Dear Minister Flack, Re:…

Dear Minister Flack,
Re: Elgin County Council Feedback Regarding Bill 98 – Building Reforms and Related Consultations, 2026
On behalf of Elgin County Council, thank you for the Province’s ongoing focus on tackling Ontario’s housing and infrastructure challenges. We applaud and share the Government’s objective of reducing unnecessary delay, improving predictability in approvals, and enabling the conditions for more homes and jobs, particularly in communities that want to grow responsibly and sustainably.
As municipalities shift from preparing for potential changes to actively planning for implementation, Council is carefully reviewing Bill 98 and related provincial consultations to understand how best to align local delivery with the Ministry’s goals. We support the intent to streamline and modernize the system; at the same time, several elements of the Bill raise practical implementation questions for upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities, particularly in rural and agricultural contexts such as Elgin County. Our comments are intended to be constructive and to support implementation that is both effective and workable at the local level.
Support for Housing Supply and Streamlined Approvals
Elgin County’s observation
The Province is proposing a range of legislated reforms intended to streamline approvals, notably changes to the Site Plan Control process including standardized application requirements and designated site plan classes. Council recognizes that these changes may create efficiencies and accelerate housing delivery.
However, the extent to which efficiencies are realized will depend heavily on the quality and completeness of application submissions. If requirements are not clearly defined or enforced, there is a risk that incomplete applications could shift complexities onto the applicant and result in the same delays without increasing efficiencies.
Potential unintended consequence
While increased efficiency is supported, there is a risk that standardization without sufficient clarity or flexibility may shift complexity to later stages of the process. This could result in increased reliance on interpretation, greater pressure on staff resources, and potential inconsistencies in application review, particularly in municipalities with limited capacity.

