'In-between Land Uses' Proposal by Hasmig Bedrossian

T: 519 888 4567 E: info@urbact.com L: 200 University Ave W. Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1

URBACT & Co.

FINAL REPORT

In-Between Land Uses Township of Clearview, ON April 15, 2020

Report prepared for:

This report was prepared by: Hatim Jafferjee Hasmig Bedrossian Katie Turriff Angela Tan Mackenzie Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Connell

Our team would like to acknowledge and give thanks to: Professor Kevin Curtis for organizing our integrated planning project and consistently providing his support throughout this project and through the challenges we faced restructuring our course and project due to COVID-19. Professor Jeff Solly for providing his mentorship throughout our project and always being available to us. Katherine Perrott, Steve Wever, and Syndey Bailey from GSP Group for developing this project for us, and taking time out of their busy schedules to mentor us through this work as we graduate and prepare ourselves to enter the workforce.

Table of Contents Part 1 Introduction

Part 4 1

2 1.1 Site Context 2 1.1.1 Physical Geography 2 1.1.2 Population and Area Statistics 2 1.1.3 Economic Activity 3 1.1.4 Future Growth 4 1.2 Problem Statement 5 1.3 Methods 6 1.4 Policy Review 6 1.4.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) 6 1.4.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) 7 1.4.3 County of Simcoe Official Plan (2008) 8 1.4.4 Township of Clearview Official Plan (2001) 10 1.4.5 Township of Clearview Zoning By-Law (2006) 11 1.4.6 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 11 1.4.7 Ontario Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae & Guidelines

5.1 Policy Recommendations

5.2 Policy Recommendations In Practice 5.2.1 In-Between Land Use Evaluation: Process 5.2.2 In-Between Land Use Evaluation: Cases

50 50 51

5.3 Story Map

6.1 Conclusions 12 12 13 14 15 16

16 16 18

Part 3 3.1 Case Studies and Preliminary Assessments 3.1.1 Case Study 1: Landscaping Yard 3.1.2 Case Study 2: B&B Towing 3.1.3 Case Study 3: Clear Valley Hops

Part 5

Part 6

Part 2 2.1 Best Practice Research and Findings 2.1.1 Ontario Policy 2.1.2 Simcoe County Policy 2.1.3 Other Policy Opportunities 2.1.4 Best Practices In Evaluating Land Use Efficiency 2.1.5 Best Practices Research Discussion 2.2 Evaluation Criteria 2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria for Existing Uses 2.2.2 Evaluation Criteria for New Uses and Applications

35 4.1 Future In-Between Land Use Designations 35 4.1.1 Lands Potentially Suitable for Future In-Between Land Uses 37 4.1.2 Potential Site 1 39 4.1.3 Potential Site 2 41 4.1.4 Potential Site 3 43 4.1.5 Potential Site 4 45 4.1.6 Potential Site 5

Appendix A: Invoice Appendix B: In-Between Land Use Registry Appendix C: References

22 22 26 30

List of Figures Figure 1: Simcoe County Figure 2: Simcoe Settlement Areas Figure 3: Aerial View of Landscaping Yard Figure 4: Official Plan Designation of Landscaping Yard Figure 5: Zoning Designation of Landscaping Yard Figure 6: Streetview of Landscaping Yard Figure 7: Aerial View of B&B Towing Figure 8: Official Plan Designation of B&B Towing Figure 9: Zoning Designation of B&B Towing Figure 10: Streetview of B&B Towing Figure 11: Aerial View of Clear Valley Hops Figure 12: Official Plan Designation of Lof Clear Valley Hops Figure 13: Zoning Designation of Clear Valley Hops Figure 14: Streetview of Clear Valley Hops Figure 15: Potential Lands for future in-between land uses Figure 16: Prime Agricultural Lands within the Township of Clearview Figure 17: Aerial View of Potential Site 1 Figure 18: Prime Agricultural Areas of Potential Site 1 Figure 19: Official Plan Designations of Potential Site 1 Figure 20: Zoning Designations of Potential Site 1 Figure 21: Aerial View of Potential Site 2 Figure 22: Prime Agricultural Areas of Potential Site 2 Figure 23: Official Plan Designations of Potential Site 2 Figure 24: Zoning Designations of Potential Site 2 Figure 25: Aerial View of Potential Site 3 Figure 26: Prime Agricultural Areas of Potential Site 3 Figure 27: Official Plan Designations of Potential Site 3 Figure 28: Zoning Designations of Potential Site 3 Figure 29: Aerial View of Potential Site 4 Figure 30: Prime Agricultural Areas of Potential Site 4 Figure 31: Official Plan Designations of Potential Site 4 Figure 32: Zoning Designations of Potential Site 4 Figure 33: Aerial View of Potential Site 5 Figure 34: Prime Agricultural Areas of Potential Site 5 Figure 35: Official Plan Designations of Potential Site 5 Figure 36: Zoning Designations of Potential Site 5 Figure 37: Planning Process Flowchart Figure 38: Proposed Case 1 Study Site Figure 39: Proposed Case 2 Study Site

2 3 24 24 25 25 28 28 29 29 32 32 33 33 36 37 38 38 38 38 40 40 40 40 42 42 42 42 44 44 44 44 46 46 46 46 53 55

List of Tables Table 1: Population and Area Statistics Table 2: Growth Allocations Table 3: Simcoe County Land Budget Table 4: Existing Uses Evaluation Criteria Table Table 5: New Proposed Uses Evaluation Criteria Table Table 6: SWOT Analysis for Landscaping Yard Table 7: Evaluation Criteria for Landscaping Yard Table 8: SWOT Analysis for B&B Towing Table 9: Evaluation Criteria for B&B Towing Table 10: SWOT Analysis for Clear Valley Hops Table 11: Evaluation Criteria for Clear Valley Hops Table 12: Case 1 Evaluation Criteria Table 13: Case 2 Evaluation Criteria

2 3 3 18 20 23 26 27 30 31 34 53 55

This page was left intentionally blank

PART ONE

Introduction This final report presents URBACT & Co.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final evaluation of in-between land uses in Clearview Township for GSP Group. This report provides a review of project context, including the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s geographic, demographic, and economic characteristics. Next, a definition is derived from in-between land uses, and relevant planning framework documents are discussed. Then, final best practice research that showcases ideas on appropriately organizing and evaluating in-between land uses is discussed. Practical evaluations complement these discussions, including suggestions on locations for the placement of future in-between land uses as well as an evaluative framework with criteria developed from policy and best practice research.

Key Term In-between land uses uses that do not fall within conventional and prescribed understandings of land use and zoning designations.

Finally, this report concludes with a description of appropriate policy guidelines that have evolved from the rigour of all project tasks undertaken over the past four months.We confidently present all of these findings in this report, complementing the presentation and ArcGIS Story Map also available for GSP Groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s review.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

1.1

Site Context

1.1.1 Geography

1.1.2 Population and Area Statistics

Simcoe County The County of Simcoe consists of sixteen Towns and Townships. It is located in Central Ontario. It is situated north of the Greater Toronto Area, with extensive shorelines bordering major bodies of water such as Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe, Lake Couchiching, and the Trent-Severn Waterway. The County of Simcoe is one of the most geologically diverse areas in Ontario, as it contains the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine. The transitional geography of Simcoe County supports a wide range of agricultural, construction, manufacturing, and tourism industries.

2016

2011 Population:

13,734 (-2.5% from 2006) 14,151 (+3.0% from 2011)

Land Area:

557.44 km2 (215.23sq mi) 557.10 km2 (215.10 sq mi)

Population Density:

24.6/km2 (64/sq mi)

25.4/km2 (66/sq mi)

Total Private Dwellings:

6,040

5,852

Table 1: Population and Area Statistics (Source: 2016 Community Profiles. (2016) Canadian Census. Statistics Canada. February 21, 2017. Retrieved

Average household size:

2.6 persons

Average value of dwelling:

$413,914 (Up from $344,862 in 2011)

Median household income:

$78,519

Median age of population:

45.3 years

Source: 2016 Community Profiles. (2016) Canadian Census. Statistics Canada. February 21, 2017. Retrieved 2020-05-03.

1.1.3 Economic Activity

Figure 1: Simcoe County

* Statistics Canada 2016 data

The Township of Clearview is predominately agricultural with two small commercial centres, Stayner and Creemore. Over the years, these two centres have been quietly becoming touristic attractions (Ontario, 2011). Creemore is also home of a popular microbrewery Creemore Springs.

Top 5 Industries by employment: Township of Clearview The Township of Clearview is located in Simcoe County in Central Ontario, to the north of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The Township of Clearview borders the following municipalities:

1. Manufacturing 2. Retail trade 3. Health care and social assistance 4. Construction 5. Accomodation and food services

North: Collingwood, Wasaga Beach East: Springwater, Essa South: Adjala-Tosorontio, Mulmur Melancthon West: Grey Highlands, The Blue Mountains In-Between Land Uses

1.1.4 Future Growth Anticipated growth allocations based on population projections and policies direct the majority of new growth to the three primary settlement areas (Creemore, Stayner, New Lowell) (Clearview Township, 2002). According to the Official Plan (2002), the management of growth is for the overall goal of achieving a “restructured municipality.” URBACT & Co’s proposal is aligned with these goals, aiming to direct in-between land uses towards the outskirts of settlementl areas to allow for residential uses to continue to grow within the serviced areas. Allocated Growth

1997

2021 Targets

Total Population:

6219

12,575

18,794

% Urban (Primary Settlement:

86.5%

40%

53%

% Urban (Secondary Settlement Area)

12%

11%

Figure 2: Settlement Areas (Source: Township of Clearview) Disclaimer: the maps provided in this report do not have scale bars due to the limitations presented by the GIS software used to create them.

4.5% 48% 36% Rural: Table 2: Growth Allocations Source: Clearview Township. (2002). Official Plan of the Township of Clearview. Clearview Township.

