Dear Minister Clark,…

Dear Minister Clark, Ministry of Municipal Affair and Housing
The Municipality of North Perth has prepared the following comments and questions; these have been drafted by a joint committee consisting of staff and elected officials.
Following the review of the policies contained and Bill 108 and the regulations released pertaining to Schedule 12 of the Planning Act – we note that the legislation has a number of overarching issues as well as questions and comments regarding the regulations released.
First and foremost we ask:
1) Why are we changing policy direction again following extensive consultation to the recently implemented policies of the previous government?
2) Is this a further erosion of autonomy of municipalities?
3) How will these changes ‘save’ the province money? In the short term? In the long term?
4) How do these policies address ‘affordable housing’? Comprehensively?
5) How does these policies address “affordable home ownership”?

In addition to these questions, we note the following questions and/or comments that require additional clarity.
1. Transition of expanding the grounds for an appeal

Expanding the grounds of appeal of a decision on an official plan/amendment or zoning by-law/amendment and allowing the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to make any land use planning decision the municipality or approval authority could have made would apply to:
- appeals of decisions that have not yet been scheduled for a hearing by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal regarding the merits of the matter before the Tribunal
What is the expanded grounds of an appeal?
- Will this include some sort of test to determine the merits of an appeal?
- What is the intent of the expanded grounds for an appeal?
o How does this support affordable housing?
o How does this increase the supply of housing?
o Is this not contrary to promotiong affordable/higher dense developments?
What is the proposed date of transition?
- Would it apply immediately upon the coming into force?
- Clarity that all current appeals in the system will be subject to previous rules until coming into force –
- Could we see an influx of appeals the day after coming into force? – create additional backlog?
-

Expanding the grounds of appeal of a lack of decision on an official plan/amendment or zoning by-law amendment and allowing the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal to make any land use planning decision the municipality or approval authority could have made would apply to:
- appeals of the failure of an approval authority or municipality to make a decision within the legislated timeline that have not yet been scheduled for a hearing by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal regarding the merits of the matter before the Tribunal
What is the proposed date of transition?

The removal of appeals other than by key participants (e.g. the province, municipality, applicant) and the reduction of approval authority decision timelines for non-decisions of official plan/amendments would apply where the approval authority has not issued a notice of decision at the time the proposed changes come into force.
Who are the key participants? Will there be a prescribed list? Is it limited to applicant and government bodies? Can a public member who attends public meeting and comments, appeal?
Once in force, is a current planning act application in queue subject to the new timelines? Does the municipality have to make a decision 30 days less than originally thought?
- A hard date should be identified so planning act applications submitted prior remain under the current legislation.
- Transitioning in the middle of the process can be messy if the time decreases to below the decision timeline (i.e. going from 150 down to 120 on day 121 of an application).

The removal of appeals other than by key participants (e.g. the province, municipality, applicant, utility companies, etc.) for draft plan of subdivision approvals, conditions of draft plan of subdivision approvals or changes to those conditions would apply where:
- the notice of the decision to draft approve or change conditions is given, or
- conditions are appealed other than at the time of draft approval
on or after the day the proposed changes come into force (e.g., appeals made during appeal periods that begin once the proposed changes come into force)
- if the decision is made during the old regime and appeal of conditions is made in new regime, new regime prevails?
- The application should be subject to old rules if decision is made under old rules – all appeals on an application should be passed on same prescribed rules.

The reduction for decision timelines on applications for official plan amendments (120 days), zoning by-law amendments (90 days, except where concurrent with official plan amendment for some proposal) and plans of subdivision (120 days) would apply to complete applications submitted after Royal Assent.

- ZBA has 120 for decision when submitted with OPA – does this change when submitted to two different tiers (i.e. County OPA and Local ZBA)?
- An application submitted after June 6th (royal assent) is NOW subject to reduced time lines OR will be subject once in force and effect?
o A future date should be provided for simplicity (90 days from June 6 = Sept 6 – will it be in force and effect by then?)

