December 23rd, 2022 Ministry…

December 23rd, 2022

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street, 17th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2J3

RE: File No: 019-6177
Review of A Place to Grow and Provincial Policy Statement
______________________________________________________________________

On behalf of the Upper West Side Landowners Group (UWSLG) (formerly Twenty Road West Landowners Group), Corbett Land Strategies Inc. (CLS) wishes to submit this letter in response to the Province’s Review of A Place to Grow and Provincial Policy Statement. It is understood that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) is undertaking a housing-focused policy review of both A Place to Grow and the Provincial Policy Statement.

These comments are prepared in reference to the specific development of the lands located within the block of Twenty Road West, Upper James Street, Dickenson Road and Glancaster Road, in the City of Hamilton (Subject Lands). The landowners are seeking to develop the subject lands with a complete community consisting of residential, mixed use and employment uses. It is the goal of the landowners to provide housing on a timely basis and which is needed to resolve the limited housing supply across the Province of Ontario.

Although the Province has made several recent successful legislative changes, it is CLS’s opinion that additional improvements can be implemented. Several of the following have been provided within previous submissions, however, are set out again to assist in the review of the Growth Plan and PPS:

1. EMPLOYMENT CONVERSION REQUEST

The UWSLG participated in the City of Hamilton MCR process and submitted an Employment Conversion request for the conversion of lands located within a Provincial Significant Employment Zone (PSEZ). The UWSLG requested that the City consider the conversion of approximately 55.2 hectares or 135.9 acres of employment lands, located within the Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD) Secondary Plan area. The request was made to support the creation of a mixed-use, compact residential and employment community (Appendix A).

Through the inclusion of portions of the subject lands in the urban boundary (following the Province’s decision on the City of Hamilton OPA’s No.167 and No.34), the lands proposed for conversion are now located immediately abutting residential lands and would serve to act as a land use buffer between residential lands and the employment lands within the AEGD. For this reason, the employment conversion is justifiable given the ability to achieve a compatible land use arrangement (through the application of certain land uses, an enhanced natural heritage system and future road network) and that provincial priorities in the delivery of housing units where infrastructure is in place is achieved.

Currently, the Growth Plan restricts the conversion of lands within PSEZ’s to only occur during a Municipal Comprehensive Review, however it is suggested that the establishment of PSEZ’s, and the lack of flexibility may in fact detract from the success of employment lands. Further, PSEZ’s currently do not limit employment uses but rather seek the protection of employment as a whole. While well-intended, in doing so, it may not be conducive to generating significant levels or densities of employment. As PSEZ areas are frequently located in close proximity to major transportation corridors, they are increasingly occupied by distribution and warehouse uses due to their operational needs. These uses, while vital for the movement of goods, are known to be low employment generating, despite occupying significant tracts of lands. As such, in addition to the permission of the conversion of the identified subject lands, it is recommended that the Province specifically consider improving the policy surrounding Provincially Significant Employment Zones (PSEZ’s), with particular attention paid towards policies on conversion as well as potential use permissions.

2. NOISE RELATED POLICIES

In accordance with Section 1.6.9.2 of the PPS, new infill residential development and other sensitive land uses are generally prohibited beyond the 30 NEF. Specifically, Sec. 1.6.9.2 advises that:

Airports shall be protected from incompatible land uses and development by:
a) prohibiting new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas near airports
above 30 NEF/NEP;
b) considering redevelopment of existing residential uses and other sensitive land uses or infilling of
residential and other sensitive land uses in areas above 30 NEF/NEP only if it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the long-term function of the airport; and
c) discouraging land uses which may cause a potential aviation safety hazard.

Despite the clear direction contained within the current policies of the PPS, some municipalities apply different standards concerning noise. The City of Hamilton currently employs the 28 NEF as the demarcation for the permission of residential and sensitive land uses in proximity to the airport. As set out in previous submissions, despite updating its policies through the most recent MCR, the City has not updated these policies to be consistent with the PPS.

In response, it is recommended that the Province consider strengthening the language contained within Section 1.6.9.2, to specifically include another criteria which requires municipalities to adopt this guidance within their respective Official Plan’s.