Employment Land Suppy The County of Simcoe Land Budget (2010) looks at the employment land suppy to determine greenfield densities and housing supplies. The following table has a Gross-to-Net factor of 80% applied to parcels greater than 10 gross vacant ha in size. URBACT & Co. looked at these statisitcs at to determine available employment lands for future designation purposes of in-between land usesites. Industrial Area

Total Designated Non-Developable Developable Land Area (ha) Land Area (ha) Land Area (ha)

Occupied Area (ha)

Gross Vacant Area (ha)

Net Vacant Area (ha)

Creemore:

New Lowell: Nottawa:

Stayner: Rural: Total:

183 7

135

108

259

189

152

Table 3: Simcoe County Land Budget (Source: Simcoe County Land Budget (2010))

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

1.2 Problem Statement In-between land uses constitute uses that do not fall within conventional and prescribed understandings of land use and zoning designations. For example, in-between land uses that fall outside the definitions of strictly commercial, industrial, or agricultural uses, but may still have components of these uses. For the purpose of evaluating in-between land uses, they have been categorized into commonly observed uses that exist in the Township of Clearview. The Township of Clearview staff has had substantial contributions in determining these different categorical uses. The uses are as follows:

Landscaping Businesses These are uses that have an agricultural function (i.e. growing flora) with a secondary use. For example, a retail establishment which then sells the produce/flowers which are grown: there is both an agricultural and commercial use.

Yard 2. Contractor These are operations that tend to have a significant retail portion for selling raw materials such as woodchips and stones. There may also be storage of materials and equipment on these sites.

3. Storage These uses can generally be scoped towards building structures that are used for storage without planning permissions, such as barns left over from previous farming operations. It is difficult to determine where these uses exist as they are often on private properties, and information is not available online, nor does URBACT & Co. have permission to contact private property owners or conduct site visits on their lands. Additionally, many self-storage uses are being developed which do not require servicing, but they are frequently being developed on serviced lands. This results in an inefficient use of the land. Depots/Storage 4. Trucking These are uses that generally evolve over time. The operation may begin as a tow-truck use, which develops into vehicle storage or scrap vehicle storage. These uses are dispersed throughout the Township in rather unconventional locations that do not fit with their surrounding context. / Cideries / Breweries 5. Wineries These uses are common within the Township due to its agricultural roots. However, when these uses introduce farming, brewing, and retail operations on site, there is a lack of guidance in terms of what uses are primary and secondary, and whether they fit into their context. These uses also produce high levels of noise and odour, so their surrounding sensitive uses must be considered.

Based on these categories, a deeper understanding of what in-between land uses are has been developed. This understanding has allowed URBACT & Co. to create policy recommendations and evaluation criteria that are in line with best practices, so that existing uses can be adjusted to better fit into their context, and future uses can be directed to ideal locations that minimize their impacts on surrounding sensitive uses. URBACT & Co.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goal in this policy direction is that these uses can operate in ways that allow for the growth of economic activities while ensuring an adequate fit into their local contexts.

In-Between Land Uses

1.3 Method The Township of Clearview is conducting a thorough review of their Official Plan in preparation for a new one for 2021. The current Official Plan has been in effect since 2001, and its 20-year horizon is ending. The existing plan’s policies inform the Township’s land use patterns and operations. With the Township’s growth and economic diversification, these policies must be updated to reflect both the current land use framework in Ontario and the needs for the Township for the next ten years. URBACT & Co. has conducted an in-depth review of the existing planning policies and other legislative frameworks that apply to the Township’s lands. In addition to policy frameworks, URBACT & Co. has conducted a review of other documents that present bestpractice methods. The documents that have been reviewed include the following:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Provincial Policy Statement (2014) Provincial Policy Statement (new, 2020) County of Simcoe Official Plan (2008) Township of Clearview Official Plan (2001) Official Plans of surrounding local municipalities within Simcoe County Ontario D-6 Guidelines - Compatibility within Industrial Facilities Ontario D-1 Guidelines - Land Use and Compatibility Ontario Minimum Separation Distance Guidelines Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario’s Prime Agricultural Areas (2016)

The existing Township of Clearview Official Plan has been reviewed in great detail to find policy gaps so that the work of URBACT & Co. can fit into these gaps to offer policy direction for in-between land uses. In addition to conducting a review of the aforementioned documents, URBACT & Co. has completed a thorough desktop review of all the lands within the Township of Clearview. This desktop review consisted of reviewing Google Satellite imagery, Google Street View imagery, and online business searches in order to locate in-between land uses within the Township and develop an inventory of them. To complement the desktop review, an in-person site visit was conducted on March 4, 2020, which consisted of meeting with Township staff and understanding their concerns, along with participating in a driving tour to understand the physical context of the Township.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

1.4 Policy Review Background research of the current policy framework was conducted in Phase 1 to allow URBACT & Co. to gain a deeper understanding of how the Township of Clearview currently addresses implications related to in between land uses. URBACT & Co. has reviewed the current Provincial Policy Statement and compared it to the future 2020 Provincial Policy Statement. The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The policies regarding rural lands and prime agriculture have been reviewed thoroughly to identify the strengths and weaknesses of these policies. Additionally, we have reviewed relevant policies in the current County of Simcoe Official Plan, the Township of Clearview Official Plan, and the Township of Clearview Zoning By-law. The relevant findings from the policy documents are as follows:

1.4.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2014) The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement’s (“2014 PPS”) Part V provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The 2014 PPS guides appropriate development while protecting the public interest in regards to public health and safety, and preserving the quality of the natural and built environments. Rural settlements are an important consideration of building strong and healthy communities in Ontario. Section 1.1.4 ‘Rural Areas in Municipalities’ states that rural areas are lands that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas, natural heritage features and areas, and other resource areas. The 2014 PPS suggests that rural areas are best suited for redevelopment of brownfield sites, accommodating for mix of housing, promoting the diversification of rural opportunities for employment, leveraging the natural, historical, and cultural assets to promote tourism, conserving biodiversity for ecological benefits, and providing opportunities for economic activities in prime agricultural areas. Section 1.1.5.2 ‘Rural Lands in Municipalities’ outlines permitted uses on rural lands in municipalities, which includes the management or use of resources, resource-based recreational uses, limited residential development, home occupations and industries, cemeteries, and other rural land uses. Section 1.1.5.9 ‘Rural Lands in Municipalities’ states that new land uses, which include the creation of new lots or expansion of livestock facilities are required to comply with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae Guidelines (2017).

1.4.2 Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (“2020 PPS) will come into effect on May 1, 2020. This will replace the current 2014 PPS therefore it is important to review how these policies will guide our recommendations for in-between land uses. The County of Simcoe and Township of Clearview Official Plans will need to incorporate policies to ensure that they are consistent with the 2020 PPS. Similarly, the 2020 PPS continues to provide policy direction for managing appropriate land use developments while protecting public interests. Section 1.1.5.2 ‘Rural Lands in Municipalities’ permits additional uses on municipal rural lands, specifically the promotion of residential development, including lot creation, that is locally appropriate. Agricultural and related uses, on-farm diversified uses, and normal farm practices, in accordance with provincial standards, are also permitted. Previously, the 2014 PPS limited residential development and did not include agriculture-related uses. In-Between Land Uses

Introduced in the 2020 PPS, Section 1.6.6.4 of ‘Sewage, Water and Stormwater’ states that planning authorities should assess the long-term impacts of individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services on the environmental health and the character of rural settlement areas. Appropriate development can be justified on rural lands if there are no long-term risks related to health and environment and if the sewage systems managed by the property owner can accommodate the development.

1.4.3 County of Simcoe Official Plan (2008) The County of Simcoe Official Plan was adopted in 2008. It encourages the expansion of existing rural employment areas, the development of home-based businesses, tourism and resource-based recreational uses, and the management of natural resources including forestry and agricultural. Prime Agricultural Lands are an important resource for the County and are to be protected for agricultural uses to support the agricultural economy. Consideration of other developments should be on rural lands to minimize conflicts with surrounding uses. Under the ‘Agricultural’ designation, the County permits agricultural uses, agricultural-related uses, processing of agricultural products, on-farm diversified uses, natural heritage conservation and forestry, mineral aggregate operations, and agricultural produce sales outlets generally marketing products from the local area. The Processing of Agricultural Products in Prime Agricultural or Rural Areas that are agriculture-related uses that do not require additional water or sewer servicing are permitted on the farm or within the vicinity which produces the products. Section 3.3.14 ‘General Development’ Policies states that the lot creation or lot expansion of livestock facilities shall comply with the Province’s Minimum Distance Separation Formulae Guidelines (2017). These guidelines shall be used to determine preferred locations and establish appropriate setback distances for new or existing livestock facilities that may produce nuisance such as odour. This assists the County’s objective to protect prime agricultural areas from conflicting land uses. Section 3.3.21 ‘General Development Policies’ states where proposed land uses are likely to adversely affect existing uses or be adversely affected by existing uses, a feasibility study will be conducted to assess the impacts related to nuisances such as odour, noise, vibrations, particulates, or other emissions. This policy is aims to protect sensitive land uses (e.g. residential) from emissions-producing land uses such as highways, arterial roads, railway corridors, industries, and sewage treatment facilities. The feasibility study will be conducted by the Township of Clearview, who will provide recommendations for the adequate separation distance between land uses as well as options to mitigate impacts. Section 3.6.2 ‘Agricultural’ provides objectives to promote efficient use of prime agricultural areas by minimizing conflicting and competing uses while accommodating uses and facilities which support the agricultural economy in accordance with the Planning Act and the Farming and Food Production Act (1998).

In summary, the County of Simcoe’s Official Plan does not explicitly state policies that guide decision making for in-between land uses. The direction of these relevant policies is to protect prime agricultural areas from conflicting land uses.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

1.4.4 Township of Clearview Official Plan (2001) The Township of Clearview Official Plan was adopted in 2001 and is currently under review for 2021. The Township’s Official Plan is required to conform with the Official Plan of the County of Simcoe. Agriculture is an important part of the Township’s local economy that provides employment and recreation. Section 5.2.9 ‘Agriculture’ provides the established objectives of preserving agriculturally productive land, prioritizing those designated as Prime Agricultural Lands, and promoting the expansion of the agricultural industry. Accessory uses are encouraged as long as it directly supports the main agricultural use. Permitted accessory uses include dwelling units for employment or small-scale commercial uses as long as their presence is minimized on the Prime Agricultural Lands. The Township expects that new development will predominantly occur in rural areas. New developments are required to demonstrate technical and environmental adequacy in regards to water supply and sanitary sewage disposal to ensure that they can be properly accommodated.

