Dear Minister Flack, Thank…

Dear Minister Flack,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Bill 17, the Protecting Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act. The City of Waterloo appreciates the province’s continued focus on addressing the housing crisis and advancing bold legislative changes to support growth across Ontario.

The City recognizes that building more homes and delivering critical infrastructure more efficiently is a shared responsibility. Municipalities are at the forefront of this work – we plan communities, approve developments, and deliver essential services and infrastructure that make neighbourhoods livable, inclusive and resilient. Given our central role, it is essential that municipalities remain active partners in shaping the policies that govern how we grow. Decisions related to development charges, planning tools and service delivery have direct impacts on our ability to provide necessary infrastructure and maintain the standards residents expect and deserve.

While the City of Waterloo supports the goal of accelerating housing delivery, we are deeply concerned that key elements of Bill 17—particularly the erosion of municipal authority, the financial and administrative risks tied to development charge reforms, and the limitations on local environmental standards, will undermine our ability to deliver complete, livable, and climate-resilient communities

We are committed to working with your government to ensure the growth is not only faster, but also smarter. We welcome continued dialogue with your ministry and look forward to solving the big issues together.

City of Waterloo staff have reviewed Bill 17 and prepared the following feedback for your consideration as regulations are developed:

State of the Industry
Staff at the City of Waterloo wish to thank the Province for continuing to look at ways to improve the planning process. The City is deeply committed to streamlining the development approval process, and is keenly interested in seeing new housing get built. Of note, there are over 24,000 housing units in the development approvals pipeline in the City of Waterloo, with almost 8,000 units having full planning approvals. This is in addition to as-of-right development permissions. At the same time, our previous three year (2022-2024) vacancy rate was 1.2%, 1.6% and 2.5% respectively – indicating that the local market is in need of more housing.
The Province will need to find ways to help entice the development industry to construct new housing units. With approximately 15 years of supply “sitting on the sidelines”, the barriers to construction do not appear to be caused by the municipal development approval process.
With respect to cost, we note that City of Waterloo Development Charges are approximately $21,400 per single detached residential unit, representing approximately 2.5% of the average home price in Waterloo. For multi-unit apartment buildings, the City Development Charge is approximately $12,000 for 3 bedrooms or less. For context, the City’s Development Charge rate is much lower than the rate in some large GTA municipalities. We do not believe that Development Charges are a large barrier to development in this community, which is contrary to what is commonly reported on by some advocacy groups. Furthermore, Development Charges are essential to our strategic growth, funding the construction of new services and infrastructure for development. The City of Waterloo responsibly manages local Development Charges, with a consolidated City wide DC reserve balance of only $5.9M as of the end of March 2025.
City staff recognize that there are significant barriers for the development industry today. Specifically, land values have more than doubled from 2019-2022, and construction costs are up over 90% during that period. These industry cost issues have not corrected as of yet, even while resale values for existing units have been falling since 2022. It is our opinion that until such issues are resolved, we will see subdued development activity. With elevated land and construction costs, the industry simply cannot build units at prices that are competitive with the resale market.
With respect to Bill 17, making further changes to the planning process will not materially improve development activity, for the reasons noted above. If the Province wishes to ignite the development industry and housing construction, the Province should be looking at what it can do, if anything, to resolve the fundamental barriers noted above related to land prices and construction costs.
Building Code Act – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
On May 26, 2025, City of Waterloo Council unanimously passed a motion calling on the Province to consider the importance of higher green building standards for climate action. Please see the motion attached in the appendix.
The City understands that Bill 17 (as passed) introduces a new subsection 35(1.1) to the Building Code Act, clarifying that sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, and sections 7 and 8 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, do not authorize a municipality to pass bylaws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings. Recognizing that this aims to provide greater certainty and prevent municipalities from imposing construction standards that require compliance with local by-laws, or exceed the Ontario Building Code, consideration should be given to amending the Municipal Act directly in order to clarify Provincial intent, including with regards to Section 97.1 of the Municipal Act. While the clarification in the Building Code Act is helpful, municipalities would benefit from clarity in the Municipal Act to assist in preventing future disputes and/or legal challenges regarding municipal authority over construction standards (e.g., green building standards), fostering a more consistent and predictable development environment.
Development Charges Act - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Occupancy as a Trigger for Development Charge (DC) Payment
Staff believe that if the payment of DCs are linked to any form of "occupancy," including situations where a conditional permit might allow early access or partial use, it could create additional complexity, confusion and unintended consequences at the time of occupancy. Further, occupancy as the trigger for DC payment creates an additional administrative burden at the staff level, as well as for developers, and may result in delay of occupancy should DC’s not be paid. If the DCs continue to be tied to occupancy, they should not be listed as a condition of occupancy in the Building Code Act or regulation.

