The
Sheard Property
Brief & Comments
to the Planning Process
This is the brief to the planning process that landed me in prison and required the Mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion to change the rules that govern how City Council meetings are run to entrap me. What we had found was that the City and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) did not appear to be following Federal, Provincial and Region of Peel policy and guidelines for good planning regarding home near to Airports and boy did City Council come on to us!
This has been forwarded to;
The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Canada.
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ont., K1A 0N5
RE: Building homes at the end of an Airport runway.
Dear Sir: June 23, 2006
It is my understanding that the Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities Canada has a role to play in regards to how close home may be build to Airport runways.
In Mississauga an issue is developing about a proposed subdivision application that would place home in the 35+ NEF - Composite Noise Contours. The Federal government’s / Transport Canada’s document - TP 1247 - Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports - Eighth Edition - May 2005, appears to make it clear there should be no new homes or development in areas of NEF 30+. We tried to bring this matter to the attention of Mississauga City Council, but they changed their own rules to make sure it was not presented to them.
It is bad planning to place people and their homes under jets that landing and taking off and the Federal government’s / Transport Canada clearly agrees. It is asked that this matter be reviewed and Transport Canada comment on the proposed subdivision application and if the Greater Toronto Airports Authority is correctly following policy & guidelines regarding development in 30+ Noise Contours.
Please find enclosed;
1). A copy of the submission the City of Mississauga refused to accept.
*************************
The Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street, 17th Floor
Toronto, Ont., M5G 2E5
RE: Building homes at the end of an Airport runway.
Dear Sir: June 23, 2006
It is my understanding that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has a role to play in regards to how close home may be build to Airport runways. In Mississauga an issue is developing about a proposed subdivision application that would place home in the 35+ NEF - Composite Noise Contours. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Provincial Policy Statement - 2005, appears to make it clear there should be no new homes or development in areas of NEF 30+. We tried to bring this matter to the attention of Mississauga City Council, but they changed their own rules to make sure it was not presented to them.
It is bad planning to place people and their homes under jets that landing and taking off and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Provincial Policy Statement clearly agrees. It is asked that this matter be reviewed and Municipal Affairs and Housing comment on the proposed subdivision application and if the Greater Toronto Airports Authority is correctly following policy & guidelines regarding development in 30+ Noise Contours.
Region of Peel
ATTN: Nick Tunnacliffe - Commissioner of Planning
ATTN: Keith Ward - Commissioner of Housing and General Manager of Peel Living
10 Peel Centre Drive
Brampton, ON L6T 4B9
RE: Building homes at the end of an Airport runway.
Dear Sir: June 23, 2006
It is my understanding that the Region of Peel has a role to play in regards to how close home may be build to Airport runways. In Mississauga an issue is developing about a proposed subdivision application that would place home in the 35+ NEF - Composite Noise Contours. The Region of Peel - Official Plan - Office Consolidation Nov. 2005, appears to make it clear there should be no new homes or development in areas of NEF 35+. We tried to bring this matter to the attention of Mississauga City Council, but they changed their own rules to make sure it was not presented to them.
It is bad planning to place people and their homes under jets that landing and taking off and the Region of Peel - Official Plan - Office Consolidation Nov. 2005, clearly agrees. It is asked that this matter be reviewed and Region of Peel comment on the proposed subdivision application and if the Greater Toronto Airports Authority is correctly following policy & guidelines regarding development in 35+ Noise Contours.
The over-head that was made but not able to use.
The
Sheard Property
Application for a
Plan of Subdivision
- T-M05007 W5 -
Brief
&
Comments to the
Planning Process.
City of Mississauga
ATTN: Mayor - Hazel McCallion & all members of City Council.