Agricultural Uses Section 3.2 describes ‘Agriculture Goals and Objectives’. The Township’s goal is to preserve agriculturally productive land and promote the expansion of the agricultural industry. This is guided by protecting Prime Agricultural Lands from the encroachment of incompatible land uses such as non-farm residential, commercial, and industrial development to locate in non-productive agricultural areas such as rural. Section 4.3 describes ‘Agriculture Land Use Policies’. Lands that are designated as ‘Agriculture’ in the Township of Clearview’s Schedule ‘A’ have higher potential for agricultural production due to higher soil quality or growing conditions. In this designation, the Township permits primary uses such as agriculture, single-detached farm dwellings, accessory agricultural buildings (e.g. barns, sheds, or garages), and conservation or forestry. However, industrial and commercial uses that are directly related and necessary in proximity to the primary use may be permitted only if suitable alternative locations within Rural designations are unavailable. Secondary uses include Roadside Retail Outlets, Home Occupations and Home Industries, Garden Suite or Accessory Apartment, Temporary Farm Accommodation, Bed and Breakfast Accommodation, a kennel or riding club, Public Uses, Utility and Communication Facilities and Structures.

‘

Rural Uses

Section 4.4 describes ‘Rural Land Use Policies’. Lands that are designated as ‘Rural’l on the Township of Clearview’s Schedule “A” have lower agricultural potential than Agriculture designated areas. While these lands have marginal productivity compared to Agriculture, the Township has policies to maintain the viability of existing farm uses. The objective with Rural designated lands is to maintain the historical agricultural community and rural character while protecting natural heritage features. The Township permits all primary uses under the Agricultural designation. Rural lands have greater flexibility in terms of uses compared to Agricultural due to the lower agricultural capability. Secondary uses may be permitted if they do not compromise or conflict with existing agricultural uses, such as Non-Agricultural Residential Uses, Highway Commercial that service the travelling public, Open Spaces such as golf courses, resorts, passive recreational uses, kennel or riding club, Estate Residential, Rural Business Parks, Stand-Alone Industrial Uses, or Public Uses.

Industrial Uses Section 3.10 describes ‘Industrial/Commercial Goals & Objectives’. The Township’s goals include maximize the economic and employment potential by encouraging a variety of enterprises, providing suitably located areas for industrial development, maximizing Clearview’s recreational and tourism potential, and providing an economic climate attractive to new industry. In-Between Land Uses

These objectives include providing an adequate supply of lands to support industrial needs, encouraging the development and expansion of existing industrial enterprises, and encouraging agriculturally related industry. Section 4.8 describes ‘Industrial Land Use Policies’. Major industrial developments are to be directed to the Township’s three major settlement areas (Stayner, Creemore, and New Lowell) as these lands require adequate servicing infrastructure, including water supply and sanitary sewage disposal systems, to accommodate industrial development and be located where the municipality’s labour force principally resides. Industrial uses shall be encouraged to locate in business parks or may be located on arterial or collector roads that demonstrate no traffic impacts. No industrial uses may be permitted that create adverse impacts as determined by technical studies or towards adjacent land uses. Industrial uses have sub-policies for Restricted Industrial, ‘General Industrial’, and ‘Creemore East Industrial Lands’. Restricted Industrial permits lighter industrial activities that are compatible with other land uses, such as residential. These uses include workshops, light manufacturing, service shops, establishments for the manufacture and sale of wine and beer products, among others. ‘General Industrial’ permits heavier industrial activities that may be found offensive due to the large-scale of the use, emissions, noise, etc. These uses include uses permitted under ‘Restricted Industrial’, construction yards, bulk storage operations (e.g. lumber or fuel storage), heavy manufacturing, etc. Finally, Creemore East Industrial Lands are lands located in the east of Creemore’s settlement area may be limited to ‘Restricted Industrial’ developments with no outside storage. These uses include light manufacturing, business offices, establishments for the manufacture of wine or beer products, and others.

Municipal Services Section 3.7 describes Municipal Services Goals and Objectives. The Township’s goal is to provide safe and adequate systems of water supply, sanitary sewage disposal, and stormwater management to all areas of development. These objectives include providing full municipal sewage and water services to new development areas as required, upgrading and improving existing services to meet future growth requirements, and ensuring that no development occurs without an adequate supply of water and sanitary sewage disposal systems.

In summary, agricultural, rural, and industrial uses are important parts of the Township of Clearview’s identity. The policies in the Official Plan guide the direction for these land uses and what uses are permitted, however there is limited direction on how to classify lands that may fall in the grey area of conventional uses. Some land designations are more restrictive than others (i.e.. Agriculture vs. Rural) but allow similar or the same accessory uses which results in confusion on how to zone uses. In response to this, URBACT & Co. has developed an evaluation criteria to recommend where future lands will be located to minimize impacts to adjacent uses.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

1.4.5 Township of Clearview Zoning By-Law (2006) The Township of Clearview Zoning By-law was established in 2006. It implements the policies in the Official Plans. There are several relevant zoning by-law designations, including Agriculture (AG), Agriculturally Related Industrial (AGI), Agriculturally Related Commercial (AGC), Rural (RU), Restricted Industrial (MR), Prestige Industrial (MP), and General Industrial (MG). All of these zoning designations have primary uses, however, they also have accessory uses for additional relevant uses. For example, all Agriculture designated lands are able to permit Rural uses, however, this is not preferred because of the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s objectives to protect Prime Agricultural Lands where possible. There is limited understanding of the logic associated with the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning and their primary and secondary uses, as there are several overlaps of uses between different zoning designations. Below is a list of relevant zoning designations and some examples of their permitted uses: Agriculture (AG): Permitted primary uses include: conservation, forestry and maple syrup production, plant nursery, and produce farm or a livestock farm. Accessory uses include agricultural open storage, agricultural processing plant, dwelling units, or relevant farm offices. Agriculturally Related Industrial (AGI): Permitted primary uses include: all uses permitted in the Agriculture (AG) Zone, abattoir, agricultural processing plant, agricultural produce warehouse, or large scale agri-composting facilities. Accessory uses include retail outlets associated with the product, accessory office, or accessory storage. Agriculturally Related Commercial (AGC): Permitted primary uses include: all uses permitted in the Agriculture (AG) Zone, agricultural equipment and supply sales outlet, agricultural veterinary clinic, fertilizer, seed, pesticide, and herbicide sales facility. Accessory uses include open storage, accessory office, or accessory seasonal outdoor attractions. Rural (RU): Permitted primary uses include: conservation use, equestrian facility, plant nursery, product farm or a livestock farm, or single-detached dwelling. Accessory uses include agricultural processing plant including a winery which involves processing only produce from the farm operation, accessory farm office, accessory agricultural open storage, or accessory farm winery or cidery. Restricted Industrial (MR): Permitted primary uses include: commercial self-storage facility, dry light manufacturing, processing, repairing, fabricating and assembly operations, warehouses, or wineries and breweries. Accessory uses include business and administrative offices, outdoor storage, or retail outlet for the purpose of sale and goods and materials produced on the premise. Prestige Industrial (MP): Permitted primary uses include: light manufacturing, processing repairing, fabricating and assembly operations, business, professional, and administrative offices, or wineries and breweries. Accessory uses include a retail outlet for the purpose of goods and materials produced on the premises. General Industrial (MG): Permitted primary uses include: all Restricted Industrial (MR) uses, building supply outlets, construction yards and contractor yards, heavy manufacturing, processing, repairing, fabricating and assembly operations, outdoor storage, sawmill or lumber yards, or farm implement and supplies outlets. Accessory uses include outdoor storage.

In-Between Land Uses

1.4.6 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs - Agricultural Land Base (2018) The Province has identified an agricultural system for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), within which the Township of Clearview is situated. Ontario has diverse and productive agricultural areas which support a large agri-food industry. Identifying critical Prime Agricultural Lands informs land use planners, communities, and governments on their land use making decisions to protect and develop areas where appropriate. These soil quality classifications are also important considerations for the Ontario Minimum Distance Separation Guidelines. The OMAFRA has identified the County of Simcoe as primarily agricultural lands which have higher quality suitable for farming. This has posed challenges for URBACT & Co. in determining preferred locations for in-between land uses because the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lands are primarily designated as Prime Agricultural Lands.

1.4.7 Ontario Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae & Guidelines The Ontario Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae is a planning tool that determines appropriate setback distances between proposed (MDS Formula I) or existing (MDS Formula II) livestock barns, manure storages, or anaerobic digesters. These Guidelines are designed to minimize issues with conflicting land uses and nuisance complaints related to odour. The MDS Formulae does not account for other nuisances such as noise or dust. The MDS Formulae are based on five factors, including (1) the type of livestock housed, (2) the potential number of livestock housed based on lot size or barn capacity, (3) the percentage increase in the size of the operation, (4) the type of manure system and storage, and (5) the type of encroaching land use. The 2014 PPS requires all proposed livestock barns, manure storages, or anaerobic digesters to comply with the MDS Guidelines to minimize conflicting land uses. URBACT & Co. has incorporated elements of the MDS guidelines as part of policy recommendations by quantifying appropriate setback distances for new or existing uses for land uses that create odour and other undue impacts.

By analyzing what methods are in place in the Ontario context for addressing issues relevant to in-between land uses and land use compatibility, URBACT & Co. understands the provincial standards for how Townships are to address these concerns. With this research, URBACT & Co.â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s suggestions are provincially appropriate and proven to work in both theory and practice.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

PART TWO

2.1 Best Practice Research and Findings A review of existing best practices has helped solidify an understanding of how in-between land uses may be most effectively planned for the Township of Clearview. Emphasis was placed on finding results directly relevant to rural contexts, ensuring our context-sensitive approach is consistent throughout our entire project process. A variety of planning tools and theoretical approaches to rural land use planning were found, and many have the potential to be used to best identify, organize, and plan for in-between land uses.

2.1.1 Ontario Policy Two main policies published by Ontario provide a strong understanding of how to best organize land use . Specifically, the Ontario D-1 Guidelines discuss land use compatibility, while the Ontario D-6 Guidelines discuss opportunities for planning for industrial use (Government of Ontario, 2015). When understood together, they provide a good interpretation of how land use compatibility may happen between different industrial classes of land use . The objective of the Ontario D-1 Guidelines is to â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;minimize or prevent, through the use of buffers, the exposure of [anything] to adverse effects associated with the operation of specific facilitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Government of Ontario, 2015). These Guidelines focus on distance via buffers as the main tool for promoting land use compatibility. According to the Guidelines, separation distance may vary depending on the intensity and sensitivity of the uses and the usesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; potential or actual influence area. By focusing on distance as the main tool, compatibility can be achieved through adequate buffers.

