RE: ERO 019-8365 Bill 185…

RE: ERO 019-8365 Bill 185
The Proposed Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 – Housing Initiatives
Associated EROS:
- ERO 019-8366 - Proposed Regulatory Changes under the Planning Act Relating to the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 (Bill 185): Removing Barriers for Additional Residential Units
- ERO 019-8369 - Proposed Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, and Municipal Act, 2001 Changes (Schedules 4, 9, and 12 of Bill 185 - the proposed Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024)
- ERO 019-8370 - Proposed Changes to Regulations under the Planning Act and Development Charges Act, 1997 Relating to the Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 (Bill 185): Newspaper Notice Requirements and Consequential Housekeeping Changes
- ERO 019-8371 - Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 to Enhance Municipalities’ Ability to Invest in Housing-Enabling Infrastructure

The London Home Builders’ Association

The London Home Builders’ Association (“LHBA”) is the voice of the residential construction industry in London and area, representing 300 member companies including builders, developers, professional renovators, trade contractors, suppliers and manufacturers serving the residential construction industry.

LHBA Response

On behalf of the LHBA, we would like to provide the following feedback and suggestions that
we hope can be implemented prior to the passing of proposed Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024. We understand the proposed Bill is part of an ongoing commitment to cut red tape, speed up government process and build at least 1.5 million homes by 2031 – an initiative that we are immensely appreciative and supportive of. In particular in Bill 185 with boundary expansion on the horizon for London City Council to consider, we are very appreciative of the re-institution of the ability to appeal privately initiated settlement area boundary expansions

We believe the suggestions noted below will help in achieving the goals of building more homes, quickly and economically, and prioritizing infrastructure for housing projects that are ready.

Removal of Third-Party Appeal Rights
While LHBA understands the intention for introducing this policy change, specifically restricting frivolous and vexatious appeals, the manner it has been drafted has significant unintended consequences.
In this instance, it is necessary to distinguish between municipally initiated Official Plans (and amendments) and municipally initiated Zoning By-laws (and amendments), versus site-specific Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments, which are landowner initiated. It is the latter type of applications which directly propose to build housing and only the latter that are vulnerable to true 3rd party appeals.
Limits on 3rd party appeals where it would prevent the appeal of private applications by neighbouring landowners where the private application is supported by Council is applauded. In such cases, municipal staff will have reviewed potential impacts on neighbouring lands and received their comments before preparing a final staff report for Council, and these municipal approvals should not be subject to appeal.
However, as drafted, the limitation on 3rd party appeals will effectively give municipalities the ability to adopt and pass any official plan and zoning bylaw (or amendments) knowing that such instruments will not be subject to public scrutiny through an appeal to the OLT.
While the changes are well-intentioned, the consequences of limiting 3rd party appeals to “specified persons” and “public bodys” will only add red-tape, and delay to the development of housing units. We request that these changes be eliminated from the Bill or to work with industry to properly determine the best path forward for a solution.

Fee Refunds

Subsection 5(5) and 8(4) of Bill 185 propose to repeal “fee refund” provisions applicable to Zoning By-law Amendments and Applications subject to Site Plan Control.

We suggest the following to maintain some form of incentive to meet legislated timelines:

Timing of Approval – Added to Section 34
(NEW 10.12) Subject to subsection (11.0.0.0.1), the council shall make a decision within 90 days after the receipt by the clerk of an application for an amendment to a by-law passed under this section or a predecessor of this section. Failure to make a decision may result in approval of the application, as submitted, by the Minister as permitted under Section 47, with the

exception of plans and drawings referred to in subsection (10.14). (10.13) If an amendment to a by-law passed under this section or a predecessor of this section in respect of which an application to the council is made would also require an amendment to the official plan for the local municipality and the application is made on the same day as the request to amend the official plan, the council shall make a decision within 120 days after the receipt by the clerk of the application. Failure to make a decision may result in approval of the application, as submitted, by the Minister as permitted under Section 47, with the exception of
plans and drawings referred to in subsection (10.14).

