Bill 185 Limits third…

Bill 185

Limits third-party appeal rights related to OPAs and zoning by-law amendments to the applicant, the Minister, the approval authority, a public body, and “specified persons” who have made oral or written submissions prior to adoption of an OPA or ZBA. The implementation of this would limit a farmer or the agricultural groups from appealing applications that prioritize development or aggregates over agricultural interests.

Proposes amendments to the Planning Act to allow appeals of a municipality’s refusal or failure to adopt or approve an application for an OPA that expands a settlement boundary, provided that the subject expansion does not result in any land in the Greenbelt Area being included in the settlement boundary area. This allows developers to challenge a Council decision meaning that agricultural interests are again potentially being overridden by development interests. The OLT is on the verge of becoming a developers only appeal board.

The Revised Provincial Policy Statement (2024)

Now requires an agricultural systems approach in prime agricultural areas (see 4.3.1 for example). This is a positive that lends priority to agriculture and related uses.

The lot creation policy included within the 2024 PPS essentially now uses the lot creation policies of the 2020 PPS. This is a positive change.

Many people are saying the intent of the change to policy 4.3.3.1 c) is good (amends the surplus residence severance criteria to clarify that a detached accessory dwelling unit cannot be used to create a second surplus residence severance. It is unclear why in a policy environment where the creation of new additional dwelling units on agricultural lands is being encouraged through changes in policy, that the surplus dwelling provisions would continue to apply. Clearly the creation of what can only be rental residential units on agricultural lands is now a provincial priority. What is the difference between creation of a second residential unit on an existing farm or maintaining the unit (presumably for rent) on a second property? Creating agricultural parcels that cannot have a residential unit on them in a County where smaller, yet viable agricultural operations associated with the Mennonite community exist makes little sense. Such parcels will potentially create reasonable demands to permit residential units on such remnant parcels in the future. Such policies introduce unnecessary new non-farm related uses into the agricultural area and should be prohibited.

The use of Agricultural Impact Statements are now required in a number of instances. (2.3.2 and 4.3.5). This provides for formal review from an agricultural perspective when various types of development are proposed near farms

Battery storage has been added to the on-farm diversified uses definition and is potentially a positive as long as the appropriate size and scale for such uses is adhered to.

Comprehensive reviews associated with settlement expansions have been eliminated. This makes it more difficult to ensure impacts of such actions are clearly understood, that they are justified and that the agricultural areas are appropriately protected.

The draft 2024 PPS is significantly better than the draft 2023 version, but settlement expansion processes remain of significant concern. Justification for expansions and requiring them as part of comprehensive review processes should be required.