Defining "occupancy" clearly within the amended Development Charges Act will be essential to avoiding disputes (e.g. on a high-rise building, will issuance of occupancy of two suites on the main floor trigger DC’s for the full building or will it be proportionate?).

Further, making the DC payment a requirement prior to the issuance of any form of occupancy permit could lead to:

• Significant delays in a homeowners' ability to take possession: Even after full construction and compliance with the Building Code, final occupancy could be held up by outstanding DC payments.
• Unnecessary Building Code Orders: Building Code enforcement tools to prevent occupancy due to unpaid DCs, even if the building is structurally sound and safe for habitation.
• Increased Court Time: Non-Compliance with a Building Code Order, occupancy prior to payment of DC’s, disputes over the definition of occupancy and the timing of DC payments could lead to unnecessary legal proceedings.

If occupancy is to be used as the trigger for DC payment, broad authority should be provided in the regulation to require financial securities that may be drawn upon at the time of occupancy and/or in the event of default, in an effort to mitigate potential delays and/or the requirement for enforcement action.

The logistics of DC collection at or near the occupancy inspection stage, while seemingly a final checkpoint, also present several logistical hurdles for both the municipality and the developer/ homeowner:

1. Municipality
o Timing Conflicts: Occupancy inspections are often time-sensitive, focusing primarily on safety and code compliance to allow residents to move in. Adding a financial transaction verification process like development charge collection can slow down the inspection process, causing delays for new occupants, and will add additional administrative burden on building inspectors.
o Staffing and Resources: Collecting or issuing notice on payments would require additional staff or training for existing inspectors, potentially diverting resources from their primary duties. The industry is already facing a shortage of qualified inspectors. In addition, this process would place a further financial and operational cost on municipalities.
o Tracking and Reconciliation: Linking payments collected to specific development files and ensuring accurate reconciliation with the finance department can be complex and prone to administrative errors, especially with a high volume of inspections (Production Builds). Staffing resources in the finance department will be a challenge.
o Dispute Resolution: If there are discrepancies or disputes regarding the development charges due at the time of inspection before occupancy occurs, it can lead to delays in occupancy permits if not paid in a timely fashion, and potentially escalate into legal disputes.
o Municipalities will also need clarity on the tools for securing the deferred payment upon occupancy where occupancy permits are not issued. On one hand, deferring payment until occupancy permits are issued under the Building Code Act, 1992 provides an administrative process when DC payments are expected. On the other hand, should a residential development not be subject to an occupancy permit, it is less clear on how municipalities can secure payment. At a minimum, a broad authority to require financial securities for residential developments that do not require occupancy permits under the Building Code Act, 1991, should be included through the financial securities regulation.
o Enforcement Challenges: Refusing occupancy due to non-payment at the inspection stage can create significant hardship for new homeowners who may have already moved their belongings. This can lead to negative public relations, non-compliance, required enforcement action, and potential legal challenges for the municipality. These are costly processes, which could result in significant delay.

2. Developer/Homeowner:
o Unexpected Costs/Delays: If the final development charge amount wasn't clearly communicated by the developer, or if there are last-minute adjustments, purchasers/homeowners could face unexpected delays in occupying their new property.
Municipal Collection and Homeowner Protection
In order to balance the municipality's need to collect unpaid DC balances while protecting homeowners, the following mechanisms should be considered:

• Securities - Municipalities should be provided with broad authority to require developers to provide financial security (e.g., a letter of credit) to cover the deferred DC amounts. The specifics of such security requirements would need to be carefully considered to avoid financial hardship.
• Clarification - the definition of occupancy for DC payment purposes (tied to final occupancy under the Building Code), should be included in the amendments, to provide clarity to stakeholders.
• While section 28 of the DCA is being amended from “building permit” to the more generic term “permit,” which is presumably intended to enable municipalities to withhold occupancy permits for nonpayment, the Building Code Act, 1992, does not specifically refer to “permits” for occupancy. While many municipalities issue them and refer to them as permits in practice, this is not explicit in the legislation and should be clarified to ensure that outstanding DCs are not passed on to the homebuyer.
• Homeowner Protection - Traditionally the cost of the DCs is part of the purchase price of the home/suite. Consumer protection measures should be considered, such as requiring the developer to disclose applicable DC’s and whether the DC’s have been paid, prior to closing (including, but not limited to, cases where closing may occur prior to occupancy).

