We commend the Province for…

We commend the Province for taking valuable steps to create an environment that is conducive to housing creation. Looking ahead, we believe there is a valuable opportunity to build on this progress. Specifically, we recommend that the Province consider, in a future phase of reform, a targeted amendment to the Planning Act to remove the requirement that a variance must be “minor in nature.”

Rigid and inflexible zoning regulations—particularly in intensifying urban areas—often hinder projects from responding to evolving market conditions, even when proposed changes are minor, technical, and have no negative planning impact. By their nature, zoning by-laws are static and frequently out of step with the pace of housing demand, construction innovation, and shifting community needs. When zoning rigidity prevents projects from advancing to site plan, it introduces delay, uncertainty, and risk—directly limiting the ability to deliver housing in a timely and efficient manner. Adding even more flexibility into the Variance process can help speed up the municipal review process to allow proposals for new housing to advance.

We would draw your attention to other Canadian jurisdictions, such as Edmonton, where variance requests are evaluated based on planning merit and contextual appropriateness, rather than being constrained by a rigid requirement that they be “minor in nature.” In practice, variances granted in such systems remain limited in impact—not because of regulation, but because of careful review rooted in sound planning judgment. In Ontario, site context has long been the central consideration in assessing land use changes, and this principle is consistently reflected in decisions by the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) and its predecessor, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). These bodies have repeatedly emphasized that what matters is not simply the numerical extent of a variance, but whether it is desirable, contextually appropriate, and consistent with the broader planning framework. Shifting away from a narrow “minor” threshold and instead focusing on impacts and compatibility would align the Planning Act more closely with how land use planning decisions are already being made in practice—particularly at the Tribunal and municipal levels.

Importantly, this change would preserve the integrity of the planning framework. The remaining three statutory tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act—that a variance:

• maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
• maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law; and
• is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure—

would remain intact and continue to guide a thoughtful, rigorous, and context-sensitive review of all variance applications.

We thank the Province for its leadership in modernizing Ontario’s planning system and for the opportunity to provide this input. Starlight looks forward to continued collaboration in advancing policy reforms that accelerate housing delivery while maintaining high standards of planning and community design.