These sweeping changes to…

These sweeping changes to the Planning Act do not appear to reflect good planning principles, but rather serve to benefit developers only. As a professional planner I am very concerned at the government's disregard for the impact of these changes. To repeal most of Bill 139 so soon into it's implementation shows lack of respect for the months (years) of work and consultation that went into this legislation. It was well thought out - based on consultation with impacted municipality, developers and the public - and to simply erase all of this seems petty and irresponsible. It is unclear how Bill 108 will make anything better or how it will actually deliver increased housing affordability across the province.

Shorter Timelines for Municipal Decisions
Schedule 12 proposes to reduce the timelines for municipal processing of development applications (before a right to appeal for a non-decision of Council arises) to be shorter than the pre-Bill 139 timelines. This creates a situation where it is nearly impossible for municipalities to thoroughly review and make a decision on many applications, thereby increasing the number of appeals and adding to the list of cases already before the LPAT. This will actually extend timelines for processing applications, not shorten them as the legislation presumes. This suggests the province has NO appreciation for the time and resources necessary to adequately review and consult on development applications.

Limited Permissions for "Inclusionary Zoning"
I agree with the City of Toronto's comments that The effect of linking inclusionary zoning to protected major transit station and development permit system areas will result in delays in getting an inclusionary zoning policy framework in place and creating new affordable housing. Amendments to the 2017 Growth Plan, which will come into effect on May 16, 2019, will enable municipalities to delineate major transit station areas in advance of a municipal comprehensive review, subject to the completion of detailed work in accordance with the protected major transit station area requirements of the Planning Act. The outcome will be that inclusionary zoning policies will not be able to be adopted until policies in respect of protected major transit station areas are adopted and approved. The
establishment of a development permit system area is subject to a Minister's Order and also requires the completion of detailed analysis, again resulting in potential delays to the implementation of inclusionary zoning

Proposal to Repeal Municipalities’ Current Tools Supporting Growth
I also agree with the City of Toronto's concerns related to the repeal of Section 37 and Alternative Parkland Dedication Requirement, which would apply to municipalities across Ontario and are provided below:

Bill 108 is a major departure from the fundamentals of good land use planning: The Province has historically recognized that parks are a central feature of land use planning. The Province has also acknowledged the role that development has in delivering parkland and first enabled municipalities to use an alternative rate in 1973. Bill 108, as proposed, forces municipalities to choose between the base parkland dedication rate and all the other components of liveable communities that are outlined in
the Growth Plan itself.

Base rates for land dedication will, in the majority of instances, not generate enough land for a functional park: The Planning Act's base rate is only effective on large sites for traditional low-rise subdivisions. With the base rate, the majority of development projects (60 per cent) in Toronto will be required to dedicated less than 200 square metres of parkland which does not support the needs of more intense developments or provide an area sufficient to provide park programming.

Base rates for land dedication will not generate enough parkland to support the need generated from development: As new residential development has taken an increasingly vertical form, the proposed policies will severely limit the City's ability to achieve effective parkland dedication to support the needs generated by development.

A percentage of land value does not reflect the cost of delivering public service facilities, with the exception of acquiring land for such services: Construction costs for community facilities are relatively constant across the city. Land values; however, are not. Today, construction costs for a typical community centre are approximately $600 per square foot in most areas of the city irrespective of land values.

Areas with lower land values may not generate sufficient funds to support necessary infrastructure and this could result in disparities. Further, land values fluctuate and it would be difficult to set a rate
based on land values to cover the cost of constructing facilities.

New neighbourhoods need both parks and other community infrastructure: Communities are more than just housing. The current proposal forces municipalities to choose between providing parkland, or collecting fees to contribute to the delivery of community infrastructure which is not only at odds with good planning, but is also at odds with the Planning Act and provincial policies and plans. Both are essential to support people’s needs and the intensification of communities.

Parks are green infrastructure: Proposed Bill 108 does not recognize that parks are a critical piece of municipal infrastructure and a recognized component of green infrastructure as defined in both the PPS and Growth Plan. They help clean the air, recharge the groundwater, clean watercourses, limit damage that might arise from flooding and soil erosion and are essential for maintaining physical and mental health. In the context of extreme weather events, it is not a reasonable expectation for
municipalities to choose between enhancing and expanding the parks system and other
necessary community infrastructure.

Fairness: Parkland dedication policies that are based on site size alone require a disproportionate dedication from lower-intensity developments. A four-storey apartment provides the same amount of parkland dedication as a 48-storey tall building on sites of the same size even though the tall building is eight times more dense. On average, if the base rates are applied, this equates to approximately 0.45 square metres of parkland per person for tall building developments, 0.91 square metres for mid-rises
and 2.3 square metres per person for low-rise developments.

Land values are not a proxy for need: Areas with high concentrations of tall building developments have higher land values. In these areas, the cost of acquiring land for either community facilities or parkland is likewise high which would potentially consume any static rate established through the proposed CBC regime on a city-wide basis.

Delivering community infrastructure requires long-range capital planning: Bill 108 proposes to let developers "lock-in" their development charge at the date of a specific planning application and CBC rates at the date of the first building permit. Locked-in lower fees reduces or eliminates the incentive for timely application for building permits. For municipalities to prepare capital plans, there needs to be certainty that fees and charges are indexed and correlate with increasing construction costs. Bill 108's approach will limit municipalities’ ability to be forward thinking in capital plans, particularly if once payments are made, they are no longer calibrated to the cost of delivering new community infrastructure.

Changes to the Planning Appeal Process
Bill 108 proposes to repeal many of the significant amendments introduced through Bill 139, which are still in their relative infancy. It is my opinion that the Government should give the changes introduced by Bill 139 time to get established and tested. Municipalities, developers, lawyers, etc have spend a great deal of time and money understanding and implementing the new process introduced by Bill 139 only to have this government pull the rug out from under them. A significant amount of consultation already went into the delivery of Bill 139. It is not possible for the government to claim it is "not working" this early in the game, therefore one can only assume that you are bowing to the lobbying of your deep pocketed developer friends and allies.

Bill 108 reverts back to the former, more adversarial, OMB process. It proposes to repeal the two-stage appeal process, and the mandatory testing for consistency and conformity with provincial policies and plans and return to a single "de novo" hearing. I agree with the City's conclusion that Bill 108 will likely result in an increase in appeals of planning applications, by limiting municipal opportunities for comprehensive front-end-of-process file management and dispute resolution processes, such as mediation or other forms of collaborative decision-making, due to greatly expedited development application processing timelines.

Councils may proceed more quickly to refuse an application in order to avoid a non-decision scenario in the absence of the opportunity to fully understand the planning implications of the application.
The return to de novo hearings based on wider grounds for appeal, and the reinstatement of the power of the LPAT to be a substitute decision maker for Council may have the effect of reducing regard for City Council decision-making authority with regard to the disposition of planning matters.

Overall, and as noted above, I do not see how any of these changes will result in the delivery of more affordable housing and will benefit the citizens of Ontario. Compromising the ability of municipalities to pay for growth, to provide sufficient parkland, and to adequately review development applications is not in the best interest of Ontarians.