From Haldimand County: Study…

From Haldimand County:

Study requirements and certified professionals:

Through the most recent update to Haldimand’s Official Plan (OP), staff developed comprehensive policies related to complete applications and the range of studies that could be required for such. We are not concerned with this aspect of the initiative given our current state and the fact that our OP ‘covers all the bases’.

With respect to the regulation making authorities, we have concerns with all 3 listed as follows:

• List of topics that cannot be required for complete application and specifying the only studies that can be required: we are of the opinion that the determination of supporting studies should be left to municipal professionals who know their systems, services, geography/landscape, and infrastructure challenges best. Haldimand’s practice has always been to require only those studies that represent necessary inputs and value-add to any given assessment. The prospect of having some of these ‘must haves’ removed from our analysis could be problematic given we may not be able to develop a complete picture of the implications of a project and any necessary mitigation. This could leave certain public interest matters hanging in the balance. The current draft regulation appears to focus on limiting just a few studies at this time, specifically those relating to sun/shadow, wind, urban design and lighting (what we refer to as photometrics), but more could be added. While studies relating to sun/shadow and wind are more applicable to high rise developments (e.g. 12+ storeys), Haldimand does routinely require lighting studies to ensure that off-site impacts of light spillage are not introduced and urban design (UD) studies to ensure general alignment with our UD guidelines and in recognition of the fact that the appearance of a project can be equally important as the function. The removal of these technical and aesthetic-focused studies stands in contrast to what we believe to be good planning.

• Requiring municipalities to accept studies from certified professionals: the intent here is to definitively state that certain requisite information and materials provided as part of a development application are deemed to meet the applicable requirements if the information or material is prepared by a person authorized to practice a prescribed profession. As an example, a transportation impact study prepared by a qualified engineer would be deemed to meet the requirement to submit such a study, notwithstanding any municipal concerns with the study’s contents. We have concerns with this given history and experience – specifically, there have been times when a certified professional (P. Eng, RPP, etc.) has provided substandard / error-filled technical analysis or incomplete assessments. The change proposed appears to suggest we have to accept all studies as part of the complete application and review them as key supports for same. This could (on occasion) lead to incomplete or inaccurate information having to be relied upon in staff’s analysis.

As-of-right variations from setback requirements (minor variances):

The MMAH is proposing a 10% setback reduction as-of-right for residential lands, which would have the effect of fewer applications submitted and fewer hearings for minor variances. While this has merit in that it would streamline the process and reduce cost for proponents - and would also ‘free up’ staff time to focus on larger, more complex matters - we do have some concerns with a ‘carte blanche’ application of this provision. Specifically, modern subdivisions have established, limited setbacks in place at present. In some cases, side yard setbacks are as little as 0.6 metres (2 feet) which represents just enough space to allow for passage from a front yard to rear yard and general maintenance activities at the side of the dwelling. A further reduction of a setback at that level, even by a few inches (10% of 2 feet is 2.5 inches), could create issues in the proper function of said side yard. While we can generally support as-of-right reduction of 10%, we feel a minimum threshold of where that is applied should be established (e.g. only for setbacks greater than 1 metre).

Streamlining planning approvals for schools:

Haldimand generally in agreeance with the proposal to remove portables from the SPC process. Our staff have recently discussed the prospect of developing an exemption as part of the next zoning by-law update given the relatively innocuous nature of these installations and the lack of any measurable impact in relation to site functions (e.g. drainage).

We do have concerns with the explicit permissions to site schools and daycares in any urban residential area. While these uses have a demonstrated level of compatibility with residential areas, their locations are best subject to a review to ensure that infrastructure in place can accommodate a higher volume use (e.g. water, sanitary, transportation network). We believe it remains best to consider placement of such uses through a public and detailed review process (e.g. zoning amendment).

Official Plan population updates:

The Haldimand Council approved Population, Household and Employment Forecasts (Watson, August 2024) reflect the updated MOF projections and are now being used for all strategies and studies that contain a population component (e.g. Development Charges Background Study). However, the Haldimand Official Plan has not been updated to reflect these new forecasts given staff intend to incorporate that work into the next update which will start in 2026/27. The amount of work required to complete the update is significant and not limited to just inserting new numbers into the OP. Rather, it requires a fulsome assessment of our urban areas to determine if there is sufficient land supply to accommodate the increased forecasts or if urban boundary expansion(s) is (are) required. This work is best done as part of a fulsome OP review, and not a ‘one off’ as appears to be suggested. We have not accounted for this work in our 2025 workplans and having to take this on would require delays in other projects and possibly additional funding for external consultants supports (e.g. to assess servicing capabilities if boundary expansion is necessary).

Provincial policy tests:

This proposal requires more detail and consultation is expected. We are concerned with the inconsistency this appears to create relative the execution of the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) as well as other provincial policies. In particular, municipalities are expected to ensure all their planning application decisions are in alignment with (‘consistent with’) the PPS. This serves to create predictability in the approval system in terms of what is expected. Giving the Minister authority to deviate from a policy document (e.g. PPS) that he has developed and imposed as the standard for assessing growth and development, appears to create a double standard and two-tiered system. A fair and consistent planning policy framework requires that all parties should be held to it.