With respect to Bill 150, I…

With respect to Bill 150, I strongly disagree with the approach of using legislation to undo major errors made by the Minister when issuing decisions with respect to Official Plans/Official Plan Amendments. There are remedies in the Planning Act to (a) prevent the errors from happening in the first place and (b) to remedy an error if it has happened. While these remedies may mean things take longer to correct themselves, it ensures that proper processes are followed and minimizes the need for the government to take such extraordinary action.

Remedies I am referring to include:
a) that the Minister utilize the 90-day period it established in the Planning Act (see Section 17 (17.1)) to provide comments to a municipality with respect to its draft OP/OPA, in order to give the municipality the opportunity to remedy a matter before it is brought to Council for adoption. This ensures that proposed modifications are examined by staff and Council and local perspectives are considered before such a modification is finalized. It is my recollection that this approach was used when municipalities completed their first round of conformity amendments in relation to the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan (i.e. in 2009 and 2010) and this approach was quite effective and well received. To my knowledge, no comments were provided to at least one municipality (York Region) prior to Council's adoption of the new Official Plan. Providing Ministry comments prior to Council adoption is even more necessary now given that there is no right of appeal of a Minister's decision on these types of OP/OPA approvals.

b) Exercise section 23 of the Planning Act, wherein the Minister may by order amend an Official Plan to address a matter of provincial interest. (In this case, to correct grievous 'errors'.)

Having said that, if the Government is still inclined to proceed with this legislation I note that modification 56 to the York Region Official Plan is still warranted in order for the ROP to conform with the ORMCP. As such, the modification should be re-listed as a modification to be retained, with one correction - the comma and word "or" after the words "based on" should be deleted so that the bullet reads as follows:
"In the Urban Area and Towns and Villages, as designated on April 22, 2002, where secondary plans, official plans or zoning by-laws that were approved based Master Environmental Servicing or Functional Servicing Plans, or environmental studies that have identified minimum vegetation protective zones that are different from those identified in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, then the standards established within those Official plans, Secondary plans and/or by-laws shall prevail."

Alternatively, the modification could be to simply remove the bullet all together since it would be more appropriate to rely on current information and policy to determine the limits of minimum vegetative protection zones, and not documents that date back to more than 20 years.

There are likely many other modifications that ought to be retained or modified. I sincerely hope the impacted municipalities are taking a very close look and will provide their expert recommendations and that the proposed legislation is amended accordingly, if it should proceed. Without the benefit of a staff report and a transparent characterization of the policies and mapping at adoption, per Minister modifications and now the proposed legislation, it is very difficult for citizens to weigh in on this proposal.