A.2.9   INTEGRATION WITH THE PLANNING ACT

There may be circumstances where a proponent (including private developers) may have a Planning Act application and Class EA requirements at the same time. For example, an application for a plan of subdivision may trigger the need for a new collector road. When this occurs, it may be desirable to consider the Planning Act and Class EA processes together in an integrated approach in order to avoid duplication and ensure improved environmental protection. This Class EA recognizes the desirability of coordinating or integrating the planning processes and approvals under the EA Act and the Planning Act, as long as the intent and requirements of both acts are met.

The types of Planning Act applications/documents that may proceed using the integration approach include: an official plan, official plan amendment including secondary plans adopted as an official plan amendment, community improvement plan, plan of subdivision and a plan of condominium. Applications may be initiated by the municipality or by a private sector developer or both as co-proponents. By completing the requirements for environmental assessment and land use planning processes at the same time, proponents can streamline their efforts and more effectively meet the requirements of both the Planning Act and EA Act.

A.2.9.1 Integrated Approach             Overview

The integrated approach provides proponents with the opportunity to reduce duplication by simultaneously complying with the Planning Act and Class EA processes, including public/stakeholder notification and consultation requirements, technical reports and analyses, and land use planning and environmental protection decisions. As noted in condition ii) above, the requirements of this Class EA process still need to be met. 

The integrated approach still involves the completion of the procedural requirements of this Class EA based on whether the project is classified as a Schedule B or Schedule C project. If the project is defined as a Schedule B project, the proponent must complete Phases 1 and 2 of this Class EA. If the project is categorized as a Schedule C project, the proponent is required to complete Phases 1 through 4 of this Class EA. All Class EA planning principles and mandatory consultation requirements still apply.

Work completed by the proponent for each of the applicable Phases of this Class EA are to be documented in a publicly available document to accompany the Planning Act application. Documentation must be prepared in accordance with section A.2.9.4 of this Class EA and must demonstrate how the proponent has satisfied the requirements for each of the Phases required to be completed under this Class EA in completing their Planning Act application(s) (referred to in this section ) and their respective requirements.

Under the Planning Act, decision(s) may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The OMB is the administrative body to which appeals of the land use planning decision, including the supporting infrastructure can be made. If a project has been appealed to the OMB, the requirements of the integrated approach have not been met until the OMB renders a decision allowing the project to proceed. As outlined in section 2.8.1 of this Class EA, a Part II Order request may also be made to the Minister of the Environment or delegate. However, the purpose of the integration provisions is to coordinate requirements under the Planning Act with this Class EA. When reviewing a PIIO request, the Minister of the Environment or delegate will consider the purpose and intent of the integration provisions.

A.2.9.2 Who Can Use the Integrated Approach

The proponent of a project using the integrated approach is the same as the applicant under the Planning Act, whether the proponent is a municipality, a private sector developer or both. Two or more municipalities and/or private sector developers may act as co-proponents. 

Private Sector Proponent

Ontario Regulation 345/93, made under the EA Act, designates private sector developers as subject to the requirements of the EA Act if a private sector developer is proposing an undertaking of a type listed in Schedule C and the undertaking involves the provision of roads, water or wastewater facilities for the residents of a municipality.

Municipalities should not avoid their EA Act requirements through the use of conditions on a Planning Act approval where the appropriate proponent for the work is the municipality. 

Co-proponency

• Two or more parties may have responsibilities under the Class EA process for the same project (either different municipalities or private sector developers or a combination of two or more). Where two or more proponents undertake a project for their mutual benefit, as co-proponents, all terms and conditions of this Class EA shall apply equally to each of the co-proponents. In a co-proponency that involves a private sector developer and a municipality, Class EA requirements shall be those of the municipality, In cases where components of a single project fall within more than one schedule, the more rigorous schedule shall apply.
• Proponents may also change during the planning and implementation of a project. Initial Class EA Phases may be completed by one proponent and following Phases may be completed by another. For example, a municipality may use a Master Plan to complete Phases 1 and 2 of this Class EA process, while a private sector proponent, building upon the work completed by the municipality, completes Phases 3 and 4 of this Class EA process through the standard Class EA process or through the use of the integrated approach. If a proponent is relying on work completed by another proponent to fulfill their requirements under this Class EA, the proponent needs to ensure that the work that is being relied upon meets the requirements of section A.2.9.2 and that they are able to make use of the work completed by the other proponent. There may be restrictions on the use of previous work by others (e.g., reliance or copy right). 

