January 28, 2021 Planning…

January 28, 2021
Planning Consultation
Provincial Planning Policy Branch
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
777 Bay Street13th floor
Toronto, ON
M7A 2J3

Dear Planning Consultation,

Re: ERO# 019-2811: Planning Act provisions regarding enhanced Ministerial authority as part of a Minister’s Zoning Order

I am a resident of Stratford, Ontario, where a Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) was applied to farmland to rezone it to Heavy Industry. In fact, the MZO was specific to a proposal from an offshore Glass Manufacturer for two factories and dormitories for some workers, euphemistically called an ‘emergency preparedness centre’. The MZO specified that the land could not be used for any other purpose than glass manufacturing.
A local group here commissioned a review of the air quality report prepared for the proponent, and found it seriously lacking. The review identified a number of deficiencies with respect to compliance with the Provincial Policy Statement on land use in the province, and the official plan of the city of Stratford. It is clear to us, that little or no thought went into the issuance of the MZO in terms of the planning act and the Provincial Policy Statement. Indeed it was issued as a result of several requests from the Mayor of the City of Stratford.
There are so many flaws with the process that got us to this point, it is hard to know where to start. We have been advised that the province issued the order in part as a result of lobbying by the proponent directly to the Premier and the Minister. The proponent had been turned down for rezoning in another jurisdiction due to extreme issues with water use. The proponent apparently decided that an MZO would eliminate any opposition here due to environmental concerns.
The Mayor’s request to the ministry for the MZO may or may not have been at the request of council. There are no records of a council decision. There was no public consultation, and no public knowledge of the fact that the MZO had been requested by the Mayor until his letters were published by the local newspaper in November, 2020. The Minister himself stated on July 10, 2020 on TVO, ‘Aside from one in Toronto for Sunnybrook hospital…, all the other projects were discussed in an open meeting in a council and presented as a resolution to the ministry.’ Either the Minister was misled by the Mayor, or the Minister misled the TVO interviewer. In any event, it is clear that the Minister intended that all MZO’s would be discussed in an open meeting in a council and presented as a resolution.
Given that the Minister’s intended use of the MZO process is following full public participation in a process, it would seem that the act as currently worded does not reflect that intent. It would therefore be appropriate if the law were changed to permit the use of MZO’s only in circumstances following a full public debate and resolution by the council involved. Further, given the failure of this particular MZO to follow the guidelines of the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) and perhaps other environmental and other regulations, it would therefore be appropriate if the law were changed to reflect that MZO’s must follow the PPS and any other regulation or requirement as set out by statute or regulation. This would solve the thorny issue raised by others that the use of an MZO could violate environmental standards and regulations in the province, and would provide an appropriate check to apparently unfettered power.
Secondly, coming to the issue of site plan agreements. Municipal councils are required to act in the public interest when negotiating development site plan agreements. Regulations, by-laws, and official plan matters are part of what goes into negotiating those agreements. Subclauses 41 (7) and (8) require that the developer pay all costs, both for servicing, and for roadway improvements. If that requirement becomes the issue upon which negotiations fail, the Minister, by the changes to the act, seems to have reserved for himself the power to force a municipality to take on those expenses expressly forbidden by the act. The Minister could, therefore force a municipality to raise taxes, so that a developer emboldened by an MZO could pay less than necessary for servicing and roads. This portion of the act needs to change. The minister should never be in a position to force an increase in municipal taxation through a decision to force development costs on a municipality. Further, should a site plan proposal be in direct opposition to municipal by-laws, regulations or official plans, which are generally approved by the minister, he or she would be seeking to force an illegal situation on the municipality.
This power (to tax and adhere to by-laws, regulations and official plans) must remain at the local level. To do otherwise completely emasculates the local council, forces them into illegal positions, and would be untenable. This responsibility (site plans) must remain solely the purview of the local council. The minister must not interfere.
So, to summarize, MZO’s should be limited to those circumstances outlined by the minister himself, where a public process leads to a decision by a council. MZO’s should also be required to follow the same laws and regulations as would be followed by a council in determining appropriateness and legality.
The Minister should not take the power to force taxation and illegality on a duly elected local council. It makes a travesty of our democracy and should not be allowed to stand.
I would appreciate hearing back as to your considerations of my submissions.