Elgin County’s suggestion
Council supports initiatives that improve efficiency and recommends that implementation of these reforms:
• Ensure that a clear and enforceable definition of a “complete” Site Plan Control application is established to support consistent implementation and realization of intended efficiencies.
• Maintain discretion for municipalities to address local context and concerns,
• Include guidance to support municipal interpretation and administration, and
• Consider the resourcing implications for municipalities, particularly in rural and lower-tier contexts.
Financial and Servicing Uncertainty – Non-Municipal Water and Wastewater Systems
Elgin County’s observation
The Province is proposing a framework to enable private and non-municipal water and wastewater servicing systems, including communal systems, with criteria under which municipalities may be required to approve such systems. Council notes that significant uncertainty remains regarding how this framework would operate in practice, including how partial servicing scenarios (e.g. private wells paired with communal wastewater systems would be evaluated and approved.
Potential unintended consequence
The proposed approach introduces uncertainty regarding long-term financial responsibility, system maintenance, and municipal liability. There is concern that municipalities may face future pressure to assume responsibility for a variety of communal privately operated systems, which, in the event of system failure, could result in unplanned financial and operational burdens. At this time, there is little direction on the type or scale of systems that are being contemplated. Additionally, enabling development in currently un-serviced areas may have implications for long-term growth planning and infrastructure coordination.
Council has raised several concerns regarding the potential implications of this framework, including:
• The risk of fragmented or partial servicing approaches that may not align with long-term infrastructure planning or public health objectives
• Uncertainty regarding whether municipalities may ultimately be required to transition communal private systems to municipally owned or municipally controlled service delivery models
• The potential for uncoordinated growth in rural or un-serviced areas, which could undermine planned growth patterns and create long-term infrastructure servicing challenges
• The lack of clarity regarding how lifecycle costs, system failures, and long-term liabilities would be managed.
Council further notes that Elgin County has existing experience with communal private servicing systems (in both the Township of Southwold and Municipality of Bayham) that have proven problematic, resulting in additional municipal costs and, in at least one case, the need for pre-mature replacement with a municipal system. These experiences underscore the importance of clearly defined responsibilities and risk mitigation measures.
Elgin County’s suggestion
Council recommends that the Province:
• Provide clear direction on long-term ownership, governance, and lifecycle responsibilities for non-municipal systems
• Establish robust financial assurance requirements to mitigate municipal risk
• Ensure that municipalities retain the ability to consider servicing feasibility and long-term planning implications in decision-making
• Provide detailed guidance on how mixed or partial servicing models would be assessed and approved
• Consider the long-term land use planning implications of enabling development on un-serviced lands particularly within rural municipalities
• Work with municipalities to document and incorporate case studies of private servicing challenges to inform the development of regulatory framework
Municipal Discretion and Local Planning Authority
Elgin County’s observation
The province is proposing several reforms that would standardize elements of the land use planning framework, including Official Plan structure and designations, prescribed application requirements, and minimum development standards such as lot sizes. While Council understands that the intent is to improve consistency and efficiency across the province, these changes represent a shift away from locally informed planning frameworks towards a more standardized, province-wide approach.
Potential unintended consequence
Council is concerned that a “one-size-fits-all” approach may not appropriately reflect the diverse geographic, economic, and servicing contexts across Ontario, particularly in rural and agricultural regions such as Elgin County. Standardized Official Plan structures and land use designations may limit the County’s ability to plan in a manner that responds to local conditions, existing settlement patterns, and infrastructure constraints.
Similarly, the introduction of minimum lot size requirements may not align with local servicing realities, environmental considerations, or community design objectives, and could inadvertently constrain or distort appropriate forms of development.
More broadly, reduced municipal discretion in planning processes and approvals may limit the ability of both upper- and lower-tier municipalities to effectively manage growth, address site-specific issues, and ensure that development is compatible with local context. This may result in outcomes that are less efficient in practice, despite the intent to streamline the system.
Elgin County’s suggestion
Council recommends that the Province:
• Maintains flexibility within standardized frameworks to allow municipalities to respond to local context and planning objectives
• Ensure that municipalities retain meaningful discretion in the interpretation and implementation of Official Plan policies and development standards
• Provide clarity on how standardized requirements can be adapted to rural and agricultural settings
• Engage municipalities in the development of these tools to ensure they are workable across a range of local conditions
Transparency and Ministerial Zoning Orders (MZOs)
Elgin County’s observation
The proposed reforms include expanded ministerial authorities, including the use of Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) as a tool to facilitate development.
Potential unintended consequence
Increased reliance on MZOs without corresponding transparency measures may reduce public confidence in the planning process, limit opportunities for municipal and community input, and create uncertainty regarding alignment with local planning frameworks and infrastructure capacity.
Elgin County’s suggestion
Council recommends that the Province:
• Enhance transparency in the use of MZOs, including clear criteria and rationale for their application,
• Ensure early and meaningful municipal engagement in decisions that may have local implications, and
• Provide clarity on how MZOs will align with municipal servicing and infrastructure planning responsibilities.
Funding Program (Build Communities Strong Fund)
Elgin County’s observation
Council acknowledges the Province’s commitment to supporting infrastructure through funding initiatives such as the Build Communities Strong Fund.
Potential unintended consequence
However, Council notes that the funding program is closely tied to the proposed servicing and development reforms under Bill 98, and it is unclear how funding allocations will align with the potential financial impacts of these changes. The absence of a formal consultation opportunity limits municipalities’ ability to provide input on how funding could best support implementation.
Elgin County’s suggestion
• Ensure alignment between servicing reforms and infrastructure funding to avoid financial gaps or unintended municipal burdens
• Clarify whether funding may be available for municipalities that do not have Development Charges to reduce

Request for continued collaboration
Elgin County Council remains committed to working collaboratively with the Province to support housing delivery while maintaining strong, sustainable, and context-sensitive planning frameworks.
We respectfully request continued dialogue as the Province advances Bill 98 and its associated regulatory changes, particularly with respect to:
• Clarifying financial and liability frameworks for non-municipal servicing,
• Maintaining appropriate municipal discretion within Official Plan policy frameworks, and
• Ensuring transparency with municipalities and look forward to continued collaboration.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,

Dominique Giguère
Elgin County Warden
warden@elgin.ca