Planning Act – Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Schools – Parcel of Urban Residential Land
Amendments are proposed to the Planning Act to restrict official plans and zoning by-laws from prohibiting schools on a “parcel of urban residential land”. In general, staff have no concerns. However, clarity should be provided by the Province with respect to parcels designated and zoned for “mixed-use”, as the definition of “parcel of urban residential land” in the Planning Act is not clear in this regard.

Streamlining Official Plans
Staff look forward to engaging with the Province on this matter. The City recently updated its Official Plan and streamlined its land use designations in order to limit complexity, recognizing that certain details are best addressed through Zoning By-laws.

As of Right Variations from Setback Requirements
Determining the merits of a variance is not purely quantitative. Depending on context, circumstances and the purpose of the regulation, a ten percent (“10%”) variance could be significant, unsafe, and not appropriate. With sufficient oversight and scoped engagement, a prescribed (e.g., 10%) as-of-right setback variance could be workable, to streamline development approvals. In terms of scoped engagement, at a minimum, “specified persons” as defined in the Planning Act should be consulted on reductions to setbacks, as the setback reduction could be harmful to their infrastructure or operations, and to ensure safety (e.g., sufficient separation from hydro and natural gas transmission lines).

In terms of oversight, a mechanism is needed to determine if the variance is desirable and appropriate. An alternative to the proposed approach would be to expand Section 39.2 of the Planning Act to enable chief planners (or heads of planning departments) to approve a maximum 10% setback variation without notice/consultation requirements or an appeal period following the notice of decision. This would provide the necessary oversight, by a qualified professional, based on context and circumstances.
Consultation could be limited to clearances from “specified persons”, and time saved by setting aside the appeal period.

Complete Application Limitations
The completion of relevant studies ensures developments are well planned and coordinated with critical public infrastructure. Studies also provide the public with important information associated with developments and represent a key element of democracy. In staff’s experience, studies enable the public to better understand the proposed development (i.e., be informed), decrease the likelihood of misinformation, and provide a foundation for garnering community support – this this regard, studies are a “positive” and add value to the process.

As it relates to Sun/Shadow/Wind and Urban Design, these elements are often connected to built form. These studies contribute to better planning outcomes, better living environments, better integration and connectivity with the broader community, a sense of place, and much more. These studies enable municipalities to address matters of provincial interest, such as but not limited to:

• the conservation of significant architectural and historical features
• the orderly development of safe and healthy communities
• accessibility for persons with disabilities
• the protection of public health and safety
• the appropriate location of growth and development
• the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable
• the promotion of development that is oriented to pedestrians
• the promotion of built form that is well-designed and encourages a sense of place
• the promotion of built form that provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant

These studies can improve the quality of life and safety of the residents of Ontario (e.g., mitigating strong winds that may be hazardous for children, the elderly, and persons with mobility challenges). Staff believe such studies should continue to be required, where relevant, based on the professional judgment of the municipality having regard for the nature, scope and context of the proposed development. In short, new developments, such as tall buildings, require thought as to how they will impact their surroundings.

The City of Waterloo has completed Terms of Reference documents for commonly required studies. This was completed to provide predictability for the development industry, with each Terms of Reference being completed by an external qualified professional in their field of expertise.

Recognizing that Sun/Shadow/Wind and Urban Design considerations are fundamental elements to creating complete communities with a high quality of life and addressing matters of provincial interest, staff strongly recommend that municipalities retain the authority to require such studies provided that: (i) they are identified in the municipality’s Official Plan; and (ii) Terms of Reference are available for clarity and predictability. The foregoing criteria could be placed on cities that have housing targets (fast growing municipalities), so that smaller cities and towns that generally experience limited infill and intensification aren’t required to incur costs associated with preparing and maintaining Terms of References.

Information and Material Prepared by Prescribed Professionals
The legislation states:

Information and material prepared by prescribed professionals
22(6.0.1) The provision of information or material to a council or planning board in respect of a requirement under subsection (4) or (5) is deemed to meet the applicable requirement if the information or material is prepared by a person authorized to practice a prescribed profession.

Similar amendments to the legislation are proposed for zoning, site plan control, subdivisions, and consents. Clarity is required in relation to the words “prescribed profession”, through regulation. In general, no objections provided the professional is:
i. qualified;
ii. licensed or registered; and
iii. in good standings with their profession,

and the regulation is restricted to deeming applications “complete”. We understand any concerns with the content of such studies will go to the merits of the application.