300 City Centre Drive.,
Mississauga, Ontario. L5B 3C1
Dear City Council Members: June 6, 2006
This matter is being addresses, after it was pointed out by Roy Willis in Council chambers Apr. 12/06, to help the City make a fully informed decision regarding this precedence setting matter and for the sake of good planning. Other reasons include; ensuring a safe and health environment for Mississaugan residents to live in; constancy and fairness in planning matters; transparency in Democratic government processes and I do not wish to stand by silently as a "Noise Ghetto" (as the late Mr. Mitoff would call it), is created.
Research done into the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA)’s position, "not to oppose" the Application for a Plan of Subdivision - Sheard Property - T-M05007, on Airport road shows a startling turn around from "Where incompatible land uses are proposed, the GTAA will vigorously oppose such development." Policy statements and guidelines from the Federal Government (Transport Canada), the Provincial government (Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing), Region of Peel (Official Plan), Municipal, City of Mississauga (Mississauga Plan), all use essential the same wording regarding "incompatible land uses" and development in areas of high noise 30+ NEF noise contours and especially above 35 NEF (which this proposed subdivision is) - "will not be permitted", "may not be permitted", "should not be undertaken", "prohibiting new residential development". It is crystal clear to the average taxpayer that no (NO means NO!), new development should be permitted and yet it appears likely.
There was an effort to put in dwellings literally across the street and it was not allowed by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), for about the same number of dwellings, very recently. The OMB was very strong in its wording about the City's efforts to try and put residential units in Malton’s "noise toxic soup"- "more a case of finding "a chink in (GTAA)'s) armour" and represented strange conduct for a municipality, perhaps even an improper use of its powers." So it comes as no surprise to see the City going down the same road again, however the GTAA has done a complete reversal this time.
- 2 -
The Federal government is the regulatory authority and the GTAA is the operator that is to carry out the policy of the higher levels of government. In planning issues it is a commenting body and also required to protect the interests of the Airport by fighting against "incompatible land uses" by legal means. "incompatible land uses", is clearly defined by higher levels of government, typically 30 NEF and above. When the GTAA went on the record saying it would not oppose what appears to be "incompatible land uses", the question has to be asked why? When the GTAA stated it would not oppose the development, can it not be seen, that it has in some way changed its role to that of an approving body, as it has effectively green lighted this Application for a Plan of Subdivision? As the Ground Lease, which the GTAA must abide by, suggests that any changes in the way it manages noise at the Airport, requires the Minister to be informed, has the GTAA informed the Minister of its decision to allow dwellings (by not opposing it), in 35+ NEF?
This raises other serious questions about the conduct of an unelected private business (GTAA), doing business with other businesses, making money but not protecting people as it should. Taxpayers are lead to believe by way of clearly worded Federal, Provincial, Regional and Municipal policies, guidelines and Official Plans that the public is protected from bad & harmful planning decisions. What are we to believe from this case? More importantly, what about all the time and money that was spent to create these policies, guidelines and Official Plans? What about the cost to uphold them in the OMB and Courts? Was that just a pointless waste of taxpayers money?
If this Application for a Plan of Subdivision were to be approved it would surely set a precedence for building residences in Mississauga, under the flight paths of jets and would that not have a serious affect on peoples lives? This planning precedence will surely affect other local/Ontario municipalities regarding how they can limit "incompatible" development. It could open the flood gates to really bad planning.
The Canadian government notes "At NEF 30, speech interference and annoyance caused by aircraft noise are, on average, established and growing. By NEF 35 these effects are very significant. New residential development is therefore not compatible with NEF 30 and above, and should not be undertaken." The City notes about the Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA) "It is recognized that the impacts of LBPIA operations, particularly noise, extend far beyond its geographic boundaries. This is a permanent circumstance which this Plan acknowledges." The City needs to get all the stakeholders to be meaningfully involved. Otherwise it will be making a decision that flies in the face of Federal, Provincial, Regional and Municipal policies, guidelines and Official Plans. It is also noted in the documents enclosed with this brief that by not allowing incompatible land uses, such as new developments, it is protecting the Airport, as well.
