from francis@lapointe-arch…

from francis@lapointe-arch.com

I am a licensed architect practicing in Ontario with active development projects in multiple municipalities. I am writing in support of the Province’s proposed efforts to streamline development approvals and reduce unnecessary barriers, particularly with respect to Site Plan Control and technical study requirements.

In practice, municipalities are frequently applying Site Plan Control and related submission requirements in a manner that is not proportionate to the scale, context, or risk of the proposed development. This is especially evident on small-scale and infill projects located on previously developed lands, where the level of review often exceeds what is reasonably necessary to support decision-making.

By way of example, a recent project on a previously developed and extensively disturbed commercial site was required to complete a Stage 2 archaeological assessment based primarily on proximity to a water source. While provincial screening criteria identify proximity as one indicator of archaeological potential, they also require consideration of existing site disturbance. In this case, the site had been significantly altered through prior construction, grading, and servicing, such that archaeological resources were unlikely to remain intact. This factor was not meaningfully considered at the municipal screening stage.

As a result, the project was delayed by over one year due to seasonal constraints associated with archaeological fieldwork, despite the study ultimately confirming no archaeological resources were present.

The project now faces a further six months of delay to complete additional technical studies that, based on the nature of the site and proposal, are unlikely to result in any material changes. These include a traffic study for an existing commercial site, a stormwater review where no municipal storm infrastructure exists beyond roadside ditches, an environmental study for a previously disturbed gravel parking area, a hydrogeological study for a well located in sandy soils adjacent to Lake Ontario, and a lighting study where standard downward-directed fixtures can be readily specified.

Collectively, these requirements do not appear to be proportionate to the scale or risk of the proposed development and are unlikely to meaningfully inform the planning decision. This outcome reflects a process that is not aligned with the Province’s objective of timely and proportionate approvals.

More broadly, Site Plan Control is increasingly being used to require a wide range of studies and design refinements that extend beyond its intended purpose. In many cases, municipalities are effectively re-reviewing matters that are already addressed through zoning compliance or the Ontario Building Code, or requiring studies that do not materially inform planning decisions.

To support the Province’s stated objectives, the proposed legislation should:

1. Limit the scope of Site Plan Control to core site-related matters such as grading, servicing, access, drainage, and life safety, and prohibit its use to re-review matters already addressed through zoning or the Ontario Building Code
2. Require a clear, written planning rationale for each requested technical study, demonstrating how the study will materially inform a planning decision, rather than relying on standard checklists or blanket requirements
3. Prohibit the automatic or checklist-based application of study requirements, including but not limited to traffic, stormwater, environmental, hydrogeological, and lighting studies, where site conditions and scale do not warrant them
4. Require municipalities to consider existing site conditions, including prior disturbance, existing use, and available infrastructure, before determining study requirements
5. Establish maximum timelines for identifying required studies following initial inquiry or pre-consultation, to prevent delays caused by late-stage or evolving submission requirements
6. Introduce a proportionality test, requiring that the scope and cost of required studies be commensurate with the scale, intensity, and potential impacts of the proposed development

A consistent and enforceable principle of proportionality should be embedded within the Planning Act framework to guide both municipalities and applicants. Without this, smaller projects will continue to face disproportionate costs and delays, which undermines the Province’s broader objectives of increasing housing supply and supporting economic development.

The Province’s direction to reduce red tape and accelerate approvals is both appropriate and necessary. Meaningful change, however, will depend on placing clearer limits on municipal discretion and ensuring that development review processes remain focused on material planning considerations.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.