It seems the intent of…

It seems the intent of clauses 3 and 7 of Bill 17 is to speed-up development approvals by reducing the decision-making powers at the municipal and agency level. In many cases this is warranted given the prevalence of mediocre municipal staff with limited professional experience who, nevertheless, are given the power to disrupt development progress for often illegitimate or uninformed reasons. However, this proposed bill also assumes that the developer or builder is inclined to put forward responsible development proposals that appropriately considers the myriad of context, design/aesthetics, functionality, sustainability and future-proofing matters that are critical to the 'success' of a project. I have been working with developers for over 30 years and it is a rare instance in which maximizing profit isn't prioritized above sound design and planning decisions. Frequently, it is the urban design analysis undertaken by a consultant that provides the critical direction and guardrails for ensuring a proposed development contributes to the overall community, not just to the profit margin. Therefore, the removal of urban design inputs from a complete application requirement, as well as sun/shadow and wind studies, is unfortunate and misguided and will only contribute to the glut of mediocre or worse developments throughout Ontario. I, therefore, request that these topics remain as a key component of a responsible development review requirement. Thanks.