The Ontario D-6 Guidelines seem to complement D-1 Guidelines for the purpose of our research. The D-6 Guidelines organize industrial land use into classes based on intensity (Government of Ontario, 2015). For each class, there exists specific policy regulations concerning influence areas and separation distance -elements that are elaborated on in the D-1 Guidelines. URBACT & Co. is keen to draw inspiration from the marriage of these Guidelines on how we may be able to classify in-between land uses in the Township of Clearview, and develop certain policies for how those in-between land uses may interact with more sensitive land uses with tools such as buffers. We anticipate taking more time to interpret what this may look like and how this could manifest as an Official Plan policy.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

2.1.2 Simcoe County Policy URBACT & Co. is careful to ensure we continue to honour our goal of championing a context-sensitive approach. In an effort to do so, we have reviewed the Official Plans of all 23 other townships in Simcoe County, in addition to carefully inspecting The Township of Clearview’s own. Relevant policy clauses were pulled that drew inspiration for how the Township could tackle their problem with in-between land uses. Specific policies are identified below, with the name of the Township whose Official Plan they were pulled from. Township of Bradford West Gwillimbury Bradford West Gwillimbury echoes the elements of the Ontario D-1 Guidelines by emphasizing the need for buffering where industrial service may have an impact on neighbouring uses (Section 5.3.1.7). It also places emphasis on screening, and encouraging relocation of poorly located industrial use where appropriate (Section 5.3.5.3). The Township also uses site plan control for new or expanding industrial uses (Section 5.3.5.3).

Township of Severn The Township of Severn outlines criteria required for the designation of Community Improvement Areas, including noting that opportunities exist for vacant and under-utilized lands to be developed or redeveloped in a way that achieves a functional role in the community (Section G1.7.2).

Town of Collingwood Collingwood makes use of setbacks and adequate buffering for between industrial uses and adjacent uses (Section 4.5.3.1.5). Mirroring the Ontario D-6 Guidelines, they also make use of a ‘Light Industrial’ sub-classification in their planning policy, which encompasses lighter industrial activities with minimal compatibility issues compared to heavier industrial uses (Section 4.5.3.2). Under this sub-classification, Collingwood’s Official Plan identifies certain permitted uses and development criteria (Section 4.5.3.2.2; Section 4.5.3.3.3). Town of Midland The Town of Midland notes in their Official Plan that outmoded industrial uses will be redeveloped to compatible uses (Section 3.1). They also plan for lands on the periphery of industrial areas to be considered for compatible commercial and service-related use (Section 3.1.4.1). Town of Oro-Medonte Oro-Medonte has developed a designation entitled the ‘Limited Service Industrial Designation’ for areas that may not be serviced adequately but may still be developed for industrial uses (Section C17.2.4). They intend to adequately screen all outdoor storage areas in these uses.

In-Between Land Uses

2.1.3 Other Policy Opportunities To explore beyond the Ontario context, URBACT & Co. researched what other communities are doing to best understand and organize their rural land use issues. While exact policies on what could be considered in-between land uses or ambiguous land uses were not found, URBACT & Co. can still draw plenty of inspiration from the plethora of opportunities found. Search terms were intentionally kept vague to find a wide variety of policies to draw inspiration within an array of geographic contexts. Key findings are listed below: Performance-based Zoning Performance-based zoning prioritizes predetermined standards upon which potential developments are considered (Baker et.al., 2006, p.1). The predetermined standards, or performance measurement, are developed in accordance with the characteristics of the site, and allows for quantitative limits to be set on acceptable levels of use. Evidently, Performancebased zoning goes further than organizing land uses into generic classes, because all nuance is captured specifically to that site. In theory, this would minimize incompatibilities of land use , allow for flexibility in development, and also encourage a great dialogue between stakeholders and developers in reflecting on how to achieve the best possible use for a particular site. In the Clearview Township context, Performancebased zoning could look at elements of nuisance on the sites. Undesirable emissions such as noise, chemical pollutants, and dust would be considered in predetermined standards for site characteristics. Limits on these emissions would minimize incompatibilities between in-between land uses and other more sensitive land uses such as residential or agricultural uses. Complaint-based Zoning Complaint-based zoning is another flexible land use planning tool that is quite participatory in nature. It is researched to be most effectively used in areas where placing checks on every development project is not feasible. When using Complaint-based zoning, zoning rules would only be applied to developments at the proposal stage if, after development proposals are communicated to the public, the local government receives a complaint from a resident about the proposal (Locke, 2015, p.174). This is a rather permissive tool by its nature and encourages developers to engage

in good dialogue with the community. Furthermore, Locke (2015) describes reactive zoning as having the potential to be a problematic tool wherein unexpected threats from development interests can arise (p.175). Additionally, the Farming and Food Protection Act (1998) is a legislation that promotes agricultural uses and reasonable farm practices while protecting public health, safety, and the environment. Agricultural operations may include intensive operations that may cause disturbances to adjacent lands, such as noise, odour, vibration, light, dust, flies, or smoke. The Farm Practices Protection Board reviews complaints and can exercise powers to resolve disputes and to enforce compliance with normal farm practice. Rural Cluster Zoning In its detailed document, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Alternatives to Conventional Zoningâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (2002), the State of Georgia notes Rural Cluster Zoning as an opportunity for counties that are concerned about the aesthetic, environmental, and economic impacts of residential developments on large lots (particularly subdivisions). The State of Georgia suggests that incompatibilities between residential developments and other rural uses such as agricultural use and industrial use may be mitigated by clustering rural zones as districts in a manner that maintains the rural character, protects sensitive areas, and minimizes impacts to necessary public services (Georgia, 2002, p.476). One question that arises out of this is whether this could be adapted to answer Clearview Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s questions of in-between land uses; perhaps in-between land uses could be zoned in clusters to promote density of use and mitigate the impacts they may have on sensitive agricultural and residential land uses.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Light Industrial District Zoning The State of Georgia also discusses light industrial district zoning in their ‘Alternatives to Conventional Zoning’ document (2002). The purpose of such a district is to ‘provide and reserve suitable areas for a variety of industrial uses’ (Georgia, 2002, p.608). They find that the district would need to be located in areas that are relatively level in their topography, have ample access to arterial streets and highways, and have adequate water and sewerage facilities. By implementing a district for light industrial uses, or perhaps for in-between land uses to address the concerns presented by Clearview Township, nuisances exerted by in-between land uses would have minimal impact on adjacent land uses.

2.1.4 Best Practices in Evaluating Land Use Efficiency It is URBACT & Co.’s goal to assist GSP and the Township of Clearview in developing not only opportunities for organizing in-between land uses effectively, but to also determine how effective that organization is. Therefore, URBACT & Co. is also investing time in researching best practices in evaluating land use efficiency. We have found that composite indicators play an important role in determining the effectiveness of certain planning tools in addressing planning issues. Composite indicators may work well with sub-indicators that can individually respond to different goals, together bringing an integrated approach to understanding land use policy efficiency (Attardi et al, 2018). Auziņš et al (2014) also touch on indicator systems as a means of achieving success in determining land use efficiency, and propose a hierarchy of proposed indicators for evaluation spanning across composite indicators ‘socio-economic,’ ‘environment,’ and ‘institutional.’ In addition to indicator systems, there is also academic theory around land use efficiency in general that URBACT & Co.’s proposed evaluation system should adhere to. Auziņš et al (2013) define ’efficiency’ as “a relative estimate of either the conscious actions or the outcome of a process that shows the ratio of both the achieved effect and the resources consumed to achieve this effect.” Linkages between the main proposed objectives of land use efficiency identified as ’socio-economic equity,’ ’environmental acceptability,’ and ’institutional justice’ result in equity, acceptability, justice, productivity, monitoring, and participation. These linkages promote a balance in the development of the main proposed objectives to increase welfare gains for local communities (Auziņš et al 2013). URBACT & Co. has developed an evaluation tool that is built upon this theoretical and practical precedence. This focuses on achieving the goal of land use efficiency via composite and sub-indicators for Clearview to evaluate their land use decisions with in-between land uses. URBACT & Co. has discussed this in Section 2.2 of this report.

In-Between Land Uses

2.1.5 Best Practices Research Discussion The studied best practices that exist have the capacity to either immediately address or address after theoretical and practical adaptation the concerns that the Township of Clearview has with in-between land uses. It is evident in our findings that many of these best practices emphasize flexibility, suggesting a restrictive approach may not achieve the best outcomes. Rather, approaching in-between land uses in such a way that responds to their individuality and overall nuance may be better suited to The Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals with rural planning, including the balance of environmental conservation with economic development. Not only would environmental conservation and economic development be considered, but it has also been found that with multifunctional land use that can be achieved by flexible policy guidelines, rural residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; well being increased over time (Hu et. al., 2018). Therefore, URBACT & Co. has refined an approach to our policy development that is flexible and permissive in nature.

2.2 Evaluation Criteria The Township of Clearview has a desire to improve their land use policies and evaluations when it comes to assessing in-between land uses. The goal is to better guide existing uses through policy to fit more appropriately into their context, and more importantly, to give direction through policy to the placement of future in-between land uses. In order to assist this effort, URBACT & Co. has developed evaluation criteria that can be applied to these in-between land uses. The evaluation of uses has been greatly informed through the findings of best-practice research, and is therefore rooted in established planning theory. This work is split into two different methods. The first evaluation method is be applied directly to existing land uses and operations in order to assess them and recommend mitigation measures to address the impacts the land use introduces. The second evaluation method addresses the placement of future in-between land uses to provide a similar assessment of their impacts and opportunities around impact mitigation measures.

2.2.1 Evaluation Criteria for Existing Uses The first evaluation, which can be applied to existing uses, is based on the following factors:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Noise impacts Visual impacts Odour impacts Traffic / parking impacts Proximity to sensitive land uses Other impacts to surrounding sensitive land uses

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

These factors have been incorporated as part of a measurable system to evaluate existing uses. URBACT & Co.’s framework is as follows: The criteria will be evaluated against a point system, which will determine whether there must be further measures implemented to improve the fit of the use within its existing context. Each evaluated use will start with a base number of 10 points, and will be examined through a series of questions where additional points will be added or taken away depending on the answer.