Lapsing Approvals

a. Requiring the lapse of Subdivison Approvals: Subsection 10(3) of Schedule 12 proposes changes to subsection 51(32) of the Planning Act that would require municipalities assign lapse dates to plans of subdivision, where as the previous language indicated that they “may”.
b. Allowing for the lapse of Site Plan Approvals: Subsection 8(3) of Schedule 12 proposes to add a subsection to Section 41 of the Planning Act, granting municipalities the ability to assign expiration dates, which would cause Site Plan approvals to lapse.

Unnecessary lapsing of approvals will have costly implications to development which will
be translated to the end-user; the buyer and renters. In additiona, the processing of
approval lapses and possible extensions, will require additional Staff time – time that
should be spent processing applications and approving permits to facilitate the
construction of much-needed housing.

Suggestion: remove proposed changes relating to lapsing approvals or return to inclusion of the language “may”

“Use-it-or-Lose-it” policies

Lacks sufficient guidance to prevent municipalities from using it as a tool to add more red
Tape and also lacks an appeal mechanism.

Suggestion: Add language which permits the Minister to pass Regulations guiding the
development of Water Supply and Sewage Capacity by-laws.

And,

Add language to support possible appeals, similar to what exists in the
Development Charges Act.

Development Charge Freeze Period

The proposal to reduce the DC freeze period from 24 months to 18 months is intended to encourage builders to get homes built quicker. Feedback from builders though suggest this will likely only result in permits lapsing, and having to go through the process of re-applying at the newer higher rate, ultimately further delaying the building of and increasing the cost of a home.

Suggestion: Retain the 24 month DC freeze period.

Removing Barriers for Additional Residential Units

1. Length of Permit Review: Unlike single detached dwellings, which are to be reviewed within 10 days of submission, ARU permits are allotted 15 days for review. We suggest that permit review period for the ARU be reduced to 10 days.
Permit submission for an ARU must be quick and simple. We would suggest an easy-to-follow checklist.
2. Glazing Requirements: Ambiguous language within the OBC regarding the determination of “living space” has resulted in unnecessarily large, aesthetic glazing requirements. This adds unnecessary cost to the construction of ARU’s and can impact the structural stability of foundation walls.
3. Determination of ARU’s under the OBC: In feedback from our builders, they have experienced three different scenarios which influence the standards of the OBC that are applied. Clarity is needed to remove these inconsistencies.
a. New construction primary dwelling and concurrent new construct ARU – treated one way when the permit for the primary dwelling has not been “signed-off”. The current “solution” is to submit the ARU permit as a “finished basement” and convert prior to sign-off. This is complicated, and has unnecessary implications.
b. Completed new construction primary dwelling with a “closed” permit – ARU can be submitted as normal under the current OBC
i. 2025 Changes to the OBC (effective January 1, 2025) will require a separate HVAC system for the secondary suite. The associated cost of the additional system is +/- $6,000. It also has space/layout implications/costs for the units – as space is required to locate the secondary HVAC system.
c. If the primary dwelling is 5 years or older – flexibility is provided under Part 11 of the OBC. This flexibility is relatively pointless, as the code has not substantially changed in the last 5 years.
4. Tarion Requirements: we have recently learned that detached/backyard ARU’s (majority of which are modular) will require Tarion licensing. The cost and time implications of this are substantial, as Tarion licensing has a variety of associated administrative requirements including security which is held for years.
5. Concerns with the LTB – wait times associated with the Landlord Tenant Board (LTB) can deter the development of ARU’s. The Province should consider a streamlined process specifically to address issues associated with ARU’s.

The London Home Builders’ Association respectfully submits the above comments and suggestions regarding Bill 185 and related EROs, and we encourage the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to take them into consideration as the government deliberates any changes that may be needed prior to royal assent.

Thank you,

Jared Zaifman

CEO – London Home Builders’ Association