It is good that the province…

It is good that the province wishes to facilitate the construction of housing to accommodate the projected increase in population. There are doubtless efficiencies to be achieved in the review of current legislation as the Province and municipalities strive to achieve necessary and advantageous intensification.
Nevertheless, as one previously employed in the municipal planning realm for many years, I am concerned by the proposed substantive and in some cases ill-advised changes to several pieces of legislation that have served Ontarians well over many years.
Schedule 2 : Conservation Authorities Act For 75 years, Conservation Authorities have been valuable partners of municipalities by providing expert technical advice in the planning approvals process. Learning the lessons of Hurricane Hazel (1954) and Walkerton (2000), they have helped prevent landuses that would result in loss of life and property. Such advice is especially valuable to smaller municipalities which have fewer technical experts on staff. They have also provided wonderful low-cost recreational and educational opportunities for citizens on conservation lands open to the public. It would be short-sighted in the extreme to limit their ability to provide such services, but initiatives to better integrate their operations with the municipal planning approvals process are welcome.

Development charges were implemented to ensure that new development largely pays for itself rather than being a fiscal burden by which a municipality and its taxpayers subsidise new development and development proponents. It is a matter of equity. Funds raised have financed new hard and soft infrastructure required to support new development. Provisions to reduce charges on new non-profit housing are justified. “Affordable” and “attainable” residential units and inclusionary zoning residential units benefit development proponents and so should not have all development charges waived; a proportionate reduction may however, be warranted for new units meeting certain criteria given the current housing emergency. Development charges have been used to defray some of the cost of studies required to support significant new development areas. Sub-watershed Studies, Master Environmental Servicing Plans, Area Transportation studies, and E.A.’s should continue to be financed in part by development charges. Reducing, but not eliminating, development charges for new rental housing may be justified for affordable family-oriented units, but not for “luxury” rentals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal is an essential institution. There is support for improving its operations but not at the expense of unduly stacking the deck against bona fide participants in a planning process. “Undue delay” needs to be defined in section 19; applications that are problematic or supported by deficient documentation take longer to process. The proponent of such an application should not be able to use such a provision to dismiss legitimate unresolved planning issues. The assessment of costs in Section 20 should only be permitted where appeals are frivolous or in bad faith; unsuccessful participants may have failed to win their appeal, but it may nonetheless be based on genuine planning concerns.

In the past, proposed substantive changes to the Planning Act were widely circulated for comment because they affect the operation of municipalities, the land development industry, and the public. The proposed changes in this bill should not be rushed through.
Subsections 16 (20) and (21) would ensure that Zoning By-laws do not lag years and sometimes decades behind O.P. updates. This is useful.
The proposed changes to section 41 subsections (4) and (4.1) excepting exterior design from site plan control is regrettable in that it prevents municipalities from seeking to make new development compatible with existing streetscapes or quashing designs that are widely unacceptable to the general public who have to live with the results.
Section 42 is especially important given the trend to intensification. Experience during the pandemic has shown how important parkland and recreational facilities are to the physical and mental health of urban residents. Amounts of land and funds-in-lieu should not be reduced. Also, it is unfair to the public interest to allow development proponents to determine which lands are to be dedicated. In the past, they have tried to palm off hazard lands or wetlands which have very limited recreational potential. Many municipalities only accept lands that can be developed into active parks and trails.
Section 51: Public meetings are essential for allowing Municipal Councils to receive input from the public on development proposals. Very often, helpful comments are made that can shape the ultimate form of new development. Well-conducted public meetings should not be seen as a hindrance to development. They are also an essential component of democratic municipal government.
.