Thank you for providing the…

Thank you for providing the opportunity for the County of Bruce to comment on Bill 23 and the associated legal and regulatory changes through the Environmental Registry.

Bruce County and our eight local municipalities are committed to supporting the province’s goals to increase housing supply, bring more affordable housing to market and streamline the development process to get more homes built faster.

Ahead of the introduction of Bill 23, Bruce County and its partner municipalities were already working on initiatives to increase the supply of affordable housing by updating planning documents to permit additional residential units as-of-right; creating an affordable housing tool kit for developers; and streamlining development approvals. Bruce County delivers planning services to our 8 partner municipalities and also delivers a range of housing services, including the construction of County owned/operated housing.

The timing of the release and commenting deadlines and passage of Bill 23 was not sufficient for staff to seek input from the newly elected County Council. As such, our comments reflect staff’s input on the changes proposed in Bill 23 and are informed by discussions with municipal staff, area Conservation Authority staff (Grey Sauble and Saugeen Valley), and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation Environment Office.

This letter summarizes items that will be of benefit to Bruce County and its partner municipalities, and to the supply of affordable housing, along with areas of significant concern that will limit our collective ability to effectively plan, afford and deliver quality affordable and attainable housing for the public.

Benefits of Bill 23 and associated Regulatory Changes:

Bruce County supports the government of Ontario’s goal to increase the supply of homes across Ontario to respond to the affordability crisis in housing, provided it is balanced with environmental protection, ensuring a good quality of life for residents and having a secure source of funding in order to deliver the services that contribute to good growth. Increasing the supply of housing is a goal of the County and its partner municipalities.

Bill 23 includes several important provisions that support our shared housing supply goals, including as-of-right permissions for gentle density through additional residential units in settlement areas and increased capacity at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

We support changes that build on the innovative and efficient development approval processes that have been put in place in partnership between Bruce County and its partner municipalities.

Additional Dwelling Units:

As-of-right permission for the creation of additional dwelling units (ADUs) in serviced settlement areas is a good idea. Permitting these units as-of-right in the Planning Act reduces the administrative burden of updating local planning documents. The creation of gentle density through ADUs is generally supported in serviced settlement areas, although several municipalities noted that parking may become an issue in communities without transit options.

Benefits of Bill 23 and associated Regulatory Changes:

Bruce County supports the government of Ontario’s goal to increase the supply of homes across Ontario to respond to the affordability crisis in housing, provided it is balanced with environmental protection, ensuring a good quality of life for residents and having a secure source of funding in order to deliver the services that contribute to good growth. Increasing the supply of housing is a goal of the County and its partner municipalities.

Bill 23 includes several important provisions that support our shared housing supply goals, including as-of-right permissions for gentle density through additional residential units in settlement areas and increased capacity at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

We support changes that build on the innovative and efficient development approval processes that have been put in place in partnership between Bruce County and its partner municipalities.

Additional Dwelling Units:

As-of-right permission for the creation of additional dwelling units (ADUs) in serviced settlement areas is a good idea. Permitting these units as-of-right in the Planning Act reduces the administrative burden of updating local planning documents. The creation of gentle density through ADUs is generally supported in serviced settlement areas, although several municipalities noted that parking may become an issue in communities without transit options.

Within Bruce County, four of eight municipalities have development charges. Several others are considering establishing development charges. Exempting an additional residential unit in order to support gentle density is not anticipated to have a major financial impact and may assist in making housing affordable for existing and new homeowners, as well as providing additional rental options in our primary settlement areas.

Certainty for Developers:

Bill 23 sets out a framework that provides developers with certainty of costs and fees. The removal of third-party appeals may also increase certainty of costs and timing to developers. We have been encouraging developers to build affordable housing through our recently released affordable housing toolkit. We sincerely hope that the private sector will build more new and different forms of affordable or attainable housing that can increase housing supply in Bruce County.

Ontario Land Tribunal:

Changes to the Ontario Land Tribunal to prioritize hearings and award costs can assist with putting a focus on applications that contribute significantly to the provision of housing. Bill 23 proposes to provide Ontario Land Tribunal additional powers to dismiss appeals that are delayed unreasonably and a greater ability to award costs against losing parties. These changes have the potential to heighten the need of parties to be well organized and to put focus on applications that are a priority to deliver housing to market.

