As a result of the…

As a result of the Provincial government’s recent introduction of Bill 108, More Homes, More Choices Act, 2019, Waterloo Regional Council undertook a review of the amendments to the varied pieces of legislation.

Attached is a cover letter from Regional Chair Karen Redman together with a copy of the staff report reviewed by Council. Regional Council unanimously agreed to submit its input and recommendations, per the report.

Simply put, Regional Council does not believe that the proposed amendments to the Development Charges Act and section 37 of the Planning Act will meet the Provincial objectives to increase housing supply and affordability in Ontario. Many of the proposed legislative amendments in Bill 108 are contrary to the advice and input provided by most municipalities during the consultation process.

Below are the key recommendations from Regional Report No. PDL-CPL-19-24/PDL-LEG-19-37 dated May 28, 2019 regarding the proposed amendments to the Planning Act. Please refer to the report for more detailed comments.

Schedule 12 – Proposed Amendments to the Planning Act

1. Additional residential unit policies

The Province should review the Ontario Building Code to address barriers specific to make the
creation of second units easier, including making it less onerous for developers to rough in secondary units during the construction of a new home, while maintaining safety of future residents. The Province should also help municipalities by creating guidelines for homeowners and other tools to help create more second units; and

The Province should examine ways to encourage more home builders and residential land developers to accommodate additional units in new construction. This could include financial incentives through the Development Charges Act or modifications to the Ontario Building Code.

2. Inclusionary zoning policies

The Province should not amend subsection 16(5) of the Planning Act to restrict the areas where non-prescribed municipalities can apply inclusionary zoning. Municipalities should continue to have the ability to tailor inclusionary zoning to address local needs.

3. Reduction of decision timelines

The Province should maintain the current timelines under the Planning Act to ensure municipalities have sufficient time to review applications and make a decision. If the Province decides to change the current timelines, it should consider adopting a sliding scale approach that would set timelines based on the level of complexity of the application. This approach could, for example, set shorter timelines for smaller development proposals and longer timelines for more complex ones; and

The Province should establish a mechanism for a municipality to pause the decision timelines, if it identifies significant errors or omissions in the applicant’s submission materials after the application has been deemed complete by the municipality.

4. Repeals to portions of Bill 139 (the Building Better Communities and Conserving Wetlands Act, 2017)

The Province should maintain the current grounds of appeal for major land use planning decisions to issues of consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, and/or conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and, or in the case of a local official plan amendment, conformity with the upper-tier municipality’s official plan;

If the government decides to revert to the previous standard for appeals, the government should seek way to require the Tribunal to exercise its dismissal powers more frequently, provided a dismissal is properly justified and will meet any challenge for judicial review;

The Province should introduce a more robust pre-screening tool to identify appeals without merit. One pre-screening criterion could be to require that appeals relate to identifiable pieces of land. Appeals should also relate to site-specific policies to assist with scoping an appeal and /or determining its validity;

The Province should not return to “de novo” hearings to ensure that planning appeals are considered in the context of the application and supporting information submitted to a municipality before municipal council made its decision;

If the Province decides to return to “de novo” hearing, the Province should explore additional ways to require the Tribunal to exercise its powers to remit matters back to municipal council for input prior to making a final determination on a planning appeal. The Province should also not limit to submissions by non-parties to proceeding before the LPAT to written submissions only;

The Province should maintain the current “two-step” appeal process in the Planning Act to give municipalities an opportunity to make a second planning decision, prior to the LPAT overturning a municipal council’s planning decision and substituting it with its own decision; and

If the Province decides to delete the current “two-step” appeal process, the Province should seeks ways to require the LPAT to enforce the current “have regard to” language for municipal planning in the Planning Act, to give greater weight to democratically elected council decisions.

5. Restricting third party appeals for non-decisions on official plans

We have no objection in principal to this change to help reduce the potential for appeals for non-decisions. Restricting third party appeals for non-decisions would give municipalities more time to resolve any community issues outside the more rigid and expensive LPAT process. Once a decision is made by council, any individuals or community interest groups who do not agree with the decision would still have the right to file an appeal.

6. Restricting third party appeals of plans of subdivision

The Province should not amend the Planning Act to remove the rights of individuals, adjoining land owners, or community groups to appeal a municipal council’s decision to approve a plan of subdivision.

7. Mandatory development permit system

The Province should consult with municipalities and other stakeholders on any future changes to O. Reg.173/16: Community Planning Permits.