3. GROWTH MANAGEMENT, HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The Province is reviewing the PPS and Growth Plan with particular attention at optimizing policies concerning growth management. This includes examining population and employment forecasts, intensification and establishing specific policies for large and fast-growing municipalities.

One area which may benefit the province’s review of the PPS and Growth Plan are further improvements to the PPS review cycle, which was recently increased from 5 years to 10 years. While this recent change has the benefit of allowing the Province time to prepare and advance tools to assist in the implementation of its policies, it may however detract from the responsiveness needed to adjust to evolving market conditions. As such, it is recommended that consideration of a reduction of the PPS review cycle to a shorter timeframe to occur, such as returning to a 5 year review cycle. Alternatively, the Province may consider the maintaining current 10 year review cycle policies, but also require interim review cycles on policies specific to the delivery of housing. This could occur in 3 or 5 year increments but would ensure municipalities remain nimble to accommodate changes to market conditions.

Further, given the immediate need for housing it may be prudent to have policies prepared which establish specific phasing timelines on the achievement of density targets. Currently, the achievement of targets is to occur before the realization of the established planning horizon of the Growth Plan (2051). Municipalities are then directed to establish their own growth management strategy which achieves the targets over a gradual period. However, if Provincial phasing was to be established the achievement of density targets could be managed in a consistent manner.

4. STREAMLINING OF POLICIES TO INCREASE HOUSING SUPPLY

In its consideration of streamlining policies to increase housing supply, it is recommended that the Province consider the incorporation of policies which seek to permit privately initiated secondary plans. While some municipalities already permit secondary planning to be undertaken by the private sector, others require this process only be conducted by a municipality. This approach by certain municipalities limits the timely delivery of provincial priorities for a myriad of reasons including shifting political directions as well as changing staff and budget allocation.

The implementation of privately initiated secondary planning would provide a solution for the Province to achieve housing in an expeditated manner. The responsibility for costs and resources would fall onto the shoulders of the private sector, whereas oversight and the approval could remain under the jurisdiction of municipalities. The permission as-of-right could be supported by specific guidelines, established by the Province, which provide guidance on the delivery and approval of secondary plans. This would ensure a consistent approach and would assist in the delivery of housing on an immediate basis.

5. INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY

Part of the Province’s review of the PPS and Growth Plan involves consideration of infrastructure planning. It is recommended that the Province consider providing municipalities specific direction on the planning of infrastructure, particularly for geographic areas which were identified through the previous Provincial decisions. This direction could occur through the creation of Provincial utility commissions which could be mandated with specific timelines in which to plan, design and construct infrastructure. The province could also establish policy guidance which sets out specific implementation guidelines aimed at the consistent delivery of infrastructure. These guidelines could then be specified to occur in accordance with planning timeframes necessary to achieve housing on an immediate basis. Given these recommendations, it may be appropriate for the Province to establish policy which directs that the municipal involvement in infrastructure be a role of maintenance only.

It is also suggested that the overall goal of housing delivery may be aided by formal policy which encourages the use of cost sharing agreements. Cost sharing agreements are a useful tool in the delivery of infrastructure as well as the provision of community facilities. Currently, many municipalities rely on landowners working together to pool resources required to deliver infrastructure necessary for the improvement of existing communities and the creation new ones. However, other municipalities lack experience or comfort in their application. The inclusion of such policy could normalize the use of cost-sharing agreements on a consistent basis.

CONCLUSION

It is the hope of the UWSLG that the above comments will assist in the Province’s review of the PPS and Growth Plan to maintain the policies which currently work and offer solutions to improve upon the areas which don’t. As the review has a housing-first approach, the above commentary has been offered to address the current housing supply crisis.

Should there be any questions or a need for further information, feel free to reach out to the below.
Sincerely,

John Corbett
__________________________________
John B. Corbett, MCIP, RPP
President
Corbett Land Strategies Inc.
john@corbettlandstrategies.ca
416-806-5164

The full PDF with Appendix A has been submitted to growthplanning@ontario.ca.