To Whom it May Concern, The…

To Whom it May Concern,
The City of Brampton (hereinafter referred to as ‘the City’) appreciates the opportunity to
provide comments on the proposed changes outlined in the Environmental Registry of Ontario
posting 025-0450 Proposed amendments to the Building Transit Faster Act, 2020.
The City is supportive of efforts by the Province to expedite the delivery of public transit
projects as it aligns with the City’s goals of reducing congestion, driving economic growth and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions; however, the City has identified concerns where
municipal review and oversight as the local road authority is weakened, and is also seeking
clarity on sections of the proposal.
Please see below specific comments on individual aspects of the proposed legislative
changes:
The bill proposes as approach which backstops authority and compel access to municipal
rights-of-way and services (water, sewer). This could have significant implications on
municipalities as the road authority. Concerns and questions in this regard are noted below:
a. Unclear what project scope (e.g., due diligence, construction, etc.) would require
compelling municipalities to provide access to rights-of-way.
b. Further clarification required on “backstop authority”. Is it that Metrolinx/Province would
provide approval when local authorities have failed to provide permits or approvals
within a specified timeframe. It is also unclear what other municipal permits they are
referring to in this Bill and under what circumstances or timeframe would Metrolinx feel
they would need to intervene with the permit process and approve the permit without
City’s approval.
c. Who will be the reviewer and decision maker on proposed road and lane closures for
the purposes of construction, including reviewing and approving traffic control plans,
pedestrian access, local transit stop impacts, traffic signal timing modifications, etc.?
d. Significant deviation from current process and compliance with Bylaw 93-93, where the
city is reviewer and approver of municipal road occupancy and access permits.
e. Potential liability concerns if the City is being compelled to issue access permits.
f. Compelling access to municipal rights-of-way presents a risk that construction of
municipal infrastructure may proceed without being in compliance with municipal
standards. This is something the City has been able to mitigate as part of the ongoing
Hazel McCallion Line construction.
g. Implications for other municipal permits and approvals if City is compelled to provide
access to rights-of-way. Examples:
i. Building permit is typically required for the construction of a higher order
transit stop before access to right-of-way is granted to construct.
ii. Tree removal permit and security deposit is typically required before access
to right-of-way is granted for public tree removal.
Further details are required on “Corridor Development Permits”. A Metrolinx Corridor
Development Permit (CDP) is needed by anyone carrying out work within the Transit Corridor
Lands and permit buffers shown in the diagram below. Transit Corridor Lands and permit
buffers are designated for each of the priority transit projects, and CDPs are required within 10
metres of the Transit Corridor Lands for utility infrastructure works and within 30 metres for the
construction or alteration of buildings, structures, and roads. This appears to be an added layer
of approval required by adjacent development and it's not clear how Metrolinx plans to issue
such permits if there are ongoing construction and how this process is coordinated with the
municipal site plan development process for site servicing works and building permits.
With respect to changes on “Entering Lands” – the following are noted:
i. It is not clear which lands this is applicable to (e.g. private lands, municipal owned lands
(non-ROW), municipal ROW lands), potential to have implications by entering municipal
lands without consent from the City.
ii. Implications for removing trees without municipal tree removal permit and associated
security deposit fees.
The City of Brampton would like to thank the Province for the opportunity to provide feedback
and comments on the proposed changes. The City requests that clarification be provided on
the questions identified herein and that the Province takes the recommendations provided into
consideration prior to enacting any changes to the Act.