OSRTF fully supports the…

OSRTF fully supports the comments submitted by the the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance with respect to ERO 019-0017 and 019-0016, as provided below. We agree with comments to withdraw certain schedules of the bill as they erode the very core of science based and necessary environmental policy. Also, the bill does not support affordable housing but allows for sprawl and the type of homes that are expensive for homeowners and expensive for municipalities to service. Please refer to the comments listed below. Thank you.

"Thank you for considering our submission on Bill 108. The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance represents over 120 groups across the Greater Golden Horseshoe. With a short four- week submission period many of our members are unable to make submissions. As there are only three days between the June 1st submission deadline and the proposed June 4th final vote on the Bill the Alliance is concerned that the government will not have time to fully consider our submission. Amendments are needed to ensure that this bill can deliver on its stated objective to provide more low-cost housing and protect municipal government autonomy, a healthy environment and continued citizen involvement in community planning. As a result, we encourage the government to defer the June 4th vote on Bill 108.

The More Homes, More Choice Act amends 13 pieces of legislation with the stated intention of making it easier to bring affordable housing to market. Unfortunately, as written the Province’s Housing Supply Action Plan and Bill 108 do very little to increase the supply of affordable housing (i.e. housing for the 20th-60th household income percentiles). In addition, certain policy changes contained within the Bill are actually contrary to the governments stated intention, such as restricting the use of inclusionary zoning to the vicinity of transit stations only.

Ontario Greenbelt Alliance members are generally YIMBY’s (yes in my backyard). We have been supportive of encouraging a diversity of housing types to provide housing for seniors and low-income Ontarians to create complete communities. Rather than moving forward to support this type of housing, many of the changes in Bill 108 are aimed at increasing the supply of single-family houses built on Greenfield (farm land and natural areas). Detached single family homes are the most expensive type of housing for new homebuyers and they also are more expensive for municipalities to service.

Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of Bill 108 is its bias toward the recommendations made exclusively by the development industry. The Bill does nothing to satisfy other business interests including farmers, or business owners who will suffer from increased sprawl and its associated gridlock and impact on employee commute times, health and productivity. Bill 108 reduces developer costs but increases the burden on municipal taxpayers from lower phased in development charges. Deferring development charges on commercial and industrial development projects requires taxpayers to subsidize developers and municipalities to take on debt. Collectively, the changes increase municipal debt, reduce citizen and municipal input and control and restrict appeal rights.
Increasingly Ontario has been moving to a funding model for new development that requires growth to pay most of its share of capital costs. This model has enabled our municipalities to develop parks and community facilities ready for new residents without burdening existing residents with increased capital costs. Moving away from this model, capping fees that support sustainable growth and reducing parkland in cities will reduce the livability and prosperity of new communities and cause citizens and municipal councils to strongly resist new developments.

Other amendments severely reduce long held protections that support the health and prosperity of our communities and natural areas. These include restricting and limiting Conservation Authority oversight, changes to the Environmental Assessment Act, gutting the Endangered Species Act and weakening the Ontario Heritage Act.

The proposed amendments to the Planning Act regarding the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal favours developer interests, diminishes the important role of our elected officials in managing growth and development and limits the ability of citizens to participate in a meaningful way. Returning to the old OMB rules will result in housing delays and higher prices, the opposite of the government’s stated intention to speed up and lower the cost of new housing.

As a result, many municipalities oppose or are requesting a deferral of Bill 108. To date, local and regional municipalities including Burlington, Halton, King, York Region, Kingston, Oakville, Aurora, Brant, Guelph, Hamilton, Archipelago and Lennox-Addington have expressed concerns with the Bill.
The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance encourages the government to provide more time for municipalities and stakeholders to comment on Bill 108 and to take the time to carefully consider our specific amendments below.

Kindly consider our comments on Bill 108, Schedule 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 12.

Schedule 2, Conservation Authorities Act
We are concerned that the changes in Bill 108 constrain the ability of CAs to achieve their core mandate of conserving, restoring and managing the natural resources of Ontario’s watersheds and protecting our communities from flooding. Urbanization and climate change threaten the ecological integrity of natural areas. It is vital that our government shows leadership to restore healthy watersheds, enhance the connectivity of natural features, support green infrastructure and protect clean water resources. The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance endorses the policy submissions made by OGA member (as noted in the original submission). We also support the recommendations made by the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Environmental Defence.

Schedule 3, Development Charges Act
Developers are thriving and housing supply is increasing with over 79,000 new housing units built in Ontario in 2017. Higher taxes and more debt will result from the implementation of Schedule 3 as it currently stands. Bill 108 reduces the ability of municipalities to collect development charges that fund growth related infrastructure. By delaying the payment of development charges for new development, municipal debt will be incurred shifting the cost of new development to taxpayers. The proposed deferral of development charges for rental apartments is of questionable benefit given virtually all new rental units (apart from government subsidized units) are luxury units. New development needs to provide an overall benefit for the public. It is not in the interest of municipalities or taxpayers to both be footing the bill for new development and receiving reduced benefits.

Bill 108 replaces Section 37 of the Planning Act with a new Community Benefits Charge By-law. The changes proposed allow the Minister to set a cap and does not allow for parkland dedication and a Community Benefits by-law to be applied to the same development project. Further changes remove “soft services” as eligible charges such as libraries or recreational facilities. The result of these changes will be less parkland and funding for community services. This outcome is illustrated very effectively in a City of Toronto Planning report presentation on Bill 108 (pg 9-12). As noted in the Parks People submission, under the new reduced parkland rate, a three-story development would provide the same amount of parkland as a 60-storey tower, if the land area being developed is the same size. People living vertical developments need more parkland than people with backyards, not less.
Requiring municipalities to spend 60% of parkland/community benefit funds to be spent annually means it will be difficult to assemble funds over several years for larger, needed community project or facility. Collectively, these changes significantly restrict the ability of municipalities to plan for value added infrastructure. Economic development is supported by providing places where people want to live. As communities intensify, recreation facilities and parkland are integral to creating healthy and economically successful communities.

