Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposal to support
standardizing of parkland requirements under the Planning Act. Town staff offer the
following responses in consideration of the proposed reforms:

The Town supports the intent to clarify requirements related to encumbered parkland
and Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS); however, care must be taken to ensure that
these spaces continue to provide meaningful public benefit.

Halton Hills relies on public parkland to meet the recreational and open space needs of
our growing and intensifying communities and recognizes the potential for POPS to
complement public parkland.

Any restrictions on municipal ability to assess encumbrances or to secure appropriate
design, access, and long-term maintenance arrangements could reduce the
functionality and community value of these spaces. From the Town’s perspective, the
ability to evaluate parkland quality, usability, and long-term public benefit is essential
to achieving complete communities.

Eligible/Ineligible Parkland:

• The definition of parkland needs to be clarified, so developers may assess whether
the land they are identifying is in fact appropriate for the intended use of the land by
the municipality. Specifically, parkland needs to be flat tableland of a size capable
of supporting programmed recreational uses such as sports fields and courts,
fitness stations, playgrounds, splash pads, dog runs, shade structures, comfort
stations, etc.

• Ineligible land that a developer cannot identify as parkland needs to be expanded to
include cultural heritage landscapes including burial sites, pioneer cemeteries,
archeological sites and areas of archeological potential, indigenous cultural and
sacred land, natural heritage systems including wetlands, woodlands, riparian
buffers and floodplains, and wildlife corridors and habitat. While these lands
should be conveyed to the municipality, they should not be expected to serve as
parkland as the introduction of recreational amenities would erode the importance
of their cultural, archeological, or ecological significance. Forcing municipalities to
accept land not suitable for programmed park use would restrict their ability to
deliver amenities to meet the demands of their growing community.

• The suggestion that lands within or adjacent to natural heritage features are eligible
for parkland on the condition that a park would not interfere with or compromise the
natural heritage features or areas should be reconsidered for the following reasons.

o This may suggest to Developers that the municipality would not program the
park in a way that would create noise, light, or physical disturbance to the
feature, which restricts the options available for programming.

o Developers may argue that additional design measures or limiting
operational functions are a solution to mitigate, which will require
municipalities to work with suboptimal conditions when trying to maximize
the potential of an already size-reduced parcel.

• Clarify the difference between natural heritage features and natural heritage
systems.

• The suggestion that only Natural Heritage Systems located in the Greenbelt, Oak
Ridges Moraine, or Niagara Escarpment shall be ineligible should be reconsidered,
as all NHS areas provide an ecosystem service that benefits the broader community
and therefore should be protected from any form of development, including active
parkland.

• ‘Land Accessibility/Comfort for Use’ should specify that parkland must provide
significant street frontage to maximize visual and physical accessibility.
• Additionally, the size and shape of the parkland must comply with the
municipalities’ minimum requirements and accommodate the municipalities’
amenity standards as demonstrated through a facility-fit plan.

POPS/Encumbered Parkland Agreements:

The Town encourages the Province to maintain increased flexibility for municipalities to
negotiate parkland and POPS/Encumbered Parkland arrangements that respond to site
specific conditions, community needs, and long-term stewardship considerations.
Specifically:

• The extent of parkland credit should be more flexible (lower minimum amount) to
account for differences in quality of design, size of POPS/Encumbered Parkland,
and specific municipal situation.

• Clarity is needed on what process will be used to resolve disagreements on what
standard terms and conditions may be required by Municipalities as a precedent
to providing the mandated 70% minimum parkland credit for POPS or
Encumbered spaces.

• Clarity is needed on how municipalities can adequately secure future repairs
which require the removal and reinstatement of the surface amenities (for
encumbered/strata situations), especially when considering different Ownership
models (i.e. rental vs condo).

• The acknowledgement of additional staff time and legal costs associated with
entering into agreements with landowners does not address how municipalities
shall recoup these costs. The Province should provide direction on how the
municipality addresses these increased costs.