ERO Submission – Support for…

ERO Submission – Support for Standardization with Critical Safeguards

I am writing in support of the intent behind ERO 026-0300 and the broader direction of planning reform under Bill 98, particularly as it relates to the standardization of Official Plans.

From a landowner perspective, this direction is both necessary and overdue.

⸻

1. Standardization is Needed to Address Municipal Overreach

In municipalities such as Burlington, planning frameworks have evolved in ways that go well beyond provincial intent.

This has included:
• The creation of municipal-specific definitions,
• Layering of policies that are difficult to navigate, and
• Increasingly restrictive land use interpretations—particularly in rural and environmental designations.

For landowners, this results in:
• Reduced ability to reasonably use property,
• Lack of transparency in how decisions are made, and
• A growing disconnect between provincial policy and municipal implementation.

A standardized Official Plan framework has the potential to correct this by:
• Improving consistency across municipalities, and
• Limiting the ability to create “custom” policy environments that restrict land use beyond provincial direction.

⸻

2. Alignment with the Provincial Policy Statement is Essential

For this reform to succeed, all definitions and policy language must align directly with the
Provincial Policy Statement.

Introducing new or modified definitions outside of the PPS framework risks:
• Creating confusion in interpretation,
• Undermining consistency across the planning system, and
• Increasing exposure to disputes at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The PPS already serves as the foundation of land use planning in Ontario. Any effort to standardize Official Plans should reinforce—not complicate—that foundation.

⸻

3. Standardization Must Limit Municipal Interpretation in Practice

Standardizing the structure of Official Plans alone is not sufficient.

The core issue for many landowners is not how policies are written—but how they are applied.

There must be clear direction that:
• Municipalities cannot reinterpret standardized definitions in more restrictive ways,
• Additional local definitions or policy layers that contradict provincial intent are not permitted, and
• Implementation tools (such as zoning and environmental overlays) are consistent with standardized policy direction.

Without this, municipalities will continue to achieve the same restrictive outcomes through different mechanisms.

⸻

4. Protecting Reasonable Use of Land

Planning policy must balance provincial objectives with the rights of landowners.

In practice, some municipalities have used planning tools—particularly environmental and land use designations—to significantly limit reasonable use of private property without clear, transparent justification.

Reform should ensure that:
• Land use permissions are clear and predictable,
• Restrictions are evidence-based and consistently applied, and
• Property rights are not eroded through incremental policy layering.

⸻

5. Transparency and Accountability Must Be Maintained

Any effort to streamline planning must not reduce transparency.

In particular, proposals to limit notice requirements for tools such as Minister’s Zoning Orders raise concern. Public visibility and accountability are essential to maintaining trust in the planning system.

⸻

Conclusion

The direction of ERO 026-0300 is positive and has the potential to improve consistency and fairness across Ontario’s planning system.

However, its success depends on:
• Full alignment with the Provincial Policy Statement,
• Clear limits on municipal reinterpretation, and
• A focus on how policy is implemented—not just how it is structured.

Without these safeguards, there is a risk that existing issues—particularly inconsistent and overly restrictive local application—will persist under a new framework.