RE: Proposed Bill 17:…

RE: Proposed Bill 17: Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 and Associated Regulations - ERO 025-0461, ERO 025-0462, ERO 025-0463 and RR 25-MMAH003

Dear Honourable Minister Flack,

In response to your letter to Heads of Council dated May 13, 2025, Collingwood Council has directed the provision of staff generated, high-level feedback to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on components of proposed Bill 17 and related regulations, with the understanding that the purpose of the Bill is to support the goal of making it easier and faster to build new homes and infrastructure Ontario needs like transit, roads, water, and wastewater systems. While the 30-day commenting period does not provide sufficient time for a comprehensive analysis and response to the bold and numerous legislative and regulatory changes being proposed, on behalf of the Town of Collingwood, the following is offered for consideration.

Development Charges Act

RR 25-MMAH003: Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997, to Simplify and Standardize the Development Charge (D.C.) Framework

Purpose:
The proposed amendments to the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.) under Bill 17 aim to:
- Simplify and standardize the development charge framework across Ontario;
- Reduce development costs to support housing affordability;
- Streamline municipal processes related to D.C. by-law amendments; and
- Align growth planning with updated provincial population forecasts.

Comments:
The Town of Collingwood recognizes the Province’s intent to address housing affordability and streamline development approvals. However, the proposed changes raise several concerns regarding municipal financial sustainability, transparency, and planning autonomy. While some amendments offer administrative efficiencies, others may significantly impact the Town’s ability to fund and deliver critical infrastructure. Key comments are summarized below:

Erosion of Municipal Revenues
Many of the proposed changes will significantly reduce D.C. recoveries without replacing these revenues, including:
- Full exemption for long-term care homes, regardless of profit status;
- Deferral of residential D.C. payments to occupancy, with no ability to charge interest;
- Cancellation of future interest on existing rental and institutional D.C. deferrals;
- Requirement to apply the lower of frozen or current D.C. rates.

These changes shift the cost burden from growth to existing taxpayers and utility ratepayers and will have a direct impact on our ability to fund timely infrastructure delivery.

Deferral of payment to occupancy will introduce significant cashflow gaps at the most capital-intensive stages of development (e.g., subdivision approvals). Without early funding, municipalities may face project delays, increased borrowing, or service interruptions.

Expanded Regulatory Powers and Loss of Transparency
The legislation grants broad authority to the Minister to:
- Define what constitutes eligible capital costs;
- Regulate “local services” and how service credits are grouped;
- Prescribe benefit-to-existing (BTE) methodologies;
- Merge service categories for credit applications; and
- Standardize D.C. background studies and annual reporting.

Transferring key definitions and funding rules to regulation diminishes transparency and reduces municipal autonomy, as regulatory changes may be enacted without legislative debate or stakeholder consultation.

By-law Amendment Streamlining – Lack of Public Accountability
Bill 17 proposes to eliminate the public meeting and background study requirements for by-law amendments that reduce D.C.s or eliminate indexing. While we acknowledge the desire for administrative efficiency, removing the public process limits accountability and restricts Council’s ability to hear from residents and stakeholders.

Planning Act

ERO 025-0461: Proposed Planning Act and City of Toronto Act, 2006 Changes (Schedules 3 and 7 of Bill 17- Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025)

Purpose:
The government is proposing amendments to the Planning Act to support the construction of housing supply and housing-supportive infrastructure, including initiatives to:
• increase certainty throughout the development approvals process,
• streamline processes further to help reduce barriers, and
• reduce development costs.

Comments:

Overall, the goals of Bill 17 are laudable and necessary to combat the housing crisis. However, increasing housing supply alone or at the expense of complete, healthy, safe, sustainable, and successful communities can be challenging for municipalities to support without inclusion of appropriate checks and balances or corollary actions that seek to address the other contributing facets to the crisis beyond the development system. While many of the proposed changes cannot be thoroughly evaluated until the content of accompanying regulations is known, preliminary feedback is summarized below. Specifically, the Town is eager to understand the regulatory intent and details around the proposal to identify certified professionals from whom municipalities would be required to accept studies.

The Town of Collingwood is supportive of the proposed amendments that would allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to impose conditions that must be met before a use permitted by a Minister’s zoning order (MZO) comes into effect. The result is intended to enhance oversight to ensure projects meet requirements and increase transparency and accountability in the MZO process. Having this tool available would have assisted the Town in the Poplar Regional Health and Wellness Village enabling MZO process to ensure that the community benefits and companion development agreement were secured prior to enactment of the MZO, increasing the likelihood of the project achieving the vision and desired socio-economic outcomes.