EXISTING USES Question

Options

1. What noise levels does the use generate, in terms of both decibel level and frequency?

A. B. C. D.

2. Is the use visible from the road and from adjacent lots?

Very little to no noise Some noise Medium levels of noise High levels of noise

Score

Possible Next Steps

+ 2 points 0 points - 1 point - 2 points

☐ Upgrade/ incorporate sound insulation measures

A. No, it is fully screened off B. Partially, some of the operations can be viewed C. Yes, most to all of the operation is visible to the public

A. + 1 points B. 0 points C. - 2 points

☐ Upgrade/ incorporate visual screening

3. Does the use generate odour?

A. No, nothing that affects the surrounding area B. Yes, but no complaints have been reported and the odour isn’t very strong C. Yes, and there have been complaints

A. + 1 point B. 0 points C. - 1 point

☐ Upgrade/ incorporate odour scrubbers

4. Does the use generate a demand for traffic or parking?

A. No A. + 1 point B. Yes, but there are no impacts to B. 0 points surrounding uses C. - 2 points C. Yes, the use generates levels of traffic that impact surrounding uses

☐ Make provisions for parking

5. Is the use in proximity to sensitive land uses within 200 meters of the site? (e.g. residential)

A. No, there are no sensitive land uses within 200 m of the site B. Yes, there are some sensitive land uses within 200 m of the site, but the impacts are very minimal C. Yes, the use generates levels of traffic enough to impact surrounding uses

A. + 1 point B. 0 points C. - 2 points

☐ Incorporate screening measures (i.e. visual, noise screening)

6. Are there any other pollutants/emissions (e.g. dust, chemicals, etc) that have an impact on surrounding uses?

A. No, there are no other undue impacts B. Yes, there are other impacts generated through this site

A. 0 points B. -1 point

☐ Incorporate technologies to mitigate environmental impacts

A. B. C. D.

Table 4: Existing Uses Evaluation Criteria Table

In-Between Land Uses

Rubric 3 - 5 points: There are significant improvements needed on site to mitigate impacts. The site is not a good fit as it exists right now. 5 - 8 points: There are some improvements needed to mitigate impacts. The site must be slightly modified to be a good fit. 8 + points:

The site is an appropriate fit.

2.2.2 Evaluation Criteria For New Uses and Applications The second evaluation, which can be based on future applications and uses, is based on the following criteria:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Land use designation Zoning designation Location relative to settlement area Level of servicing Location relative to Prime Agricultural Lands Proximity to existing and future sensitive developments (i.e. future residential developments) Proximity to existing in-between land uses Anticipated levels of traffic and parking demand Potential noise, odour, dust, and visual impacts

The criteria is evaluated against a point system, which will determine whether the user needs to implement further measures to improve its fit within its existing context. Each evaluated use will start with a base number of 10 points, and will go through the following questions:

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

NEW PROPOSED USES Question

Options

A. Yes, it is a directly permitted use A. + 1 point B. No, but it is a generally justifiable use B. 0 points C. No, the proposed use is not allowed under the C. - 1 point Offiical Plan designation

☐ Apply for Official Plan amendment

A. Yes, the zoning does relate generally to the A. + 1 points proposed use B. 0 points B. No, the zoning does not generally relate to the proposed use

☐ Apply for Zoning By-law amendment

Does the land use designation relate to the proposed use as outlined in the Official Plan?

2. Does the zoning designation relate to the proposed use as outlined in the Zoning By-law?

3. Is the proposed use within A. No, it is not within a settlement area a settlement area? B. Yes, it is within a settlement area

Score

A. + 1 point B. - 1 point

Possible Next Steps

☐ Consider location outside settlement area

4. Assuming the proposed use doesn’t require servicing, are the proposal lands serviced?

A. No, there is no servicing infrastructure currently A. + 1 point in place B. - 2 points B. Yes, there is servicing infrastructure on the lands

5. Are the lands located within a prime agricultural area, or any other important natural heritage feature (i.e. the Niagara escarpment)

A. No, the lands are not within any natural heritage areas or within a prime agricultural area B. Yes, the lands are within these features

A. + 1 point B. - 1 point

☐ Consider one of the five designated as shown in mapping for potential future uses

6. Is the proposed use within proximity (~200 m) of existing or future sensitive land uses, such as residential uses?

A. No, there are no other undue impacts B. Yes, there are other impacts generated through this site

A. + 1 point B. - 2 points

☐ Incorporate screening measures (i.e visual/ noise screening)

A. + 2 points B. - 1 point

☐ Consider locating within proximity to similar uses

A. + 1 point B. - 2 points

☐ Make provisions for parking

A. + 3 points B. - 1 point C. - 3 points

☐ Incorporate measures to reduce impacts

7. Is the proposed use within A. Yes proximity of other similar B. No “in-between” land uses? 8. Will the proposed use generate an undue level of traffic or parking demands that the site has not accomodated for? 9

Will the proposed use emit noise/odour/dust pollution, or have any undue visual impacts?

A. No, there are no anticipated traffic or parking demands from this proposed use that would impact surrounding lands B. Yes, there is a component of the proposal that will have traffic and parking implications that cannot be accommodated on the site A. No, the proposed use does not have any of these impacts B. Yes, the proposed use has some undue impacts that may be of concern to surrounding sensitive uses C. Yes, the proposed use has extensive impacts that will be an issue to surrounding uses

☐ Consider location that is not serviced if servicing is not required

Table 5: New Proposed Uses Evaluation Criteria Table In-Between Land Uses

Rubric 0 - 10 points: Re-evaluate location or impacts of site as current proposal is not appropriate. 11 - 15 points: Proposal is generally appropriate, but may require some revisions to address some impacts. 16 + points: Proposal is appropriate.

One point that should be considered is the level of servicing within the proposal lands. If the proposal receives a high point score, though is a use that doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t require servicing yet is on serviced lands, there may be good reason to decline the proposal.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

PART THREE Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

3.1 Case Study Sites and Preliminary Assessments To evaluate in-between land uses in the Township of Clearview, URBACT & Co. has selected three (3) case study sites that represent appropriate examples of these uses. This section will provide a preliminary look at these study sites by providing information such as their policy designations under the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, along with a brief analysis of each study site.

3.1.1 Case Study 1: Landscaping Yard Site Location:

2741 Concession Road 6, North Nottawasaga, Clearview

Site Designation:

Zoning Designation - Rural (RU) Official Plan Designation - Rural (RU)

In-Between Land use :

It has not gone through regular site plan application process and recieved planning approvals. It may be operating uses outside of permitted use.

Site Description:

This landscaping yard is located in the northern portion of The Township, just below Collingwood. The property is surrounded by lands designated as Rural, Agricultural and Restricted Industrial in the Zoning By-law. These surrounding lands are also designated as Rural, Agriculture and Industrial in the 2001 Consolidated Official Plan. Located nearby are a number of auto and glass repair shops, as well as a U-Haul truck rental agency. From the initial desktop review of the site, it appears that the majority of it is empty land. Though part of the land is dedicated to what appears to be a residential building surrounded by trees and landscaping, the empty undeveloped portion of land is used to store landscaping equipment and supplies. While the house is shielded from the road by a tree buffer, the portion of the site used for storage is flat and completely visible from the road.

Strengths

Weaknesses

• Not in proximity to sensitive land uses • No signage for the business Opportunities

Threats

• Enough surrounding land available to • Full visibility of open storage to the introduce screening measures road (vulnerable to complaints? theft?) • Not a permitted use for rural designation Table 6: SWOT Analysis for Landscaping Yard Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Aerial View

Official Plan Designation

Figure 3: Aerial View of Landscaping Yard (Source: DMTI and Township of

Figure 4: Official Plan Land Use Designation of Landscaping Yard (Source: DMTI and Township of Clearview)

Clearview)

Disclaimer: 200 meters were identified as a generous buffer to capture surrounding sensitive land uses that may be affected by strong impacts of in-between land uses such as permeating odour, sound, etc.

In-Between Land Uses

Zoning By-law Designation

Streetview

Figure 5: Zoning Designation of Landscaping Yard (Source: DMTI and Township of Clearview)

Figure 6: Streetview of Landscaping Yard (Source: Google Maps)

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Applying Evaluation Criteria: *start with base of 10 points Question

Options

Score

A. B. C. D.

What noise levels does the use generate, in terms of both decibel level and frequency?

Very little to no noise Some noise Medium levels of noise High levels of noise

Possible Next Steps

+ 2 points ☐ 0 points - 1 point - 2 points

Upgrade/ incorporate sound insulation measures

2. Is the use visible from the road and from adjacent lots?

A. No, it is fully screened off B. Partially, some of the operations can be viewed C. Yes, most to all of the operation is visible to the public

A. + 1 points B. 0 points C. - 2 points

☐ Upgrade/ incorporate visual screening

3. Does the use generate odour?

A. No, nothing that affects the surrounding area B. Yes, but no complaints have been reported and the odour isn’t very strong C. Yes, and there have been complaints

A. + 1 point B. 0 points C. - 1 point

☐ Upgrade/ incorporate odour scrubbers

4. Does the use generate a demand for traffic or parking?

A. No A. + 1 point B. Yes, but there are no impacts to B. 0 points surrounding uses C. - 2 points C. Yes, the use generates levels of traffic that impact surrounding uses

☐ Make provisions for parking

5. Is the use in proximity to sensitive land uses within 200 meters of the site? (e.g. residential)

A. No, there are no sensitive land A. + 1 point uses within 200 m of the site B. 0 points B. Yes, there are some sensitive land C. - 2 points uses within 200 m of the site, but the impacts are very minimal C. Yes, there are sensitive land uses within 200 m of the site

☐ Incorporate screening measures (i.e. visual, noise screening)

6. Are there any other pollutants/emissions (e.g. dust, chemicals, etc) that have an impact on surrounding uses?

A. No, there are no other undue impacts B. Yes, there are other impacts generated through this site

☐ Incorporate technologies to mitigate environmental impacts

A. 0 points B. -1 point

Table 7: Evaluation Criteria for Landscaping Yard

Total point score: 15 points As per the the rubric, a property with a score of 8+ points represents an appropriate fit. As such, the landscaping yard is generally a good fit in its exisiting geographic location. No suggestions are being recommended.