- 3 -
There are other questions to. Such as, why, in City’s official minutes for the Apr. 3-06, public meeting, regarding the presentation by Mark Rogers of John D. Roger & Associates Inc., there is no note of noise issues being presented. This is a key issue, I would think, and why did the Ward Councillor, Eve Adams not bring up the issue? Why was OMB Order.# 1138 not noted then or in the earlier Corporate Report? Why has the Ward 5 Councillor not responded to Mr. Willis on this matter? Much is conspicuous by its absence, to those in the know.
The City's Corporate Report, Mar. 14-06, should have addressed the noise issue and higher levels of government's policies, guidelines and Official Plans in greater detail and where are the comments from the Federal, Provincial government? Especially in a case like this, where the GTAA is taking a stand apparently contrary to Federal, Provincial, policies and guidelines. The job of the City is to do good planning, NOT shoehorn in as much housing as it can by hook or crook and hope no one notices or cares! People will be living in these dwelling - homes and we must not lose track of that fact. It is said there should not be "development, redevelopment or infilling which increases the number of dwelling units". There was only one home on the property in the past and now there is proposal for 8 or 8 times as many as were there, surely that is an increase?
Is the GTAA avoiding going to the OMB to save money? Is it because the 1996 Noise Exposure Forecast zones around the Airport are now out of date and a new study needs to be undertaken and it wishes to avoid that cost? What will happen when those who lost OMB Order.# 1138 find out about this ruling? Will they be asking hard questions about why they can't get the same service?
It should also be noted that just putting up signs to warn people is not good enough. If this bad planning must be approved than follow the lead of Transport Canada and require that "appropriate acoustic insulation features" to added to the buildings.
I will (using the correct meaning of the word - WILL), be bring this matter to the attention to all levels of government (Regions - Municipals).
It is asked that Council direct City staff to ;
A). Directly contact both Transport Canada and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to ask them if the position taken by the
GTAA is in keeping with their guidelines and policy statements and to otherwise make comments on this Application for a Plan of
Subdivision.
- 4 -
B). To discover if the 1996 Noise Exposure Forecast zones around the Airport are now out of date and if a new study needs to be
undertaken. As Transport Canada notes "Traffic volume and aircraft type and mix used in calculating the noise contours are
normally forecast for a period of between five and ten years into the future".
In closing, please keep me informed regarding future developments/meetings with this Application for a Plan of Subdivision. The best use for that land would be parkland.
I am willing to discuss my letter with you. My phone number is (905) ***-**** & E-mail watcher0I0@eol.ca.
Please find enclosed;
1). From Transport Canada, sections of TP 1247 - Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports - Eighth Edition, May 2005.
2). From Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, sections of the - Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, pages 24, 12 & 13.
3). From the Region of Peel - Official Plan - Office Consolidation, Nov. 2005, pages 97, 98, 99, 100 and Schedule H.
4). From the Mississauga Plan, Apr. 2004, pages 42, 43 and 44.
5). From the Application for a Plan of Subdivision - Sheard Property - T-M05007 W5, City of Mississauga form - Filed June 28, 2005.
6). The City of Mississauga - Corporate Report, Mar. 14, 2006.
7). From the City of Mississauga Council Agenda, Apr. 12-06, the Minutes of the Apr. 3, 2006, Public Meeting.
8). From the Council Minutes for Apr. 12, 2006, Mr. Willis addressed Council.
9). Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), Order.# 1138, Aug. 27, 2003.
10). From the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), Ground Lease, pages 144 & 145.
- 5 -
11). From the GTAA - The Airport Master Plan Summary Report - Chapter 10, Noise Management, page 48.
12). The GTAA letter to Craig Robbins, Mar. 30, 2005.
13). The GTAA letter to City of Mississauga Planning, Sept. 15, 2005.
14). The GTAA Airport Planning E-mail to Mr. Willis, May 31, 2006.
Sincerely yours; Donald Barber - Editor.
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]