ERO 019-6163 submission …

ERO 019-6163 submission December 9th, 2022

I do not support the proposed Planning Act and City of Toronto Act changes. I will respond to several of them below.

Firstly, changes are proposed to remove planning policy and approval responsibilities from certain upper-tier municipalities. In the Niagara Region, where I live, the Region will still be responsible for water, wastewater and regional transportation planning but will no longer have a role in the review of planning approvals. This does not make sense to me. I worry that each municipality (there are 12 in Niagara alone) will now ‘do their own thing’ resulting in a fragmented planning approach.

In a November 5th, 2022 report to St. Catharines City Council by its Planning and Building Services department, the authors note that, under Bill 23, the city will inherit the components of the Region’s Official Plan that affect St. Catharines and suggest that this “may result in the loss of cohesive regional vision and the implementation of broader services” (Corporate Report to City Council, stcatharines.ca). This may also result in many smaller municipalities having to make planning decisions without the expertise they relied on in the past. For example, the above-mentioned report warns that “the Region is currently responsible for natural heritage and archaeology review throughout local area municipalities, and it appears these responsibilities could be downloaded to the City. The Region has recently completed an Archaeological Management Plan that was intended to identify areas of significance, ensure the long-term protection of archaeological resources (such as the Welland Canal), and provide a clear direction for when archaeological assessments will be required. Archaeology is a specific area of expertise … and requires relationship building with Indigenous peoples in the area.” They go on to say that the city has relied heavily on the Region to supply such expertise and “given the amount of Indigenous history, early European archaeology, and natural heritage value within the city, the staff review related to archaeology and natural heritage may result in a significant increase in required resources … to meet provincial timelines for planning applications.”

Without the benefit of the Region’s expertise, it may take longer to make planning decisions. This does not bode well for the stated intent of Bill 23 which is to build more homes faster.

In the same document, the authors state that the city’s Official Plan makes it clear that urban design, which includes exterior design and landscaping, “is crucial in St. Catharines, a mature city with a finite urban boundary.” They recognize that the city is facing a housing crisis and climate crisis and has a responsibility to review existing practices and policies, adapt to climate warming, and make changes that are in the public interest. However, as growth is accommodated primarily through intensification and redevelopment, innovative and sensitive design will be required “to ensure high quality urban environments.” City planners want to avoid the negative impact to streetscape and community character that they anticipate will occur when they are stripped of their ability to promote good design through the site plan review process.
Changes are also being proposed to limit Conservation Authority (CA) appeals of land use planning decisions, while at the same time broadening their ability to sever and dispose of land. Conservation Authorities have been highly successful in limiting harm to homes and businesses from flooding compared to other provinces. We should not be limiting their ability to continue to do this. It is also crucial that the land held in trust by CAs should NOT be sold off. We value these lands for so many ecological reasons including their value in mitigating the effects of the climate crisis. This is not the time to be reducing the amount of protected natural spaces in Ontario; we should be increasing them. I am sure that consultation with Indigenous communities would also be required in these decisions.

I will end with conclusions offered by the Planning and Building Services document: “[Bill 23] threatens the foundation of planning and community building … and generates conflict and division in the process when it is critical that all levels work together….The City agrees that additional housing supply is warranted; however, housing alone does not create community. Bill 23 has no regard or consideration for infrastructure funding, asset management, environmental systems, public realm, and quality of space. The erosion of community input into the built environment is undemocratic, draconian, and offends the principle of public interest.”

I heartily concur and hope that the Ministry listens to the experts and withdraws the proposed changes.