Report Recommendations: That…

Report Recommendations:
That in consideration of Staff Report CS-19-009 respecting Ontario Bill 66, Restoring Ontario Competiveness Act, 2018 Comment, Community Services Committee:
1) Receive the report for information purposes;
2) Recommend that a copy of this report be provided to the County of Grey as the City’s preliminary Comment on Bill 66;
3) Recommend that a copy of this report be provided to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs as the City’s preliminary comment on Bill 66; and
4) Recommend that a copy of this report be provided to MPP Bill Walker.

Report Conclusions:

The proposed Planning Act changes appear to be ‘one time band-aide’ solutions, that do not appear to address the root of the perceived problem.
If the current planning process is an impediment to economic growth, then the province and municipalities can collectively work together to fix the process, rather than permit ‘one off’ exemptions on a case-by-case basis in scattered municipalities throughout the province. By amending the process for all development, rather than superseding it for certain uses, it could ‘level the playing field’ for all employers and developers (at least from a planning process perspective), while creating efficiencies in all municipalities. Having a more efficient process could also reduce costs for taxpayers generally and for developers specifically, which may help provide for more affordable or attainable housing.

Some potential solutions, which could be achieved at the municipal level, include but are not limited to:

a) Ensuring that official plans and zoning by-laws are up-to-date, and flexible, to minimize the individual burden on innovative new businesses (i.e. to prevent unnecessary proponent-initiated official plan amendments etc.);
b) Ensuring an adequate supply of available pre-zoned, shovel ready employment lands;
c) Streamlining development review between departments and agencies (including provincial), such that when a new employer ‘comes to town’ their site plans can be reviewed in an expeditious fashion;
d) Having a Community Improvement Plan (CIP) in place to provide incentives to new or growing businesses, or the re-use of brownfield sites;
e) Ensuring municipal documents such as community profiles remain up to date; and
f) Providing an ‘open-for-business’ pre-submission consultation process, consisting of planning, engineering/operations, and economic development, which provides timely data and information for any given site.

Some municipalities, outside of Grey County, have already stated that they have no intention to use this tool. In creating a tool which is only used by some municipalities to by-pass local planning documents, it has the ability to create competition between municipalities, with increased advantages to those who use the tool. These ‘advantages’ could result in decisions which ‘undo’ years of land use and infrastructure planning such as the negative ramifications outlined in the case study in the Background section of this report.

At the provincial level, the policy framework has seen significant evolution over the past 5 years and municipalities with limited resources are struggling to keep policy documents up to date and flexible to respond to the changes. An example of just some of the changes:
- Bill 36, Cannabis Statute Law Amendment Act, 2018
- Bill 139 (proclaimed 2018) Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017
- Bill 73 (proclaimed 2016) Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015
- Bill 7 (2016) Promoting Affordable Housing Act. 2016 (inclusionary Zoning regulation available 2018)
- Provincial Plans Review resulted in revisions to the Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017)
- Provincial Policy Statement, 2014

When new Official Plans are adopted there is a time lag to obtain feedback or approval from the province. At times, a new legislative change occurs during that time.

Expeditious review of development proposals or policy updates can only be streamlined to the extent that provincial ministries and municipalities have sufficient resources. Rather than continued legislative changes, a pause to allow municipalities to implement the changes that have recently occurred and bring policy documents and administrative processes up to date would in itself result in more expeditious review of all development proposals within the contest of the vision of long term prosperity, human and environmental health and social well-being taking precedence over short term considerations for all Ontarians outlined in the PPS.

It should be noted that provincial and municipal land use planning policies often place the onus of conducting studies for matters such as compatibility, environmental impact, traffic etc. on developers. Yes this results in time spent. However, where such policies are by-passed should an impact result the onus may be on the taxpayers at large to correct or mitigate any impacts. The obvious economic benefits of employment uses will need to be weighed against unknown potential consequences.

- Full report is attached with this submission.