To Whom It May Concern:…

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on ERO posting 026-0230. Please see attached an electronic submission from the City of Burlington. Below are the key points extracted from the submission, c/o of City's Community Planning Department.

Given the interrelated nature of the PBWP and its implementing MZOs, as well as the identical consultation questions, the City of Burlington has prepared consolidated comments addressing both postings. For added clarity, all references to the term “planned corridor” or “corridors” in this comment letter should be interpreted in accordance with the defined term in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

In 2022, staff provided comments on a similar proposal under ERO Posting No. 019-6167: Proposed Revocation of the Parkway Belt West Plan (attached as Appendix A). The submission prepared by City staff highlighted the following:
- support, in principle, for removal of redundant provincial policy layers;
- the need to avoid gaps in infrastructure planning and corridor protection; and
- the importance of coordinated implementation with municipalities and agencies.

Comments Re: ERO Postings 026-0229 and 026-0230

1) What are your thoughts on the proposal to revoke the PBWP and five associated MZOs?

- The City supports efforts to streamline planning tools and appreciates the concurrent consideration of the PBWP and the MZOs. The City reiterates its previous support for revocation, provided a clear and coordinated transition strategy is established. This strategy should ensure that the original objectives related to infrastructure corridors and long-term planning are not undermined, and that policy gaps are avoided.

2) What potential municipal concerns and impacts (e.g., on local zoning) are there with respect to revoking the remaining MZOs?

- While the PBWP does not capture all planned corridors, it does function as a large consolidation of various corridor protection requirements across several provincial ministries and entities. The PBWP/MZOs also set out detailed provisions for the range of permitted uses within these corridors.

- Clear direction is required regarding transition of policies and regulations into municipal planning frameworks- in particular, confirmation that the existing policies for planned corridors within the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS, 2024) provide sufficient direction for municipalities.

Recommendation 1 – Consider the issuance of guidance materials to clarify expectations for both secondary and interim land uses within planned corridors, as well as compatibility criteria for development within adjacent lands.

- Though existing PBWP/MZO provisions can easily be adapted to municipal planning documents, there is less certainty around future corridors. In some cases, this is remedied by existing permitting processes, such as Infrastructure Ontario’s Provincial Secondary Land Use Program. In other cases, municipalities will need to rely on the limited provisions of the PPS, 2024 (i.e. subsection 3.3 “Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors”) to guide land permissions.

- The issuance of supplementary guidance materials would support municipalities in determining the range of appropriate land uses within planned corridors, as well as criteria to ensure that proposed new development on adjacent lands meets provincial expectations for compatibility.

Recommendation 2 – Consider the introduction of a centralized open dataset for planned corridors.

- A centralized dataset would streamline land use planning processes by enabling municipalities to more quickly update Official Plans and Zoning By-laws, while minimizing the risk of errors and/or omissions. This approach would also complement provincial efforts to standardize Official Plan contents by ensuring municipalities are utilizing a consistent dataset for the identification of planned corridors.

- For example, the preliminary study area for the 407 Transitway is identified within the PBWP but the preferred alignment approved through various Transit Project Assessment Processes (TPAPs) is not centrally housed online. Ideally this kind of information would be made publicly available through an existing tool such as Ontario GeoHub for municipal ease of use. This would have the added benefit of reducing the number of data requests from individual municipalities to the Province.

Recommendation 3 – Consider the standardization of relevant provincial processes.

- Planned corridors may be identified by numerous provincial ministries and entities with varying approaches to notification. Standardizing municipal notification requirements would better support the timely updating of municipal planning documents. Further opportunity exists within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s One Window Service, i.e. ensuring that corridor-related information is clearly and consistently communicated through provincial responses to municipal circulations, as applicable.

Recommendation 4 – Consider additional legislative changes to clarify that a planned corridor may be incorporated into municipal planning documents as a minor technical change, through Delegated Authority.

- Planned corridors are typically developed through extensive study, in accordance with provincial legislation and regulations. For example, the Environmental Assessment Act contains detailed provisions for public consultation and appeal rights to ensure that provincial decisions are in the public interest. However, when a municipality amends its planning documents to reflect provincial corridor protection requirements, there is a possibility that the change will be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).

- Referring such matters (i.e., where there is no municipal discretion or refinement process) to the OLT is misleading to the public, increases legal and administrative costs, and diverts resources away from delivering housing. This is contrary to the government’s efforts to streamline, reduce and eliminate municipal and provincial burden. Alternatively, the identification of a planned corridor within municipal planning documents could be undertaken as a technical change through Delegated Authority- a faster, simpler process without an appeal mechanism.

- Delegated Authority recognizes that municipal planning documents require regular technical, or “housekeeping”, changes to remain accurate and up to date. These changes are minor in nature and do not require public consultation. As planned corridors derive their authority from the provincial legislation under which they are approved, identifying them within municipal planning documents is a convenience rather than an enabling mechanism.

- The Province should consider additional legislative changes to clarify that the incorporation of provincial mapping (where municipal refinement is not required/permitted) into municipal planning documents is considered a minor technical change. This clarification would encourage municipal uptake of Delegated Authority as a tool for incorporating provincially established mapping and would eliminate the risk of duplicative appeal processes, added costs and unnecessary delays.

Recommendation 5 – Consider aligning the timing of the PBWP/MZO revocation with the proposed timelines for the standardization of municipal Official Plan contents under Schedule 1 of Bill 98.

- This approach would maximize efficiency by leveraging a parallel process regarding Official Plan contents, while also enhancing process consistency across the five municipalities with remaining MZOs.

- Careful coordination of timing with each municipality will be essential to avoid unintended gaps in zoning (i.e. ensuring PBWP/MZO revocation does not occur prior to the updating local zoning coming into full force and effect).

Recommendation 6 – Consider administrative amendments to the Greenbelt suite of plans to acknowledge the revocation of the PBWP/MZOs.

- Given the uncertain timing for the coordinated review of the Greenbelt Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Plan, it may be necessary to enact administrative amendments to guide interpretation of references to the PBWP following its revocation.

In light of the short period for consultation, the attached comments have not been approved by City Council. This submission will be shared through an upcoming Council Information Package. Should Council determine any additional comments or refinements are required, the Ministry will be advised at the earliest opportunity.

In the interim, we look forward to continued collaboration on Bill 98, and please feel free to contact us should there be any follow-up questions or information required.

Regards,

City of Burlington
Community Planning Department
Development & Growth Management