Concerns of Bill 23 and associated Regulatory Changes:

While Bill 23 proposes broad legislative changes to increase the supply of housing across Ontario, there is significant risk of unintended consequences. The below section outlines concerns and recommendations that Bruce County asks the province to consider.

Planning Act:

Bill 23 introduces a wide range of foundational changes to the Planning Act. Changes include inclusionary zoning, parkland, site plan control, public meetings for subdivisions, appeal rights and the planning function of seven upper-tier/regional governments.

Inclusionary Zoning:

While Bill 23 includes changes to inclusionary zoning (establishing a cap on the percentage of development that must be provided as affordable), inclusionary zoning continues to be limited to municipalities with major transit station areas within major urban areas. The Town of Saugeen Shores and the County of Bruce made a delegation to the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the ROMA Conference in 2022 to request that inclusionary zoning be made available to smaller communities and offered to partner with the province as a pilot area.

Recommendation:
1. That the province re-establish the ability to use inclusionary zoning broadly within Ontario.

Parkland:
Several changes are proposed to parkland provisions under section 42 of the Planning Act. While Bruce County’s local municipalities make limited use of Section 42 by-laws, requiring a parks plan to be completed prior to the implementation of an updated parkland by-law adds unnecessary cost and time for a municipality to implement changes proposed in Bill 23.

County staff and municipalities most often rely on the section 51 provisions for the provision of parkland in standard subdivisions and consents. The changes in Bill 23 to reduce the supply of parkland by 50%, will reduce the quality of life for new communities with affordable housing units. Through the pandemic, we have seen the value that natural and outdoor spaces provide in communities. These spaces are also important as municipalities consider the impact of climate change and protection of important natural hazard and heritage features in their communities.

The proposed legislation would allow developers to provide parkland that could be encumbered by easements and strata. While this may be an approach that works in denser, built-up urban areas, municipalities in Bruce County should be able to ask for parkland that is unencumbered for the benefit of residents.

Bill 23 also introduces a process whereby developers would identify lands to be dedicated to the municipality as parkland. Should the municipality decline to accept the lands for parkland purposes, there is a new mechanism where the developer can appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. This provision appears punitive to municipalities and out of line with the requirement for municipalities to complete a parks plan prior to making any updates to a parkland by-law. A parks plan will identify criteria and priorities for parklands in a municipality. The legislation references criteria to be set to help municipalities and LPAT evaluate lands for parkland purposes.

Recommendations:
2. That current parkland dedication rates be maintained.
3. That a parks plan continue to be required only if a municipality is implementing an alternate parkland rate.
4. That Municipalities outside of the GGHA do not have to accept encumbered lands as parkland.
5. That the province consult on and provide clarity around the criteria for parkland acquisition so Municipalities can incorporate it into parks plans.
6. That the appeal process for developers to appeal municipal parkland decisions be removed, given developers retain appeal rights on decisions.

Site Plan Control:

Bill 23 exempts residential projects with fewer than 10 units from Site Plan Control. It also proposes to limit exterior design considerations and landscaping for all types and sizes of projects.

For many of our communities in Bruce County, a 10-unit project is a significant investment in the creation of new housing stock and a change in the community fabric. Site plan control has long been used as an effective tool to guide development that ensures servicing, site alteration, environmental considerations, exterior design and landscaping are compatible and positively contribute to high quality, desirable community development.

Site plan control is also often used to manage and implement recommendations of environmental impact studies, archaeological assessments, and servicing considerations. It is an essential tool for facilitating development that maintains provincial and municipal planning interests on constrained sites where it would not otherwise be supported. Site Plan Control is also an important tool to help municipalities implement green standards and implement measures to mitigate the effects of climate change as directed by the Provincial Policy Statement.

The changes to site plan control leave a significant gap in the tools available to municipalities to address compatibility, servicing, and quality of the natural environment.

The re-introduction of sustainable design elements as part of site plan control with the changes made to Bill 23 on November 22, 2022 is a positive change and will assist municipalities.

Recommendations:
7. That the limitation on applying site plan control to projects with less than 10 residential units be removed from Bill 23. Discretion in of application of site plan control should be left to municipalities.
8. That Municipalities retain the opportunity to regulate landscaping, exterior design and it clearly be stated in the legislation that municipalities can apply standards to address climate change through Site Plan Control.

Plan of Subdivision:

Bill 23 repealed provisions that would require a public meeting be held for draft plans of subdivision.