In-Between Land Uses

3.1.2 Case Study 2: B&B Towing Site Location:

12403 County Road 10 Stayner, Clearview

Site Designation:

Zoning Designation - Restricted Industrial (MR) Official Plan Designation - Industrial (I)

In-Between Land use :

It has not gone through regular site plan application process and recieved planning approvals. It may be operating uses outside of permitted use.

Site Description:

B&B Towing is located in the northeast portion of the Township of Clearview, to the east of the Stayner settlement area at Sunnidale Corners. The lands immediately surrounding B&B Towing have a range of zoning designations including Institutional, Development Area, Residential Hamlet, and Highway Commercial. In the Official Plan these surrounding lands are designated as Residential, Rural and Commercial. On a wider scale, much of the surrounding lands are designated as Agricultural for both the Zoning and the Official Plan. Located nearby are a number of residential buildings, a community centre, a church and a self-storage facility, in addition to smaller commercial uses. From the initial desktop review, it appears that there is a single building on the site, with much of the land being used as a storage area for the tow trucks. In addition there seems to be an impound lot, as well as a small general use parking lot (Better Business Bureau, n.d.).

Strengths

Weaknesses

• Towing impound lot with accessory • Proximity to sensitive land use (e.g. administrative buildings are permitted community centre on adjacent land uses under restricted industrial property) designation Opportunities Threats • To build off B&B Towing and the adjacent self-storage operation to create an ‘in-between land use’ business park

• Existing community centre could threathen possible future in-between land uses in surrounding area

Table 8: SWOT Analysis for B&B Towing

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Aerial View

Official Plan Designation

Figure 7: Aerial view of B&B Towing (Source: DMTI and Township of

Figure 8: Official Plan Land Use Designation B&B Towing (Source: DMTI and Township of Clearview)

Clearview)

In-Between Land Uses

Zoning By-law Designation

Streetview

Figure 9: Zoning Designation of B&B Towing (Source: DMTI and Township of Clearview)

Figure 10: Streetview of B&B Towing (Source: Google Maps)

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Applying Evaluation Criteria: *start with base of 10 points Question

Options

Score

Possible Next Steps

A. B. C. D.

+ 2 points 0 points - 1 point - 2 points

☐ Upgrade/ incorporate sound insulation measures

A. + 1 points B. 0 points C. - 2 points

☑ Upgrade/ incorporate visual screening

What noise levels does the use generate, in terms of both decibel level and frequency?

Very little to no noise Some noise Medium levels of noise High levels of noise

2. Is the use visible from the road and from adjacent lots?

A. No, it is fully screened off B. Partially, some of the operations can be viewed C. Yes, most to all of the operation is visible to the public

3. Does the use generate odour?

A. No, nothing that affects the A. + 1 point surrounding area B. 0 points B. Yes, but no complaints have been C. - 1 point reported and the odour isn’t very strong C. Yes, and there have been complaints

☐ Upgrade/ incorporate odour scrubbers

4. Does the use generate a demand for traffic or parking?

A. No A. + 1 point B. Yes, but there are no impacts to B. 0 points surrounding uses C. - 2 points C. Yes, the use generates levels of traffic that impact surrounding uses

☐ Make provisions for parking

5. Is the use in proximity to sensitive land uses within 200 meters of the site? (e.g. residential)

☑ Incorporate screening measures (i.e. visual, noise screening)

6. Are there any other pollutants/emissions (e.g. dust, chemicals, etc) that have an impact on surrounding uses?

A. No, there are no other undue impacts B. Yes, there are other impacts generated through this site

☐ Incorporate technologies to mitigate environmental impacts

A. 0 points B. -1 point

Table 9: Evaluation Criteria for B&B Towing

Total point score: 5 points As per the rubric, a property with a score of 3 - 5 points represents a site that needs significant measures to mitigate undue impacts in order to ensure appropriate fit. As such, B&B Towing should consider incorporating visual screening measures to ensure that it fits more appropriately into its surrounding context.

In-Between Land Uses

3.1.2 Case Study 3: Clear Valley Hops Site Location:

4082 Simcoe County Rd 124 Nottawa, Clearview

Site Designation:

Zoning Designation - Development Area (DA), Environmental Protection (EP), and Rural (RU) Official Plan Designation - Rural (RU), Greenland - Hazard Land Area, Greenland Natural Heritage Areas

In-Between Land use :

It has not gone through regular site plan application process and recieved planning approvals for its operation of a nano brewery.

Site Description:

Clear Valley Hops is located in Nottawa, in the northwest portion of the Township of Clearview. The majority surrounding lands are designated as various forms of Residential or Development Areas in the Zoning, as well as a few parcels zoned as Recreational and Institutional. The Official Plan designates much of the area as Residential, Greenland (both Hazard Land Area and Natural Heritage Areas), or Rural. Located around Clear Valley Hops are mostly residential buildings, with a few nearby in-home businesses. From the initial desktop review, it appears that there is a single storage facility on the site, and the rest is either fields or Greenland as designated by the Official Plan. The owners intended to build a nanobrewery on site when they bought the property, however it is unclear if this project went through. This is in part due to the by-law that was passed in March of 2019 restricting some on-farm processing (Farmtario, 2019).

Strengths

Weaknesses

• Economic benefits • Argi-Food innovation excellence (award) Opportunities

• Surrounded by sensitive land uses (residential) Threats

• Site is large and has opportunities to • New By-law restricting on farm brewery build parking in the rear to avoid impacts of street-parking on local roads Table 10: SWOT Analysis for Clear Valley Hops

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Aerial View

Official Plan Designation

Figure 11: Aerial View of Clear Valley Hops (Source: DMTI and Township of

Figure 12: Official Plan Land Use Designation of Clear Valley Hops (Source: DMTI and Township of Clearview)

Clearview)

In-Between Land Uses

Zoning By-law Designation

Streetview

Figure 13: Zoning By-Law Designation of Clear Valley Hops (Source: DMTI and Township of Clearview)

Figure 14: Streetview of Clear Valley Hops (Source: Google Maps)

What is a “Nano Brewery”? While the term “microbrewery” is fairly common and well known, the term “nanobrewery” is used far less and not easily understood. The Food Section defines a nanobrewery as a scaled-down microbrewery, often run by a solo entrepreneur, that produces beer in small quantities, which does not give a defined limit to what is considered a nanobrewery (4). However, the common thought is that nanobreweries should produce no more than three barrels of beer in a single batch (1). Though the concept of these smaller microbreweries has been around for a while, the term attached to it is rather new (2). Canada has no federal or provincial legislation for nanobreweries as small breweries tend to be cast under the same legislation, though there are breweries in Canada that are trying to change this (5). Western Newfoundland Brewing Company Ltd. in Newfoundland defined nanobreweries as having a capacity of fewer than four barrels in their registration (5). In addition, parts of the United States have passed laws providing a clearer definition of what they consider a nanobrewery. New Hampshire has revised their statutes on liquor licences and alcoholic beverages to include special licences for nanobreweries (1). A nanobrewery licence can be issued to a business that manufactures beer or specialty beer, not exceeding 2,000 barrels annually for sale in any quantity to the general public or licensees (3).

1 2 3 4 5

Microbreweries have clearly defined terms and limits – they must be small, independent, and traditional; have a production size of less than 15,000 beer barrels a year The most-widely accepted description of nano breweries is a brewery that produces in batches of three barrels or smaller. A nano brewery license gives license to businesses not exceeding 2,000 barrels annually for sale in any quantity to the general public or licensees. Nanobrewing reflects the impact of neighborhoods, as these mavericks create a brew — and a following — one trench drain, one fermentation tank at a time. More than 520 breweries now exist in Canada and this number continues to grow yearly.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Applying Evaluation Criteria: *start with base of 10 points

Question

Options

Score

Possible Next Steps

A. B. C. D.

+ 2 points 0 points - 1 point - 2 points

☑ Upgrade/ incorporate sound insulation measures

A. + 1 points B. 0 points C. - 2 points

☐ Upgrade/ incorporate visual screening

What noise levels does the use generate, in terms of both decibel level and frequency?

Very little to no noise Some noise Medium levels of noise High levels of noise

2. Is the use visible from the road and from adjacent lots?

A. No, it is fully screened off B. Partially, some of the operations can be viewed C. Yes, most to all of the operation is visible to the public

3. Does the use generate odour?

☑ Upgrade/ incorporate odour scrubbers

4. Does the use generate a demand for traffic or parking?

A. No B. Yes, but there are no impacts to surrounding uses C. Yes, the use generates levels of traffic that impact surrounding uses

☑ Make provisions for parking

5. Is the use in proximity to sensitive land uses within 200 meters of the site? (e.g. residential)

☑ Incorporate screening measures (i.e. visual, noise screening)

6. Are there any other pollutants/emissions (e.g. dust, chemicals, etc) that have an impact on surrounding uses?

A. No, there are no other undue impacts B. Yes, there are other impacts generated through this site

☐ Incorporate technologies to mitigate environmental impacts

A. + 1 point B. 0 points C. - 2 points

A. 0 points B. -1 point

Table 11: Evaluation Criteria for Clear Valley Hops

Total point score: 5 points As per the rubric, a property with a score of 3 - 5 points represents a site that needs significant measures to mitigate undue impacts in order to ensure appropriate fit. As such, Clear Valley Hops should consider incorporating visual screening measures to ensure that it fits more ap into its surrounding context.

In-Between Land Uses

PART FOUR

4.1 Future In-Between Land Use Designations 4.1.1 Lands Potentially Suitable for Future In-Between Land Uses With all of these considerations in mind, URBACT & Co. found five areas to investigate further in the following sections. These five areas were selected due to several factors. Four of these sites were predominantly zoned as some form of Rural or Industrial. These four sites fell largely outside of the lands that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs indicated would be Prime Agricultural Lands, as well as mostly avoided lands designated as Escarpment and Greenland. The fifth site, located in the Sunnidale Corners settlement area, was selected due to its similar industrial, rural, and commercial land uses that are currently in place.

1. 3. 2. 4.

Figure 15: Potential Lands for future in-between land uses (Source: Township of Clearview)

In-Between Land Uses

Figure 16 below depicts all of the areas within the Township of Clearview that are designated as Prime Agricultural Lands. Figure 17 depicts lands that are potentially well suited for in-between land uses, and have been informed by Figure 16, as generally Prime Agricultural Lands have been avoided unless the use has an agricultural component. These lands were taken into consideration in the suggestion of our five prime locations for in-between land uses.