The proponent of a project using the integrated approach is the same as the applicant under the Planning Act, whether the proponent is a municipality, a private sector developer or both. Two or more municipalities and/or private sector developers may act as co-proponents. 

A.2.9.3 Steps in the Integrated Approach

The Minister can:

1. Deny with or without conditions.
2. Refer the matter to mediation.

The following section provides a step-by-step guide of the Class EA requirements for proponents planning a project using the integrated approach.

1)  Identify the problem or opportunity.

2)  (a)   Identify alternative solutions to the problem or opportunity.

(b)   Carry out an inventory of the environment, including the natural, social, cultural and economic environment.

(c)   Identify the potential impacts of the alternative solutions on the environment and any measures needed to mitigate those impacts.

(d)               Carry out a comparative evaluation of the alternative solutions and identify             a preliminary preferred solution.

Proponent is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Municipal Class EA.

(e)  Mandatory Point of Consultation – notify and consult with review agencies and the public as described in section A.3 of this Class EA.

(f)  Determine the preferred alternative solution (project) based on the results      of the comparative evaluation and feedback received from review agencies          and the public.

(g)   Key Decision Point - At this point in the process, the proponent must            confirm the applicable Class EA Schedule for the preferred solution          (project):

• If the Project would have been defined as a Schedule B project under this Class EA, then the proponent must:
  • document the study process and description of the physical location and dimensions of the project in a public document. Documentation must be consistent with the requirements in section A.2.9.4 (Documentation) of this Class EA;
  • issue mandatory notification (e.g. a Notice of Completion) to review agencies and the public about the availability of the study documentation for public review as well as the appeal rights under the Planning Act; and
  • proceed to Phase 5 of this Class EA below.
• If the Project would have been defined as a Schedule C project under this Class EA, then the proponent must:
  • Proceed with Phases 3, 4 and 5 of this Class EA below.

3)  (a)   Identify alternative design concepts for the preferred solution (project).

(b)  Undertake a detailed inventory of the environment, including the natural, social, cultural and economic environments.

(c)  Identify the potential impact of the alternative project designs on the environment and any measures needed to mitigate those impacts.

(d)  Carry out a comparative evaluation of the alternative project designs and identify a recommended project design.

(e)   Mandatory Point of Consultation - notify and consult review agencies and the public as described in sections A.3, A.3.5.3, A.3.6 and A.3.7 of this Class EA.

(f)   Determine the preferred design for the project.

Municipal Class EA requirements.

Definition of environment.

EA planning principles.

4)  (a)   Document the integrated approach, including the problem or opportunity, alternative solutions, alternative project design concepts, preferred project designs, preferred design of the project, consultation and decision-making process using section A.4 as a guide. Documentation must include a description of the proposed project including the physical location and physical dimensions of the project.

(b)   Mandatory Point of Consultation (e.g. Issue Notice of Completion) – notify review agencies and the public about the availability of the study documentation for public review and their rights of appeal.

Documentation and supporting technical reports must be provided to review agencies as required. Section A.2.9.4 provides further information regarding documenting the integration process.

5)        Once all necessary Planning Act approval(s) have been obtained and the integrated planning process as described in section A.2.9.3 is complete, the proponent may proceed to implement the project. It is the responsibility of the proponent to ensure that they have fulfilled all of the Planning Act and EA Act requirements for their project and obtained any other necessary approvals or permits prior to implementing the project.

A.2.9.4 Documentation

The Class EA documentation supporting a Planning Act application must be made available to the public and shall include:

• a statement of the purpose, problem or opportunity.
• details of the planning process followed.
• details of the consultation carried out.
• existing environmental conditions.
• alternative solutions and evaluation of its potential environmental effects.
• the preferred solution and its effects on the environment.
• the mitigation measures to be implemented.
• commitments made during the planning process.