A plan of subdivision application can create significant change in a community. Public input on subdivision and condominium applications can yield positive changes to applications that result in a better quality of development. Without the opportunity to provide comments in a public forum, staff, developers and Councils will not have the benefit of public input.

Eliminating public meetings for major planning applications, but keeping public meeting requirements for associated applications (e.g. zoning and official plan amendments) are anticipated to increase public frustration with the planning process as their input will be sought at only some stages, or in respect of some aspects of the development.

Recommendations:
9. That Municipalities retain the ability to have a public meeting under certain circumstances, such as when objections are received through the notice of application process.
10. That the province clearly communicate to the public the changes to the planning framework which re-set public expectations for participation in the planning process.

Appeals:

The reduction of third-party appeals will decrease delays in approvals and reduce the administrative burden of processing appeals from parties that do not present expert evidence. However, Bruce County would prefer the approach recommended by the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force which preserves the right to appeal but reduces the number of hearings by requiring “leave to appeal” and increasing the filing fee.

We are concerned that the lack of a Planning Act appeals process will lead to requests for judicial reviews and other challenges through the court system.

Members of the public have long been used to a framework where appeals can be filed. Should the proposed changes under Bill 23 be passed, the County and municipalities request the province update the language in the regulations to clearly communicate appeal rights in plain language so that the public can understand these rights through statutory notice circulations.

We understand that the changes made to Bill 23 have further changed appeal rights. Sufficient time must be available to review further changes.

Recommendations:

11. That the province clearly communicate to the public the appeals framework that is proposed under Bill 23. Changes to appeal rights in the proposed Bill 23 create further confusion that needs to be clarified to the public and key stakeholders.
12. That the province continue to find ways to increase the capacity of the Ontario Land Tribunal to adjudicate hearings faster.
13. That the province update the notice requirements in the Planning Act regulations to clearly reflect the right to appeal framework in effect.
14. That the province amend the Planning Act to eliminate the statutory appeal period for applications where there are no stated oral or written objections before the decision and no changes to the by-law / proposal between the public circulation and the decision.

Upper Tier – Removal of Planning Authority:

Changes to the Planning Act propose two categories of upper tier municipalities – those with and those without planning responsibilities. Bill 23 would remove planning authority for the Regions of Durham, Halton, Niagara, Peel, Waterloo and York, as well as the County of Simcoe.

These upper tier governments deliver coordinated planning and delivery of infrastructure to support growth. At a time when the provincial government is looking to support rapid growth, breaking the link between planning and servicing for development may lead to inefficiency, confusion, and interruptions to be able to facilitate rapid growth and development.

Recommendations:
15. While not directly impacted by these changes under Bill 23, we recommend that additional consultation take place with the impacted Counties/Regions to fully understand the implications of this change.

Consultation on Bill 23 Changes:

The timing of the release of Bill 23 and the limited commenting period that has been provided is a matter of great concern. The tabling of this legislation the day after the municipal election during a period where many local Councils and County Council were unable to hold meetings to review the proposed changes with staff and provide formal comment through Council resolutions is problematic. Given the significance of the proposed changes, staff are providing comment in the absence of County Council having the opportunity to provide formal comment.

Bruce County appreciated the apparent extension to consultation on the proposed changes in Bill 23 and was stunned and disappointed at the move to pass the legislation regardless. This submission is to record the County's displeasure with these actions taken by the Province, and the missed opportunity for meaningful consultation with municipalities about the foundational changes enacted through this legislation. We encourage the province to come to the table with organizations such as AMO, ROMA and the Warden’s Caucus’s across Ontario who represent the viewpoint of upper-tier and local municipalities across the province.

The County also encourages meaningful dialogue and consultation with First Nations communities across Ontario about the changes in Bill 23. The extent of changes in Bill 23 have an impact on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. The changes in Bill 23, in addition to the changes in Bill 109, challenge the County’s ability to engage in meaningful consultation with the First Nation communities in whose territory we provide planning services. Consideration of the Crown’s Duty to consult with First Nations must be considered by the province.

Further Considerations:

The County of Bruce and its partner municipalities look forward to working in partnership with the provincial government to ensure the supply of attainable and affordable housing.

The County supports innovative changes that build on the County’s best practices of streamlining the development process. County staff continue to work with the Western Ontario Warden’s Caucus, County Planning Directors and AMO to share best practices.

Thank you for taking the time to read our comments and concerns on proposed Bill 23 and the associated consultation.