Appendix

June 2, 2025
The Honourable Doug Ford, M.P.P.
Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1

RE: Resolution from the City of Waterloo passed May 26, 2025, re: Bill 17 Motion

Dear Premier Ford,

Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Waterloo at its Council meeting held on Monday, May 26th, 2025 resolved as follows:

WHEREAS the Province of Ontario’s Bill 17 – “Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter” Act recently passed Second Reading and is now open for comment; and

WHEREAS the City of Waterloo broadly supports provincial efforts to standardize and streamline development approvals to boost housing and economic growth; and

WHEREAS the City of Waterloo was recently recognized as a top performing community under the Housing Accelerator Fund, having implemented numerous initiatives to increase the amount of affordable and attainable housing including; allowing four units and four storeys as of right city wide, increasing height in Major Transit Station Areas, expanding corridors, utilizing city owned land as part of a development at 2025 University Avenue among many other initiatives; and

WHEREAS Bill 17, in part, aims to standardize the application of the Ontario Building Code by removing municipalities’ ability to set higher green building standards; and

WHEREAS approximately 45% of all Waterloo Region community greenhouse gas emissions are from building emissions; and

WHEREAS the City of Waterloo has a goal of reducing our community greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2030 and to be net-zero by 2050; and
WHEREAS WR Community Energy has been working on the creation and harmonization of High-Performance Development Standards since 2021, with the intention of implementation in 2026; and

WHEREAS the implementation of High-Performance Development Standards is critical to achieve our community greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals; and

WHEREAS High-Performance Development Standards are a planning tool for municipalities that respect the Ontario Building Code without sacrificing the important safety elements therein, do not require technical requirements over and above the Ontario Building Code, and are intended to complement the Ontario Building Code, not override it; and

WHEREAS High-Performance Development Standards help ensure the long-term affordability of living in new homes by accounting for the long-term operating costs of energy, incentivizing lower carbon and lower cost sources of energy; and

WHEREAS Waterloo Region is a leader in green building technologies in the construction industry and in related sectors; and

WHEREAS High-Performance Development Standards create demand for specialized skills in green building technologies, leading to the creation of skilled job opportunities, and contributing to local economic prosperity; and

WHEREAS High-Performance Development Standards are integral to ensure smart growth in Waterloo Region, affording predictability for local utilities, and ensuring long-term affordability by ensuring homes are built with higher efficiency of water usage, preserving our groundwater supply; and

WHEREAS fifteen municipalities in Ontario have already implemented equivalent High-Performance Development Standards; and

WHEREAS to meet local, provincial, and federal climate targets, all buildings that are built today in a GHG intensive manner are buildings that will need to be retrofitted in a costly manner in the near future to meet those goals; and

WHEREAS the current Ontario Building Code falls short of the National Building Code when it comes to energy efficiency, necessitating municipal leadership to achieve local community goals.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT the City of Waterloo advocates for elimination of provisions within Bill 17 that seek restricting local planning authority, particularly as pertains to High-Performance Development Standards; and

THAT the City of Waterloo encourages the Province of Ontario to at minimum align the forthcoming Ontario Building Code with energy Tier 3 of the new National Building Code and/or adopt more stringent energy performance standards such as has been implemented in British Columbia and is contemplated in other Provinces such as Quebec; and

THAT Council directs staff to provide holistic commentary on Bill 17 to the Environmental Registry of Ontario and in particular, related to concerns of restricting local planning authority for High-Performance Development Standards; and

THAT Council directs staff to continue the work on community High-Performance Development Standards to guide future alternative pathways to strengthen and maintain High-Performance Development Standards in new home construction;

AND THAT a copy of this resolution be sent to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to local and area MPPs, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the Ontario Big City Mayors (OBCM), the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO), and to the Region of Waterloo and local area municipalities.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Julie Finley-Swaren
City Clerk, City of Waterloo

CC (by email): Hon. Rob Flack, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Catherine Fife, M.P.P. (Waterloo)
Jess Dixon, M.P.P. (Kitchener South-Hespeler)
Hon. Mike Harris, M.P.P. (Kitchener-Conestoga)
Aislinn Clancy, M.P.P. (Kitchener Centre)
Brian Riddell, M.P.P. (Cambridge)
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
Ontario Big City Mayors Caucus (OBCM)