2. Community Planning Permit System Implementation
Schedule 12 to Bill 108 includes provisions to remove the ability to appeal the official plan policies required by regulation for the establishment of a community planning permit system when the Minister issues an order to require a local municipality to adopt or establish a system.
- What grounds does the minister have to impose CPPS?
- Likely an urban policy, but a municipality will be forced to use CPPS if Minister deems necessary and no option for appeal.
- Removes Council discretion
- More detail regarding the intent of this policy

To further facilitate the implementation of the system, a change is also proposed to the community planning permit regulation that would remove the ability to appeal the implementing by-law. This change would support the streamlining of development approvals in areas where the Minister required a community planning permit system to be established.
- What grounds does the minister have to impose CPPS?
- Likely an urban policy, but a municipality will be forced to use CPPS if Minister deems necessary and no option for appeal.
- Removes Council discretion
- More detail regarding the intent of this policy

3. Additional Residential Unit Requirements and Standards
The Planning Act currently requires municipalities to authorize in their official plans and zoning by-laws the use of second residential units in either a detached, semi-detached, and row house or in an ancillary buildings and structures (e.g., above laneway garages or coach houses).
Schedule 12 to Bill 108 includes provisions to require municipalities to authorize in their official plans and zoning by-laws the use of an additional residential unit in both a detached, semi-detached, and row houses and in an ancillary building or structure (e.g., above laneway garages or coach houses).

Additional clarity is needed as the wording is confusing.
- What is the difference between ‘or’ and ‘and’ ?
- Does this mean you can have a second unit in a basement AND above an accessory garage?
- OR does this require the OP and ZBL to permit in both but only allow occupancy in one or the other?

One parking space for each of the additional residential units which may be provided through tandem parking
- Additional residential unit(s) is pluralized indicating more than one additional unit may be permitted.
- If three dwelling units is permitted (principal, basement and above garage) does tandem include three car lengths?

Where a municipal zoning by-law requires no parking spaces for the primary residential unit, no parking spaces would be required for the additional residential units
No comment

Where a municipal zoning by-law is passed that sets a parking standard lower than a standard of one parking space for each of the additional residential units, the municipal zoning by-law parking standard would prevail
- Can a by-law require more than 1 space (i.e. 1.5 spaces)? Does by-law prevail?
-
“Tandem parking” would be defined as a parking space that is only accessed by passing through another parking space from a street, lane or driveway
- More regarding the length of tandem parking (more than two car lengths)
- Will tandem parking be permitted for converted dwellings (other than second dwelling polices)

An additional residential unit, where permitted in the zoning by-law, may be occupied by any person in accordance with s. 35(2) of the Planning Act, and, for greater clarity, regardless of whether the primary unit is occupied by the owner of the property, and
- How does this affect Air b and b rentals?
- How does this relate to additional farm residences on Ag properties?

An additional residential unit, where permitted in the zoning by-law, would be permitted without regard to the date of construction of the primary or ancillary building.
- Does Provincial policy prevail where ZBL have not been updated?
- Is there a time period for municipalities to amend by-laws
- Can an ancillary building be purpose built for a second dwelling?

4. Housekeeping Regulatory Change

As Schedule 12 to Bill 108 provides for the removal of provisions in the Planning Act for second notice of subdivision applications and provisions for some non-decision appeals for official plans/amendments, housekeeping changes are required in O. Reg. 544/06 “Plans of Subdivision” and O. Reg. 543/06 “Official Plans and Plan Amendments” to remove the redundant notice of a subdivision application and the notice requirements for non-decision appeals, which would no longer be necessary.
- If an appeal is made regarding a non-decision – is notice required to those who attended the public meeting?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We trust that the municipal concerns submitted will be addressed.

Sincerely,
North Perth Ad Hoc Committee on Bill 108