(see section A.4 as a guide)

Documentation and supporting technical reports must be provided to review agencies for their review and comment as required. Where studies are necessary to support the decisions made, the feasibility of the preferred alternative, and the conclusions drawn about environmental impacts and mitigation measures, these technical studies must be provided to the review agencies at an early stage in the integrated planning process. Examples include hydrogeological studies for communal groundwater supply or a noise study for a new or widened roadway. It is further recommended that proponents consult with review agencies early in the process to determine any requirements and/or site specific information that should be provided in the relevant studies.

A.2.9.5 Project Notifications

Requirements remain the same as outlined in sections A.3.4, A.3.5.3, A.3.6 and A.3.7 of this Class EA. Consultation including, notification requirements, is the responsibility of the proponent. Under the Planning Act, municipalities are required to issue Notices of Public Meetings and Notices of Decision.

Concurrent tasks such as public meetings may occur and combined notices could be issued under this Class EA and the Planning Act. While the content of combined notices will vary according to the type of Planning Act application and the applicable Schedule of this Class EA, these combined notices must, at a minimum, include the following:

• a clear statement that an integrated approach is being used;
• a clear statement that an appeal of the Planning Act application and related infrastructure is to be made to the OMB and that a Part II Order request may be made to the Minister of the Environment or delegate;
• information about the municipal infrastructure to which this Class EA applies and the type(s) of Planning Act approval being sought; and
• required information that shows that all applicable legislative and regulatory notice requirements under the Planning Act and this Class EA have been met.

In using the integrated approach, information contained in the notices may differ, based on the specific notice requirements for the type of Planning Act process being carried out and the Schedule of the Class EA project. These differences may relate to factors such as: timing; distribution; content; format; and author.

There are differences related to factors such as: timing; distribution; content; format; and author. Appendix 8 highlights some of the key considerations that need to be taken into account when preparing combined notices. For example, public review periods differ for Planning Act and Class EA processes. In the case of a Class EA, a Notice of Completion must be given and documentation made available for a 30-day public review period. In the case of an official plan amendment under the Planning Act, a copy of the application and related information and material be available for public inspection at least 20 days before holding a public meeting. When combining notices to meet the requirements under this Class EA and the Planning Act, the proponent must ensure that both requirements are met.

For projects being planned using the integrated approach, once the Planning Act application comes into effect under the Planning Act and the planning for the project has met the requirements of section A.2.9 of this Class EA, the proponent is not required to provide any further notice of the project under the Class EA.

A.2.9.6 Consideration When Using the Integrated Approach

A.2.9.6.1 Project Boundaries

Projects being planned using the integrated approach can include infrastructure that is located on lands beyond the boundaries of the lands that are the subject of the specific Planning Act application provided that the need for the infrastructure is triggered by the project being planned. Any infrastructure extending beyond the Planning Act application boundaries must be directly related to and required by the application(s).

For example, a Planning Act application for a plan of subdivision may have a requirement to service the subdivision through a connection to an off-site water tower or stormwater management facility. Another example would be if an extension to a collector road is needed for a short distance beyond the area involved in the Planning Act application to connect the subdivision to the existing road network. In this instance, infrastructure located beyond the boundaries of the planning act application would trigger Class EA requirements for the municipality. To ensure that municipal requirements under this Class EA are met, the municipality has at least three options:

1. participate as a co-proponent in the integrated project and incorporate the off-site infrastructure into that same integrated project;

2. authorize the proponent of the integrated project to carry out the Class EA work for the off-site infrastructure on their behalf (subject to their approval) either as part of the integrated project; and

3. carry out an independent Class EA for the off-site infrastructure.

When a project extends beyond the Planning Act application boundaries the associated investigations and EA documentation also needs to extend beyond the Planning Act application boundaries. Existing conditions and environmental effect boundaries, for example would need to be expanded appropriately beyond the Planning Act application boundary.

