Town of Whitby staff are…

Town of Whitby staff are pleased to provide the following comments in response to ERO Posting # 026-0300 – Proposed Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, Building Code Act, 1992 and Municipal Act, 2001 Changes (Schedules 1,2 and 7of Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2006). Town staff thank the Province for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes and look forward to further engagement opportunities on these topics.

If passed, Bill 98 would result in significant reforms to land use planning and related building and development processes. The proposed changes would constrain the Town’s ability to manage development in a coordinated, context-sensitive, sustainable and infrastructure-aligned manner. Overall, it would create challenges for the Town to manage the impacts of projected population growth over the long term.

There is also no evidence that these measures, including past changes, accelerate the provision of housing, and instead can cause uncertainty and further administrative burdens that result in unnecessary delays.

Official Plan Reform
Staff generally support a more standardized format that would make OPs easier to navigate. However, OPs are tailored to local conditions and addressing the specific growth, land use and development needs of the Town.
The proposed land use designations are vague and would permit uses (e.g. industrial, manufacturing and small-scale warehousing) adjacent to sensitive land uses, which would introduce land use conflicts. The designations also create confusion with uses typically permitted only in Employment Area lands.
The designations do not distinguish between low, medium and high densities. It is unclear if the Town would be able to determine a variation in heights and densities.

Secondary Plan Reform
Staff generally support that more standardized guidance may have benefits. However, together with the changes to OPs (above), the municipality could lose additional flexibility at an even finer grained level of land use planning, which is important given the proposed standardized OP template and land use designations.
The Town supports continuing to exempt Secondary Plans from Minister’s approval.

Site Plan Reform
Town of Whitby staff do not support the removal of Site Plan Control as a land use planning tool. The Site Plan Approval process plays a critical role in coordinating the functional aspects of site design and ensure that municipal and agency interests are addressed, including provincial agencies. It is a key tool used by the Town to guide the layout of sites and buildings, traffic circulation and parking, pedestrian connectivity, servicing, stormwater management, grading, drainage, landscaping, and the overall public realm. It also provides a mechanism to review technical matters such as noise, environmental impacts, site contamination, archaeological considerations, and construction-related impacts.
In the absence of this process, development would proceed directly to building permit review, which is primarily focused on building construction standards and does not address broader site-related matters.
Most development review occurs during the site plan process to ensure that a proposed development complies with zoning and other requirements. This change may increase reliance on zoning by-laws as the primary regulatory tool, despite zoning not being intended to address detailed site design matters.
Limiting or removing Site Plan agreements would financially impact the Town’s ability to request Letters of Credit, and remove the ability to hold development proponents accountable for required road allowances and other potential land conveyances to the Town.
Staff do generally support reduced circulation times (e.g. maximum of three circulations/reviews).
The Town does not support a prescribed, standardized checklist that limits the ability to request additional studies and materials. Rather than defining a fixed list of permitted submission requirements, the Province should identify matters that fall outside the scope of site plan control.
Reliance on certified professionals alone to accept or approve reports and studies is not supported. Municipal review is necessary to ensure that submitted materials are accurate, coordinated, and reflective of the current proposal.

Complete Applications
There are numerous reports and drawings missing from the proposed list of submission materials. The ERO posting does not identify many of the plans typically required to support development applications, including but not limited to Site Plans, Architectural and Civil Engineering packages, Phasing Plans, Draft Plans of Subdivision, and Surveys.
There are also site-specific studies not identified that play an important role in safeguarding public health and safety. For example, Well Interference Reports are required where development is proposed near existing private wells to ensure drinking water sources are not impacted.
Rather than prescribing a definitive list of materials, the Province should consider identifying areas that fall outside of municipal land use planning authority. Municipalities could then tailor their submission requirements accordingly. This approach would provide clarity while maintaining flexibility to address local conditions and technical considerations.
Town staff do not see the need to distinguish between “core” and “contingent” studies. In practice, submission requirements are determined on a project-specific basis, as many commonly required studies are not necessary for all applications.
Town staff request the Province consider how municipalities will continue to maintain the ability to ensure Provincial Interest is met if there are limitations on the type of information / studies / reports that can be requested.

Prescribed Professions
If additional certified professionals are prescribed, the regulation should clarify that the certified professional could only submit reports/ studies in their certified area of expertise for the purposes of complete applications.

Minimum Lot Sizes “as-of-right”
Setting minimum lot sizes ‘as of right’, will impact the Town’s Mature Neighbourhoods policy, which intends to conserve the distinguishing features of mature areas, typically characterized by larger lot sizes and frontages, to promote compatible infill development. Heritage Conservation Districts also have similar policies to conserve neighbourhood character.
Allowing a minimum lot size of 175m2 across the entire urban area could lead to constrained driveway widths and lengths, limiting the ability to provide adequate off-street parking. This may result in increased on-street parking demand, congestion, and potential conflicts with maintenance, access, snow clearing, waste collection, emergency access, and limiting the ability to accommodate extra parking to facilitate legal Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs). Current engineering servicing standards may not be achieved on smaller lot sizes.

Parkland Dedication
The proposed changes remove municipal discretion and can significantly undermine the Town’s ability to plan, fund, and deliver a functional, equitable and financially sustainable parks system.
The acceptance of developer identified parkland significantly increases the likelihood of the Town receiving undersized, fragmented, or irregularly shaped parcels that are not capable of supporting active recreation or multi use park functions, and may cost more to maintain over the long term.
It also constrains the Town’s ability to secure cash in lieu where parkland dedication is not appropriate. This limits the Town’s capacity to strategically acquire functional parkland in priority areas and also creates significant challenges for capital planning.
Where the Town is required to accept parkland, it must be easily accessible and available to the public, and be free and clear of any title encumbrances (e.g. free of mortgages or restrictions/easements).

Sustainability and Climate Change
The removal of a legislated requirements weakens the policy foundation for climate aligned land use planning and may impact implementation of the Town’s Climate Emergency Response Plan. It could also impact design requirements for major projects which are upsizing infrastructure (e.g. sewers / bridges, etc.) to accommodate for climate change.
Removing “sustainable design” principles means these elements are no longer identified and have not been replaced with comparable requirements or guiding principles. As a result, future development may default to conventional stormwater management and engineering standards, with reduced emphasis on climate resilience, adaptation, and integrated site design.

Ontario Building Code Review
Staff support clearer and more efficient Building Code rules.
Chief Building Officials and the OLMCBO (Ontario Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials) should be members of the third-party advisory body.
A successful Building Code Review will depend on maintaining life safety & building performance, allowing reasonable transition periods, and recognizing municipal capacity and enforcement responsibilities.

Development Charges Act
The proposed exemption should only apply to retirement homes that are both developed and further operated by a non-profit organization, so that the intended non-profit sector benefits fully from the exemption.

Transportation and Transit Infrastructure
Staff are generally supportive of a number of these proposals as they strive to increase consistency across jurisdictions and simplify existing processes and standards.
Proposed GO station design enhancements should consider improvements to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure (e.g. multi-use paths, staircase ramps, bicycle parking, etc.).
The ‘optional’ nature of the ability for Metrolinx to request technical reports and inspections raises questions about consistency and effectiveness.
Signage and enforcement may be onerous, particularly if there is a difference between new HOV lanes and existing HOV lanes.

Town staff request further consultation with municipalities prior to finalization of any implementing regulations and/or transition provisions on a number of the topics above.