I appreciate the additional…

I appreciate the additional attention being given to Section 34 regarding the refunding of fees for zoning by-law and site plan applications and the additional transition time being granted via proposed subsections 10.12 and 10.13. Please also clarify that the requirement for municipal refunds of zoning by-law and site plan application fees only apply in cases where the official plan or zoning bylaw are not in conformity with provincial or regional legislation or policy. This could ensure that municipalities do not flout the law and abuse the timelines. Imposing the refund requirement more broadly may invite applications that waste public resources and fail to properly “recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning” (Planning Act 1.1 (f)) and that “[c]omprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is best achieved through official plans” (PPS, Part V, 4.6).

Please do not add proposed subsection 47 (4.0.1) to enable the Minister, via a Zoning Order, to provide that policy statements, provincial plans and official plans do not apply. Such a provision transforms land-use legislation and policy to rule by fiat instead of following universal laws that provide for checks on abuse and a predictable planning environment. Bypassing the lawful system may also make the Minister an increased target for influence and could render the Minister’s decisions increasingly suspect.

I appreciate the additional transition time being granted for addressing regional (upper-tier) planning authorities. The coordination provided by regional planning authorities is needed. If the aim is to reduce duplicative efforts, then perhaps regions could retain responsibility for creation of regional official plans and review of municipal official plans, but the review of planning applications could be handled by municipalities.

In the vein of revisiting some of the hasty aspects of Bill 23, now that there is more consensus that factors other than land availability and development application approval times are constraining the supply of affordable housing, I ask that

Regarding the Conservation Authorities Act
• Maintain the Conservation Authority permit system; do not delegate the responsibility to municipalities. Allow municipalities to enter into agreements with CAs for review and comment on development applications.
• Do not amend the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System without science-based evaluation.
• Do not remove “pollution” as a factor that a Conservation Authority may consider in making decisions.

Regarding the Ontario Heritage Act
• Eliminate the requirement for meeting two criteria in establishing heritage value. It will deny protection to buildings of tremendous value.
• Permit properties to remain on the Listed Properties Register past the two years’ limit if the property owner agrees.

Regarding Development Charges, Parkland Dedication and Community Benefit Charges
• Remove DCs, CBCs and parkland dedication exemptions from any housing units priced in excess of 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households. This would render higher priced purpose-built rentals, attainable housing, and Inclusionary Zoning units ineligible for the discount. Please note that the new caps on DCs, CBCs and parkland dedication already reduce costs to these sorts of developments.

Regarding Inclusionary Zoning
• Continue to allow municipalities to set the regulations as to number of units, the maximum requirement period and the discount rate based on the studies and analysis that municipalities are currently required to undertake.

Regarding the Ontario Land Tribunal Act
• Reinstate the right to appeal Committee of Adjustment decisions. An appeal process is a necessary part of justice and a safeguard against abuse of private property rights. Planning departments and governments can be avaricious, particularly when faced with difficult choices. Committee of Adjustment members can be minimally informed and capricious in their decisions. They may not follow precedent of any kind, including from higher authorities such as the OMB/LPAT/OLT or Divisional Court. If reducing OLT workload is at issue, perhaps appeals can be directed to local appeal bodies.