future employment uses. One of the most effective ways to do this is to minimize and/or avoid land use conflicts between industrial uses and sensitive land uses. In addition to Official Plan policies, the City also relies upon provincial land use compatibility guidelines to assess the appropriateness of changes in land use that may create conflicts between industrial areas and sensitive land uses. The following section discusses these guidelines in more detail. Ministry of the Environment D- Series Guidelines The D- Series Guidelines were created by the Ministry of the Environment in 1995 in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act. In particular, the D-6 Guidelines are intended to prevent or minimize land use issues due to the encroachment of sensitive land uses and industrial uses on one another. Adequate buffering of incompatible land uses is intended to supplement, not replace, controls which are required by legislation for both point source and fugitive emissions at the facility source. It is recognized that emissions, which are difficult to control on-site, under all circumstances, are associated with normal operating procedures. The D-1-1 Guideline states that the Ministry expects planning authorities within the Province to identify, separate and/or otherwise protect facilities and sensitive land uses through various means available to them. It further states that Planning authorities are encouraged to ensure that the principles and objectives of Guideline D-1 entitled Land Use Compatibility, are applied in the formulation and review of matters identified in Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. These two sections deal with land use plans, policies, guidelines & programs as well as site-specific applications. When a sensitive land use is proposed in proximity to an existing industrial facility (in this case the TMMC facility) the Ministry requires that the proponent (in this case the Cambridge Hindu Society) to investigate the presence and severity of impacts and propose any necessary remedial measures, including design details and specifications. The proponent shall evaluate the proposal and provide evidence to the 3 5
approving authority that a compatibility problem will not exist. These studies are the responsibility of the proponent. Section 7.3 Influence Areas/potential influence areas of the D-1-1 Guideline states that when a sensitive land use is proposed in proximity to an existing industrial facility, particular attention must be paid to ensure that there will not be a compatibility problem with those land uses that fall within the facility s influence area. The Ministry has issued Guidelines D-6-1 Industrial Categorization Criteria and D-6-3 Separation Distances to provide a guide for planning authorities on the appropriate distances between industrial areas and sensitive land uses. The TMMC facility would be classified as a Category III operation which recommends a minimum separation distance of 300 metres and a potential or actual area of influence of up to 1000 metres. Measurement of these distances is to be taken from the limit of the land use designation, zoning or property lines of the closest existing Class III Industrial Use. As noted at the outset, the subject property on Royal Oak Road is only separated by the width of the municipal right of way and would definitely fall within the minimum 300 metre separation distance as set out above. The Ministry D- Series guidelines state that Class III industrial are expected to generate outputs such as noise, dust and/or odour. The processes associated with Class III industrial uses also recognize that operations occur on a continuous basis in many cases and due to the scale of the operation are expected to have large production levels, continuous movements of products and employees. The preferred approach is to minimize any potential land use conflicts by ensuring that sensitive land uses do not locate within the minimum separation distance noted above. However, where that is unavoidable, a compatibility study is to be completed which complies with Ministry guidelines to demonstrate that there will not be any conflicts between these uses. Discussion As part of our review, we undertook an assessment of the various reports and plans that were submitted with the rezoning application. As noted earlier, a Planning Justification Report and a Noise Feasibility Study were submitted along with a servicing report and plans. The Planning Justification Report states the proposal is to construct a place of worship that would have a prayer hall and ancillary uses on the main floor and a large hall to be used for social functions such as weddings on the lower floor. The lower level is expected to have a stage for performances by children and other ancillary uses. The report assesses the proposed use in the context of provincial, regional and local land use policies and states that the proposed place of worship will help in building a complete community. The concept of complete community is enunciated in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as: Places such as mixed-use neighbourhoods or other areas within cities, towns, and settlement areas that offer and support opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to conveniently access most of the necessities for daily living, including an appropriate mix of jobs, local stores, and services, a full range of housing, transportation options and public service facilities. Complete communities are age-friendly and may take different shapes and forms appropriate to their contexts. The location of the proposed place of worship is located to the south of the Cambridge Business Park and the Boxwood Business Campus. The immediate area includes a somewhat isolated pocket of residential lots that have existed in the area for a number of years. However, there are few community services located in the surrounding area. The site is located outside of the City s Urban Growth Centre, 4 6
