A. Official Plan structure…

A. Official Plan structure and contents:
- the history section is very helpful to most Official Plans. It gives all an idea of where a community has been and that can be helpful when thinking about where a community is going.
- I do agree that there should be minimal prescriptive zone standards in an Official Plan. At a minimum, OPs should contain minimum setbacks to environmental features, or study areas, but should leave the prescription of zoning to the Zoning By-laws.
- why limit secondary plans? I mean, many OPs refer to other studies that have been completed (e.g. Infrastructure Master Plan) and this is good and important. Reference to these other documents helps to empower them via the OP. In the same way, a secondary plan is like one of these corollary documents: it provides more specificity about a particular thing in a particular area.
- the proposed schedule structures assumes a lot. Maybe larger urban areas have this kind of information readily available, but I think the majority or small rural, or rural-urban municipalities may not have all of this information. A prescribed structure like in the ERO posting would actually impose additional burderns on smaller municipalities to complete this work - that would come at the expense of taxpayers. It's efficient, long-term, but doesn't make sense if the data doesn't exist. Imagine many of those small communities taking a really long time and spending a lot of money just to get the data.
- standardized naming is not productive. All communities are different. Standardized naming may help people who are developing across multiple communities, but it seems like you are trying to benefit the developer, not the community, with this kind of change. Communities are unique and that is what the OP is supposed to reflect.

B. Limiting the Length of Official Plans
- are you also going to limit font size? Because clever municipalities may just make the font a ridiculous size to meet the page count.
- it's such a weird thing: In section A, you talk about (appropriately) getting zone standards out of the OP, and then in this section you talk about imposing an arbitrary page limit. Who is this for, and who does it benefit?
- You should leave it alone.

C. Creating Permissive Land Use Designations
- I actually like this proposal the most so far. I think especially for rapidly urbanizing communities it would assist all in understanding what is intended. I think there is some potential conflict to be worked out. For instance, in a Residential 1 designation, the proposed policies would effectively limit growth. Current OP policies and PPS speak to intensification in areas that can accommodate it. I think you are opening the door for Councils and communities to deny much needed infill / intensification in logical areas if you create this 2-residential designation system.
- Rural residents and land owners continue to have their rights infringed. They are slapped with mineral aggregate designations, or bedrock resources, or other resource-related uses. For decades and centuries before, there was no limit on use in many communities. This has created a perfect storm of pissed off rural landowners. While it is ultimately the right thing, the Province needs to seriously consider what things it designates. Are all tertiary mineral aggregate reserves actually needed to be protected? Take a good, hard look at how your policies are impacting rural residents and if you are going to impose these large scale parameters, at least do some of the heavy lifting as a Province to relieve the burden on the local municipality.

D. Transitioning to a New Framework
- Do not require lower tiers to wait for upper tiers. This just delays things and is unfair to all involved. You've created this monster with the requirement to be consistent with upper tier plans, so if that's the monster you want, keep it, but don't hold up lower tiers because an upper tier plan is delayed. Imagine a scenario where an upper tier plan is consistently delayed, finally adopted, then under appeal, which takes significant time to resolve. Finally, the plan is in full force and effect, and all appeals concluded, but it has been five years and the policies are no longer valid for a rapidly evolving world.
- what do you mean by "framework"? A new PPS?

E. Submission of Official Plans Through Online Portal
- Yes - it is about time!