Overall, Schedule 3 will not help increase housing supply or affordability. There is no requirement for developers to pass along cost savings to new homebuyers. The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance urges the government to remove Schedule 3 of Bill 108.

Schedule 5, Endangered Species Act
We encourage the government to support a science-based approach to protecting species at risk. This section of the Bill represents a draconian and regressive rollback of protections that has shocked those who work to protect and conserve species at risk . To date, over 50,000 people have voiced their opposition and 96 organizations signed a joint submission. The amendments gut protections for species at risk making it easier for industry and developers to proceed with activities that harm these species and their habitats such as pits, quarries and housing. The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance endorses the policy submission written by Ontario Nature on behalf of Environmental Defence and David Suzuki Foundation that calls on the government to remove Schedule 5.

Schedule 6, Environmental Assessment Act
The Environmental Assessment Act may be perceived as a burden for some regressive developers but it provides important safeguards to assess how projects or activities affect the health of our communities and the environment. Caught early in the process, the EAA reduces the cost of environmental problems. At a time of unprecedented environmental threats removing the requirement to mitigate is in our view the wrong course of action. Overall these changes affect the ability of citizens to have a say in potentially environmentally harmful activities, reduce the number of issues that are scrutinized under the EAA process and empower government regulations rather than a public process. Due to the short timeline for commenting on changes to the EAA our many of our members were unable to comment on the proposals. The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance endorses the submission made by the Canadian Environmental Law Association on Schedule 6 of Bill 108.

Schedule 9, Local Planning Appeals Tribunal
After an extensive public consultation process on OMB reform in 2017, it is unconscionable that the government is proposing to rollback changes that created the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal without extensive public consultation. The changes effectively revert back to Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) rules, a recommendation put forward by the Ontario Home Builders Association in their housing submission. OMB hearings are time consuming and expensive. With the costs of hearing passed along to home buyers. Government data indicates developer appeals delayed the adoption of municipal plans and housing starts by over three years on average. It is unlikely a return to the OMB will accomplish the goals of the government to increase the speed or lower the cost of housing. Finally, the government has not released details on how these changes will be implemented through regulation.

The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance is concerned that many of the amendments in Schedule 9 limit public participation and diminish the important role of municipal councils in shaping their communities and managing growth. We encourage the government to remove Schedule 9 or defer adoption of the Bill until a full and robust public consultation is conducted.

Schedule 11- Ontario Heritage Act
It is unclear how weakening the OHA will increase the supply of housing in Ontario. Heritage properties provide a tremendous economic benefit to Ontario supporting tourism and economic development. The Province should not transfer the authority to make final decisions with respect to heritage-related matters to the LPAT. The Ontario Greenbelt Alliance encourages the government to remove Schedule 11 as it will substantially weaken a municipality’s ability to protect historic buildings or properties, so essential to the vibrancy of small towns and big cities in Ontario.

Schedule 12, Planning Act
Inclusionary Zoning
There are some good amendments under Schedule 12 with regards to the Planning Act that encourage development around transit stations and support more rental housing. However, as the Bill currently reads any municipality without a major transit station area is precluded from considering the use of inclusionary zoning while also severely restricting the placement of inclusionary zoning within municipalities which have MTSAs. We need our governments to enable more affordable housing where it is needed most in a community, not just within major transit station areas. In the U.S. over 500 municipalities obligate private developers to include a percent of affordable units in their projects. The need for inclusionary zoning is due to the failure of the development industry to provide units affordable to many households, including rental. We encourage the government to amend Schedule 12 to allow municipalities more decision-making power when implementing inclusionary zoning.

Bill 139 changes
It is unclear why the government is making changes to the Planning Act related to land use planning disputes. Only the Ontario Home Builders Association asked that the Bill be repealed. Ontario Greenbelt Alliance members encourage the government to defer Schedule 12 until the concerns of citizens and municipal stakeholders have been heard. Many municipal governments have raised concerns about returning to the old OMB as it gives an unelected body the ability to overturn municipal decisions and reduces the effectiveness of municipal planning.

It is likely that going back to the OMB will delay housing starts and result in higher prices for new homebuyers. Under the old OMB developer led appeals delayed plans by 3 years on average. Returning to hearings de novo results in longer hearings which benefits high priced lawyers. Going back to the old rules threatens to undermine municipal decision making, increase the cost of housing (through delays and the cost of hearing that are borne by buyers), delay construction and limit public participation.

The current timelines for application processing provides sufficient opportunity for the planning system to get decisions made. Shortening timelines may result in actually slowing housing starts and increase housing costs by increasing the number of appeals of non-decisions and prompting more appeals. If the government wants to speed up new housing builds Planning Act changes should find suitable ways to reduce the number of costly time-consuming appeals of municipal decisions.

Land use planning encourages public participation in decision-making processes. Citizens that may be directly impacted by a municipality’s decision should be permitted to meaningfully participate in appeals.

There is a lack of transparency in Bill 108 as it includes significant new authorities to impose future restrictions by ministerial driven regulations that are unknown at this time. Further time is needed to understand and comment on the impact of these proposed changes."