Community Core areas, Node and Regeneration Areas, Reurbanization Corridors or Major Transit Station Areas. The Official Plan encourages institutional uses to locate in these areas where there are other complimentary and supportive uses within broader mixed-use neighbourhoods. The Planning Justification Report acknowledges that the proposed place of worship is not located in any of these areas as it is quite cost prohibitive based on land area required and land prices. The report further states that very few, if any, places of worship are being built in such areas however no additional information was provided to demonstrate how these conclusions had been reached. From a land use planning perspective, it is not sufficient justification to locate a sensitive land use within such close proximity to a major industrial facility simply due to market considerations. Fundamentally, the issue that needs to be demonstrated is that there are no other suitable locations within the City that could accommodate a place of worship and therefore it is unavoidable to locate within the minimum separate distance of a major industrial facility. In our opinion, this has not been demonstrated. Further, the location for the proposed place of worship is remote; is not within a walkable pedestrianoriented or transit supported neighbourhood. The intent of the Section 8.1.6 - Institutional Uses policies is to encourage the establishment of a range of institutional uses in appropriate locations, subject to addressing all other aspects of this Plan, including compatibility with the neighbouring area, based on variables in Policy 8.1.6.7. The primary concern by TMMC is the introduction of a new sensitive land use and the potential for complaints due to fugitive emissions that are acknowledged by the province as being difficult to control on-site, under all circumstances, all the time and are associated with normal operating procedures. For the past 30 years TMMC has demonstrated its commitment to adhering to provincial standards and minimizing impacts. However, they remain concerned with the introduction of the proposed place of worship that will draw large numbers of people to the facility thereby increasing the potential for nuisance complaints. TMMC has retained our firm on previous occasions to address similar concerns with the proposed introduction of sensitive land uses within the Boxwood Business Campus. Through these discussions, it was recognized by the City that it was appropriate to include separation distances for sensitive lands uses within proximity to the TMMC in order to minimize the potential for impact. In our opinion, the same approach should be considered with respect to this application as it would be consistent with the provincial D-Series Guidelines and contrary the City s Official Plan policies. We recognize the challenges that certain organizations may have in finding suitable locations to meet their needs; however it is our opinion that siting a place of worship in such close proximity to the TMMC does not represent good planning and will introduce the potential for complaints related to noise, dust and/or odour. The site is located immediately downwind from the facility which also increases the risk for conflicts. In our opinion, the City should be abiding by their Official Plan policies that speak to the need to protect and preserve employment areas for a range of current and future employment uses and to ensure compatibility and appropriate buffering and screening between industrial and sensitive land uses. These matters are not sufficient addressed by the applicant. While a stationary noise study was undertaken to assess noise impacts, no investigation of air and odour quality was completed to assess potential impacts for these considerations. This is required as part of the provincial guidelines on land use compatibility. Notwithstanding, it remains the position of TMMC that the most effective means of minimizing land use conflicts is to enforce appropriate separation distances between existing industrial facilities and sensitive land uses. On that basis, the rezoning application to permit a place of worship is not considered appropriate or representative of good land use principles and should be denied. 5 7
We ask that we be notified of any future public meetings and Council decisions regarding this proposal. Yours truly, MHBC Carol Wiebe Partner cc. Scott MacKenzie, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Pat Clement, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Trevor McWilliams, City of Cambridge James Goodram, City of Cambridge 6 8
KITCHENER WOODBRIDGE LONDON KINGSTON BARRIE March 4, 2015 Corporation of the City of Cambridge 50 Dickson Street PO Box 669 Cambridge, Ontario N1R 5W8 Attn: Mr. Trevor McWilliams Economic Development Department Dear Mr. McWilliams: RE: Proposed Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendments for Boxwood Business Campus OUR FILE 14139A I am writing on behalf of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada (TMMC) as it relates to the proposed amendments for the Boxwood Business Campus As you are aware, our firm was retained by TMMC to review the proposed Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments that were being contemplated by the City in September of 2014. We submitted correspondence to the City outlining concerns regarding the introduction of sensitive land uses which could have potential to create land use conflicts with the existing manufacturing operations for TMMC. In response to these concerns, Council directed that further discussions be held with representatives of TMMC. Those discussions and meetings were productive and a better understanding was reached in order to minimize potential land use conflicts while at the same time ensuring that the Boxwood Business Campus would provide the appropriate range of land uses desired by the City. We have reviewed the most recent report that is to be presented to Planning and Development Committee on March 10, 2015 and wish to advise, on behalf of TMMC, that we do not have any major concerns with the recommendations contained therein. The majority of the suggested modifications have been incorporated so that sensitive land uses such as hotels, banquet facilities, conference centres have been removed as permitted uses. We had also suggested that licenses day care facilities be removed as permitted uses however staff is recommending that they be permitted subject to satisfying noise criteria through the use of Holding provision. In discussions with TMMC, we feel that this is an acceptable approach and will take into account the current and future expansions of their manufacturing operations. 9 200-540 BINGEMANS CENTRE DRIVE / KITCHENER / ONTARIO / N2B 3X9 / T 519 576 3650 / F 519 576 0121 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM
Thank you again for taking the time to work through these modifications with us and we appreciate the attention that staff has directed to these concerns. Yours truly, MHBC Carol Wiebe Partner cc. Greig Mordue, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Pat Clement, Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Hardy Bromberg, City of Cambridge 2 10