Even though there are good…

Even though there are good parts within proposed changes, I will comment on a few areas which concern me. First some background about me ... I have been involved with community planning since the 1990s in various roles including citizen volunteer on a municipal planning advisory committee which worked on several municipal official plans and related documents; as a two term elected member (8 years) of a municipal council; and, as a design professional working in the development sector across southern Ontario for more than 30 years. In addition, I am very familiar with the huge time commitment (largely unpaid) by volunteers working in advocacy to ensure stewardship of our shared cultural resources for everyone in Ontario. And, I believe it is important Ontario to set aside funds for the purpose of intervener funding for citizen volunteers and not-for-profit organizations specific to heritage matters.
I live in a small house more than 150 years old and located in a downtown heritage district with treed and walkable streets, a neighbourhood methodically enhanced via intensification. My neighbourhood has a mix of grand old homes with young families, small to medium size heritage homes with some remodeled as affordable apartments or retirement condominiums (a former century old school), infill of newer homes and low rise (to 4 storey) apartment buildings. Hence, no supporting links attached to this submission. Lived experience is my reference.

My main points:

1. A community, through public dialogue between local government (including its administration and expert staff/consultants) and citizens (business is included in my definition of responsible 'citizen') must have final say on what is important to that community. An agency like the Conservation Review Board, provides expert opinion and recommendations for consideration by the community. It is my understanding that it does not make the final decision but leaves the decision to the local community. A final decision by LPAT (or similar) is NOT the preferable process. However, the province has an important role in ensuring all tools and information is available to a local community in its decision making process, a most important matter especially for smaller and rural municipalities which may not have the expert staff or resources to ensure fair representation in the process.

2. People living in Ontario are significantly over housed. How many multi-bedroom homes have only one or two people living in them now? What is needed is better design, not more houses like we have now! Improve building standards first. This will also help with affordable options and adaptability of space as a family grows and ages. Improving housing supply is not synonymous with streamlining development approvals. Improving housing is about improvements to being clear and reliable (accountable) about development approvals process(es) including public transparency and accountability to the community (and its taxpayers). Also, improving building and development standards in face of multiple issues including costs, quality, energy efficient, adaptations to effects of climate change and continuing tendency of the development industry to create socially stratified neighbourhoods. And, Ontario needs to get away from the notion that buildings are yet another disposable consumer product that someone else will recycle. Building waste is already taking up precious space in landfill. Ontario has a leadership role in protecting our built and natural heritage as part of our collective story of who we are and where we are heading.

3. Make heritage advisory committees composed of knowledgeable members of the community a mandatory requirement for a Municipal Council. Consider for example, Accessibility Advisory Committees are currently required to review development applications.