Figure 16: Prime Agricultural Lands within the Township of Clearview (Source: OMAFRA and Township of Clearview)

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

4.1.2 Potential Site 1

Figure 17: Aerial View (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 18: Prime Agricultural Areas (Source: OMAFRA)

Figure 19: Official Plan Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 20: Zoning Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

In-Between Land Uses

The majority of the first potential site is located on Prime Agricultural Lands. This is not ideal as Prime Agricultural Lands should remain available for agricultural uses. In the Official Plan, some areas of the potential site are designated as Greenlands. Though having this designation is not ideal on the potential site, the majority of the land is not affected by this, and the majority of the areas that have this designation are narrow and avoidable. The Zoning of the first potential site mostly consists of rural designations. This is one of the two main categories of designations that URBACT & Co. has identified as ideal for in-between land uses. Though the Zoning and Official Plan designations of the lands within the potential site meet much of the criteria that are ideal in terms of placing in-between land uses, the fact that the entire site is located on Prime Agricultural Lands disqualifies it from being a future in-between land use park.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

4.1.3 Potential Site 2

Figure 21: Aerial View (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 23: Official Plan Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 22: Prime Agricultural Areas (Source: OMAFRA)

Figure 24: Zoning Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

In-Between Land Uses

The second potential site is situated completely off of Prime Agricultural Lands and a Candidate Areas. This is the ideal as the intent is to use as little of the Prime Agricultural lands as possible for in-between land uses. Very little of this potential site is designated as Greenland or Escarpment Lands in the Official Plan. Little of the land is designated as Industrial and none is designated as Rural in the Zoning for this potential site. Previous reviews of the site have also shown that some of the area is designated as various forms of Commercial. This site could be well-suited to being used for inbetween land uses due to its location away from Prime Agricultural Lands and how little of its area is designated as Greenland. However, this site is the smallest of the five, has the smallest area of similar zoning designations, and is located almost completely within the settlement area.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

4.1.4 Potential Site 3

Figure 25: Aerial View (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 27: Official Plan Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 26: Prime Agricultural Areas (Source: OMAFRA)

Figure 28: Zoning Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

In-Between Land Uses

About half of the third potential site is situated on Prime Agricultural Lands (Figure 27). A small portion of the site is also designated as Candidate Area which has the potential to be used for Prime Agriculture. In the Official Plan, approximately one-third of the potential site is designated as Greenlands, both Wetland Areas and Natural Heritage Areas. These are designations that URBACT & Co. are aiming to preserve. The third potential site contains both the Rural and Industrial Zoning designations that URBACT & Co. are focused on. These designations make up almost half of the site. Though the Zoning designations of the lands within the potential site are in line with the identified criteria, there are several factors that make this site less than ideal. Since so much of the land is designated Prime Agriculture Lands and Greenlands, the options for areas to develop in-between land uses are limited.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

4.1.5 Potential Site 4

Figure 29: Aerial View (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 31: Official Plan Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 30: Prime Agricultural Areas (Source: OMFRA)

Figure 32: Zoning Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

In-Between Land Uses

Much of the area of the fourth potential site is located on Candidate Areas as well as some Prime Agricultural Lands. While being located on Candidate Areas is still not ideal, it is better than being located on Prime Agricultural Lands. Candidate Areas are not necessarily being saved for Prime Agriculture but municipalities and townships have the option to use them for Prime Agriculture. In the Official Plan, small areas of the potential site are designated as Greenlands and none are designated as Escarpment. The majority of the potential site has a Rural Zoning designation. This makes up approximately 80% of the site surrounding the settlement area. There are no Industrial designations within this site. This site is well suited to being used for in-between land uses as the Zoning and Official Plan designations of this site are in line with the identified criteria. Though it currently encompasses the Duntroon settlement area, this portion can be excluded from the In-Between Land Use Park as not to encroach on some of the more residential areas. Additionally, the portion of the site that is designated for Prime Agriculture can be used for in-between agricultural uses or portions can be excluded from the finalized site.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

4.1.6 Potential Site 5

Figure 33: Aerial View (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 35: Official Plan Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

Figure 34: Prime Agricultural Areas (Source: OMAFRA)

Figure 36: Zoning Designation (Source: Township of Clearview)

In-Between Land Uses

As with the previous site, much of the fifth and final site identified by URBACT & Co. is situated on the Candidate Areas. In addition, small sections are also located on Prime Agricultural Lands. Very little of this area is designated as Greenlands in the Official Plan, and there are no Escarpment designations on this site. The Greenlands designations are grouped together near the top of the site and can be omitted in a final iteration of the In-Between Land Use Parks. In the Zoning By-law, much of the fifth potential site has Rural designations. There are no Industrial lands within the site, though there are some located near the outskirts of the site. The Zoning and Official Plan designations are in line with the criteria identified for the placement of inbetween land uses. Additionally, the portions of the site that are designated for Prime Agriculture can be used for in-between agricultural uses or portions can be excluded from the finalized site.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

PART FIVE In-Between Land Uses

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

5.1 Policy Recommendations URBACT & Co. recognizes that the task concerning policy recommendations involves guiding the strategy of what final policy or policies may be implemented in the Township of Clearview’s Official Plan for 2021. Therefore, this section operates as a summary of our entire findings for the benefit of GSP Group and the Township of Clearview to use in the development of their next Official Plan. These findings can be understood as the summative ‘next steps’ concerning policy action. We have scrutinized existing policy from neighbouring townships and beyond, best practices on ambiguous land uses from around the world, and evaluated sites already existing in Clearview Township. We have developed a number of maps to visualize in-between land uses in Clearview Township to gain a better understanding of their fit and their potential. The lessons from these tasks have been compiled into an evaluation criteria process designed to evaluate the performance of an in-between land use site as well as its fit. We bring all of these together to offer concise policy direction on in-between land uses in Clearview Township. These are our recommendations:

A. In-between land use policies should be permissive and flexible. First and foremost, we know that flexible policy structures will benefit the Township’s goals as stated in the Township of Clearview Official Plan. Throughout our project, we found that policy that is more accepting, permissive, and flexible is best suited to minimizing incompatibilities of land use along with supporting effective dialogue between stakeholders and developers. We know that economic development is a key priority of the Township, and we believe that permissive policy structures are best suited to working towards that goal.

B. In-between land use policies should address both existing sites and future developments. We have identified that a mix of reactionary and proactive policy structures are beneficial to address both existing and future sites. We know that the Township of Clearview already has many in-between land use sites, and there are constantly new opportunities and developments occurring. Policy measures that react to existing sites by addressing their quality are important. However, because of the opportunity for additional development in the Township, proactive measures that address new development opportunities must also be in place to meet the Township’s needs. By enacting policies that address both existing sites and future development opportunities, the Township is equipped to meet the needs of what they both presently face and potentially face with respect to both existing and future sites.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

C. In-between land use policies should account for the individuality of in-between land usesites to some extent. We found that the Township of Clearview must recognize a sweet-spot between classification policies (i.e. policies with strict spatial identification, division, and organization strategies in place) and policies that account for the individuality and nuance that comes with each site. We recognize that in-between land uses naturally include a variety of use types, and that each of these types has specific spatial needs and resource demands. We found that optimal policy should provide a mixed approach between district zoning and site-specific zoning, enabling flexibility in site-specific zoning while adhering to general guidelines of an overall understanding of the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s general type. By providing conditions sites must follow in both their development and upkeep, that flexibility can be accounted for and incorporated into land use decisions.

With the development of our evaluation criteria tool, we have effectively incorporated all of these strategic policy guidelines into one very practical tool. This tool is permissive in its structure, with the ultimate goal of finding an optimal outcome for every existing and potential land use in the Township, adhering to the Townshipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals of economic development balanced with environmental sustainability. It is also both equally reactive and proactive in that it addresses both existing land uses and potential future land uses. Finally, the tool is also performance-based where it identifies and evaluates the individual context of each site beyond the more generic checkbox approach. Not only does this tool correspond with our policy recommendations, but it is also a purely original development by URBACT & Co. specifically for GSP Group and Clearview Township. The URBACT & Co. team is confident to introduce this tool to the variety of other effective land use tools used in Clearview Township. URBACT & Co. believes this is a strong manifestation of policy into practice, and we are confident that it will help the Township of Clearview achieve their goals when used with the variety of other land use tools in their planning toolbox. Ultimately, this tool is an optimal manifestation of these general policy guidelines in practice and we sincerely welcome its use by the GSP Group and the Township of Clearview. Additionally, of course, its creative license can be taken advantage of as well. One of the strengths of this tool is that it can be readily and easily modified such that, if there are additional policy considerations that should be incorporated into the evaluation process, the tool can be adjusted accordingly.

In-Between Land Uses

5.2 Policy Recommendations in Practice 5.2.1 In-Between Land Use Evaluation: Process To best describe these policy recommendations, this section provides a better understanding of how the URBACT & Co. land use evaluation tool is a manifestation of the above policy recommendations in practice. First, note flowchart to the right that goes through a scenario of the planning procedures of a development being introduced to Clearview Township. In this flowchart, it is evident where the evaluation tool comes in within the overall planning process. The tool is used after the pre-consultation meeting, and before the complete application is submitted by the developer. It is used by the municipality to check whether the development is best suited to the area proposed as an integral part of the municipality’s decision-making process.

Site Selection for development

Consulting with: •

Complete Pre-consultation Application Process

• • • • • • •

Pre-consultation Meeting

Provincial Policy Statement County of Simcoe OP Niagara Escarpment Plan Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Regulations Growth Plan for GGH Township OP Township Zoning By-law

Evaluation Criteria

Proposed Factors: • • • • • •

Servicing requirements Spatial relation to sensitive land uses Settlement Area considerations Special Policy Areas (i.e Prime Agricultural) Traffic and parking demands Other nuisances

Official Plan Amendment 4 months (120 days) Yes

Zoning By-Law Amendment 3 months (90 days) Yes

Submit Complete Application • • •

Plan design Landscape plans Elevation drawings

Technical Circulation Public Meeting Council Decision Appeal Period

Figure 37: Planning Process Flowchart

Case Study Analysis Suitability in Future In-Between Land Use Designation Area

Building Permit and Construction Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

5.2.2 In-Between Land use Evaluation: Cases

In order to provide an example and to test out the evaluation criteria and the policy recommendations, URBACT & Co. has developed two case study examples consisting of fictitious land use proposals, on real geographic sites within the Township of Clearview.