As noted in section A.2.9.2, municipalities should not avoid their EA requirements through the use of conditions on a Planning Act approval where the appropriate proponent for the work is the municipality. Off-site infrastructure should only be a requirement of a Planning Act application if the infrastructure is directly related to the project.

Notice for a project being planned using the integrated approach must clearly identify all infrastructure outside the boundaries of lands that are the subject of the specific Planning Act application and the boundaries of the area of land affected by both the prescribed notice and the proposed infrastructure itself. Recognizing that this may not be possible at the earliest stages of project planning when the need for specific infrastructure may not yet have been determined, the level of information included in the notices should increase as project planning decisions are made.

The proponent must address all required Phases for the project under this Class EA, including any infrastructure located outside the boundaries of the lands that are the subject of the specific Planning Act application in the documentation required under section A.2.9.4.

A.2.9.6.2 Revisions to a Project Planned Using the Integrated Approach

It may be necessary to revise a project that has been planned using the integrated approach due to environmental implications of changes to the project or due to a delay in implementation. Changes to a project can be made following the addenda procedures outlined in this Class EA (refer to section A.4.1.1 and A.4.3).

A.2.9.6.3 Lapse of Time

If a proponent planning a project using the integrated approach has fulfilled its requirements under the Planning Act and EA Act, the project will be subject to the review requirements associated with the Planning Act approval and not the time lapse provision set out in this Class EA. The Planning Act does not contain an automatic review of an approval or an automatic expiry if a Planning Act approval is not implemented. A municipality may, however, include a time lapse provision in certain Planning Act approval(s) (e.g., a municipality may provide a deadline for the proponent to fulfill the conditions of a draft plan of subdivision) and/or seek reconsideration of matters through its regular planning reviews. 

A.2.9.6.4 Consideration

By considering environmental assessment and land use planning processes in a coordinated approach, proponents can streamline their efforts and more effectively meet the requirements of both the Planning Act and EA Act. However, a proponent is not required to follow an integrated approach if both acts apply. Considerations need to be made by the proponent(s) regarding the project schedule, timing of the Planning Act applications, completion of studies, public and stakeholder interest and implementation target dates, amongst other factors. 

It is also possible to terminate an integrated approach once the process has been initiated, if during the course of the project, considerations suggest that two separate processes may be more effective. Work undertaken prior to this decision does not need to be redone as it was undertaken with the intent of meeting both acts. However, future work must still meet the requirements of this Class EA and the Planning Act approvals process being used. If termination of an integrated approach occurs following the announcement or public notification of a project having been given, subsequent notices, or independent notices, shall be issued advising that an integrated approach is no longer being followed.

A.2.9.7 Monitoring the Application of the Approach to Integrate with                   the Planning Act

After proponents have completed a project using the integrated approach, proponents should briefly summarize how a project has met the conditions in section A.2.9 (+/- 2 pages) and copy this to MOE, Director, EAAB including copies of the mandatory public and review agency notices.  Doing so will assist in monitoring the effectiveness and benefits of the integrated approach.

The information provided to MOE, Director, EAAB should include a description of:

• the Planning Act application that was integrated with the Class EA process.
• how the requirements of the Class EA process were fulfilled with respect to the appropriate Phase 1 through 4 requirements.
• consultation undertaken, including copies of notices.
• project documentation.

Representatives of the MOE, MEA and MMAH will meet on an annual basis to review the submissions received, any comments provided and to discuss the effectiveness of the integrated approach.

A.2.9.8 Phase in Process

Changes to the integration provisions in the 2007 Class EA are intended to provide clarification about how the process works. The fundamental steps in planning a project using the integrated approach remain unaltered. If a proponent, based on the clarifications made to the integrated approach, intend to give notice of changing from a standard Class EA process to an integrated approach process, notification of the change in process shall be made to the public and stakeholders involved in the process including MOE and MMAH. Notice of a proponent’s intent to change to the use of an integrated approach for a project may not be given if the Notices of Completion for the infrastructure project has been filed or a decision rendered on the Planning Act application.