The Town is most concerned about the amendments that would allow as-of-right permissions for elementary and secondary schools on urban residential lands. While this move would save time in the development process, municipalities rely on a comprehensive project review through zoning by-law amendments to ensure that the subject property is appropriate for school uses and such uses can be successfully incorporated into the surrounding neighbourhood including addressing traffic, parking, access, connectivity, outdoor recreation, servicing/infrastructure, stormwater management, compatibility, and built form among others. Limiting the municipality to reliance on site plan control alone would scope issues that could be addressed to only those outlined in Section 41 of the Planning Act. As alternatives to achieve the Province’s objectives, consideration should be given to:

- Identifying a minimum size and access requirements for urban residential properties that would accommodate school facilities as-of-right
- Providing flexibility for municipalities to impose as-of-right zoning for school facilities in appropriate locations where impacts can be minimized through site plan control

ERO 025-0462: Proposed Regulations Complete Application (seeking feedback on proposed regulations to address complete application requirements (study/report requirements) and submissions from certified professionals)

Purpose:
The government is proposing regulations that would limit the information and material that may be required by a municipality as part of a complete application for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, site plan control, plan of subdivision or consent, specifically eliminating studies addressing Sun/Shadow, Wind, Urban Design, and Lighting. The understood intent is to reduce the number of studies that make up a complete application when proponents submit development proposals to municipalities in order to create more consistent and predictable requirements.

Comments:
Technical supporting documents are required to ensure the goals and objectives of municipal official plans for complete, healthy, safe, sustainable, and successful communities. Eliminating certain studies for all applications does not adequately recognize the site-specific nature of land use planning and potential for adverse impacts, especially related to infill development. The Province’s proposed broad-brush approach may have the unintended consequence of increasing NIMBYism by permitting development to proceed, which the community could use as examples of the negative impacts of growth, continuing to foster opposition and ultimately Ontario Land Tribunal appeals. As alternatives to achieve the Province’s objectives, consideration should be given to:

- Including parameters where, if met, the technical study could be eliminated, such as sun/shadow/wind studies cannot be required as part of a complete application if the proposal is below a height threshold established by regulation
- Eliminate technical study requirements for complete applications only where the applications support an increase in housing supply, specifically affordable housing
- Eliminate technical study requirements for complete applications only for greenfield development to recognize negative impacts are more likely for infill proposals

The Town would also request clarification that if a study cannot be required as part of a complete application, could it be either 1) provided voluntarily by the proponent or 2) required later in the land use planning process, where justified?

ERO 025-0463: Proposed Regulation As-of-right Variations from Setback Requirements (seeking feedback on a proposed regulation that would allow -of- for setbacks from property lines applicable to specified lands)

Purpose:
The government is proposing regulations that would allow variations to be permitted “as-of-right” if a proposal is within 10% of setback requirements applicable to specified lands. For example, if a municipal zoning by-law requires a 5 metre front yard setback from the property line, this would effectively reduce the setback to 4.5 metres without a minor variance or zoning by-law amendment. The understood intent is that there would be fewer applications submitted and fewer hearings for minor variances before a municipal committee of adjustment for these proposals in order to help create additional residential units, such as basement suites, by eliminating additional barriers related to setbacks.

Comments:
While the example provided by the Province seems innocuous, setbacks are established to ensure a variety of good planning principles are achieved including health and safety, access, stormwater management, sufficient space for infrastructure and landscaping, privacy, noise reduction, and appropriate built form, among others. Including a blanket as-of-right permission to reduce minimum setbacks removes the ability to evaluate site specific circumstances necessary to achieve the planning goals noted above and creates risk for both municipalities and residents. These risks are exacerbated if the 10% reduction can be applied as-of-right to existing legal non-conforming setbacks, which are already deficient. Further, there is potential for municipal Councils to simply increase setbacks for all residential uses by 10%, to avoid the potential negative consequences of this proposed regulation. As alternatives to achieve the Province’s objectives, consideration should be given to:

- Mandatory delegation of minor variance decisions or a scoped subset of decisions to an appointed municipal employee, agent or officer, eliminating the role of the Committee of Adjustment and the need for public hearings (i.e. similar to site plan control)
- Apply the as-of-right setback reductions only to applications that would support ARUs or affordable housing

The Town would also request clarification on which “specified lands” the proposed regulation would apply to?

Concluding Remarks

In addition to the above, the Town of Collingwood would generally support submissions from umbrella agencies representing municipalities, treasurers, and registered professional planners including the Association of Ontario Municipalities (AMO), Municipal Finance Officer’s Association of Ontario (MFOAO), and Ontario Professional Planner’s Association (OPPI), among others. The Town looks forward to the Province tracking the success of these proposed legislative changes, if enacted, in addressing the housing crisis in order to support evidence based and outcome oriented decision making.

Sincerely,

Sonya Skinner, P.Eng. McSc. Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
Town of Collingwood