Case 1 The first case study site is for a fictionalized proposed use of a large contractor yard that stores gravel and other aggregates, with a retail component for those products. The Official Plan designation and Zoning By-law designation are both Agricultural for the site. The site is not on prime agricultural lands, the lands are not serviced, and the lands are not within a settlement area. After evaluating these sites against our evaluation framework, we found that the first case study site for a large contractor yard totalled 16 points, meaning the proposal is appropriate. The first site scored well in its answers to all questions, yielding an overall positive score above the baseline of 10 points. Where slight inefficiencies were found, they were not found to yield a negative score, thus ensuring the site is an all-around good fit for its area (the complete information of the site is presented to the right).

In-Between Land Uses

CASE STUDY EXERCISE #1

Figure 38: Proposed Case 1 Study Site

*The example presented is fictional

Landscaping/storage Storage Storage

Residential Agri-retailer

Proposed Case Study Site Site information: Proposed use: Large contractor yard storing and selling gravel and other aggregates Official Plan designation: Agricultural Zoning By-law designation: Agricultural * Lands are on prime agricultural lands * Lands are not serviced * Lands are not within a settlement area

200 m

Source: Google Maps

Question

Points

1: B

0 (10)

2: B

0 (10)

3: A

+ 1 (11)

4: A

+ 1 (12)

5: A

+ 1 (13)

6: A

+ 1 (14)

7: A

+ 2 (16)

8: A

+ 1 (17)

9: B

- 1 (16)

TOTAL

Each site starts with 10 points. Points are added/subtracted based on the evaluation criteria. 0 - 10 points: Re-evaluate location or impacts of site as current proposal is not appropriate. 11 - 15 points: Proposal is generally appropriate, but may require some revisions to address some impacts. 16 + points: Proposal is appropriate.

Table 12: Case 1 Evaluation Criteria Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Case 2 The second case study site is for a fictionalized proposed use of a self-storage facility. The Official Plan designation is Industrial, and the Zoning By-Law designation is a Development Area for the site. (This allows for a detached dwelling, and a produce farm is permitted. The lands are services, they are within a settlement area, and they are not within a prime agricultural area. The second case study site for a self-storage facility totalled 6 points, identifying the need to re-evaluate the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s location or its impacts, as the current proposal is found to be not appropriate for the lands it is situated on. This site jumped around in answering positively and negatively to the questions in the evaluation criteria, meaning some aspects of the site made it a good fit while other aspects made it unfit for its location. Overall, it scored below the 10 point threshold in an area identified as marking its need for re-evaluation for a better location or the details of its proposed use. This is where the flow-chart is necessary as a tool for determining what the next step for this proposal should be: at this point, it would be necessary to ponder whether the development requires a Zoning By-law amendment or Official Plan amendment, for example. Another way of improving this fictional siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s point score would be to demand it move its proposed location from the current fictional location to one within the In-Between Land Use Parks identified in this report as having the best physical and social attributes for in-between land use developments (the complete information of the site is presented to the right).

In-Between Land Uses

CASE STUDY EXERCISE #2 Figure 39: Proposed Case 2 Study Site

*The example presented is fictional

Residential

Hydro-corridor

Proposed Case Study Site

200 m

Source: Google Maps

Question

Points

1: A

+ 1 (11)

2: B

0 (11)

Official Plan designation: Industrial

3: B

- 1 (10)

Zoning By-law designation: Development Area (detached dwelling, produce farm permitted)

4: B

- 2 (8)

5: A

+ 1 (9)

6: B

- 2 (7)

7: B

- 1 (6)

8: A

+ 1 (7)

9: B

- 1 (6)

Site information: Proposed use: Self-storage facility

* Lands are serviced * Lands are within a settlement area * Lands are not within a prime agricultural area

TOTAL

Each site starts with 10 points. Points are added/subtracted based on the evaluation criteria.

0 - 10 points: Re-evaluate location or impacts of site as current proposal is not appropriate. 11 - 15 points: Proposal is generally appropriate, but may require some revisions to address some impacts. 16 + points: Proposal is appropriate.

Table 12: Case 2 Evaluation Criteria Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

These examples provide an understanding of the capacity of this evaluation tool for the benefit of Clearview Township. We reiterate the points that this evaluation tool flows naturally as a practical example from our policy recommendations: this tool is permissive in its approach to land use options as it promotes optimal outcomes for the benefit of land use development. It can be used both reactively and proactively, addressing both existing and potential land use sites as part of planning procedures. Additionally, it operates with a performance-based structure that incorporates individual context information that moves beyond the more general typologies of land use classification. This evidently builds on top of our best practice research and ultimate policy recommendations that developed over the course of our entire project tasks, manifesting in one succinct practical tool for the benefit of GSP Group and Clearview Township.

5.3 Story Map To best illustrate the narrative of this projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s findings, we have developed and published a Story Map on the online ArcGIS platform. This provides an interactive way of understanding the methods and products of analysis throughout the project. With this Story Map, viewers can search addresses and interact with data layers on many of the maps presented within it. It can be accessed via the link below: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zabjNOOo30W0ybT8d9XWu-WPBuolNIhR

In-Between Land Uses

PART SIX In-Between Land Uses

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

6.1

Conclusions

URBACT & Co. has invested careful attention to the detail paramount to the task of identifying solutions to the planning challenges posed by in-between land uses in Clearview Township. In our winning proposal, we promised an approach that incorporated strong data analysis, commitment to research and policy, and sensitive to the needs, assets, and constraints of rural life. We honoured our commitment to this approach, ultimately developing holistic and valuable policy recommendations for Clearview Township to use during the process of establishing their next Official Plan. This was all achieved more efficiently than originally anticipated, under our initially proposed budget by $6,001.0, benefitting GSP Group. The URBACT & Co. team is satisfied our project contributes to the success of GSP Group and Clearview Township in finding appropriate and carefully-developed solutions to in-between land use challenges. We present this work confidently with our promise of spatial solutions from neighbour to neighbour. Thank you for choosing URBACT & Co.

Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Invoice

APPENDIX A Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Hasmig Bedrossian Name Hatim Jafferjee Senior Planner/ Position Project Manager Deputy Project Manager

Katie Turriff Angela Tan Mackenzie O'Connell Policy Planner Research Analyst GIS Specialist

$160

$140

$120

$100

Hours Spent

Expected

Difference

2.5

12.5

- 2.5 hours

Review of Ontario D-6 Guidelines, Township Zoning By-law, and Township & County Official Plans

7.5

13.5

+ 1.5 hours

Task 1.3

Desktop review of in-between land uses across the Township of Clearview (Data collection)

16.5

23.5

+ 1.5 hours

Task 1.4

Commence best-practice research

+ 10 hours

Admin

Meeting minutes, bi-weekly client updates, project management, team meetings

Hourly Rate PHASE 1 - PROJECT INITITATION, BACKGROUND RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION Task 1.1

Start-up meeting with GSP Group

Task 1.2

PHASE 1 TOTAL HOURS PHASE 1 TOTAL $

- 7 hours

11.5

12.5

21.5

79.5

+ 3.5 hours

$1,840

$1,750

$2,580

$1,560

$2,100

$9,830

$10,180

+ $350

PHASE 2 - CASE STUDY SELECTION & EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT Task 2.1

Confirm three case studies

+ 3 hours

Task 2.2

Site visit to Township of Clearview

+ 16 hours

Develop assessment criteria based on best practice research

+ 19 hours

Task 2.4

Mid-term report

- 33 hours

Admin

Task 2.3

Meeting minutes, bi-weekly client updates, project management, team meetings

- 7 hours

109

107

- 2 hours

$4,640

$3,640

$2,400

$3,000

$900

$14,580

$14,120

- $460

PHASE 2 TOTAL HOURS PHASE 2 TOTAL $ PHASE 3 - FINDINGS & POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Task 3.1

Apply evaluation framework to selected case study sites

+ 22 hours

Task 3.2

Identify ideal locations for different types of uses through applying assessment criteria against GIS data

+ 9 hours

Task 3.3

Create ArcGIS Online Story Map

+ 8 hours

Task 3.4

Develop policy and best practice recommendations for GSP to incorporate into OP review

+ 15 hours

Admin

Meeting minutes, bi-weekly client updates, project management, team meetings

PHASE 3 TOTAL HOURS PHASE 3 TOTAL $

- 3 hours

108

+ 35 hours

$1,440

$840

$1,920

$960

$3,400

$8,560

$13,440

+ $5,280

PHASE 4 - DELIVERABLES Task 4.1

Finalization and delivery of report

+ 3 hours

Task 4.2

Final presentation of findings to GSP and Town Staff

+ 10 hours

Task 4.3

Revisions as per GSP guidance

- 1 hour

Admin

Meeting minutes, bi-weekly client updates, project management, team meetings

2.5

- 6 hours

PHASE 4 TOTAL HOURS PHASE 4 TOTAL $ TOTAL HOURS SALARY SUBTOTAL Disbursements (2%)

14.5

6.5

4.5

+ 6 hours

$1,920

$2,030

$780

$450

$5,960

$6,900

+ $1,180

61.5

52.5

68.5

305.5

348

+ 42.5

$9,840

$8,260

$7,680

$6,300

$6,850

$38,930

$44,640

+ $5,710

$197

$165

$10,037

$8,425

Mileage (300 kilometers anticipated) GRAND TOTAL

$154

$126

$137

$779 $177

$177

$7,834

$6,426

$6,987

$39,709

$45,710

+ $6,001

$177

$893

+ $127

In-Between Land Use Registry

APPENDIX B Spatial solutions, from neighbour to neighbour

Address

Latitude

Longitude

Town

Name of Operation

1414 Fairgrounds Road North, Stayner, Clearview

44° 25' 48.252'' N

80° 7' 55.668'' W

Stayner

L. T. Equipment Repair Service

8 Milltown Road, Singhampton, Clearview

44° 21' 1.116'' N

80° 14' 54.1824'' W

Singhampton

Central Ontario Seepage Solutions

Zoning Designation AG - Agriculture RS - Residential Hamlet

Official Plan Designation

Servicing Inside (Water/Sew Settlement ers) Area?

'In-between Land Uses' Proposal

Articles inside

Part

Part