On behalf of the Township of…

Numéro du REO

025-0450

Identifiant (ID) du commentaire

149743

Commentaire fait au nom

Township of South Stormont

Statut du commentaire

Commentaire approuvé More about comment statuses

Commentaire

On behalf of the Township of South Stormont, we thank you for taking the the time review our commentary regarding Bill 17. We can appreciate the Province proposing modifications to various Acts to support accelerating the development of housing and infrastructure across the Province.

Ontario Building Code

1 - We are supportive for the inclusion of the new provision to the Building Code Act, 1992 (BCA) that states that the natural person and broad authority powers under the Municipal Act, 2001, do not authorize municipalities to pass by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings. We feel this will provide for greater clarity to section 35 of the BCA.

2 - We are supportive for the introduction of provisions that would remove the requirement for a manufacturer seeking to introduce an innovative material, system or building design to Ontario from having to go through the Building Materials Evaluation Commissioner to obtain a ruling from the MMAH. We feel this will reduce redundancies in the current evaluation process.

Planning Act

3 - We are supportive of restricting municipal official plans and zoning by-laws from effectively prohibiting the use of a parcel of urban residential land for elementary and secondary schools or “any ancillary uses to such schools”, which specifically include childcare centres. Also, we are supportive to exempt the placement of school portables on a school site from site plan control approval or amendment to an existing site plan approval, this was previously limited only for school sites in existence on January 1, 2007.

4 - We are somewhat supportive of the proposal to make regulations that permit certain minor variances to minimum setback distances set out in zoning by-laws “as-of-right”. We are somewhat concerned with the side yard setback reductions. Our Zoning By-law is generous and allows for a 1.2m side yard setback for various typologies (Singles, Semi-Detached dwellings). Further reductions may prove to cause problems from a functionality perspective, for example maintaining unobstructed paths of travel (i.e. deviations in grade, window wells, cooling systems etc.) Furthermore, take into consideration OBC spatial separation requirements, will there be conflicts or will it cause an increase in fire rated construction or limit openings?

5 - We are supportive for the proposal to limit the municipality’s ability to require additional information to that is already identified in a municipality’s official plan. Also, ensuring that complete application requirements are set out and consistent across the Province. We would like there to be further clarification regarding accepting certain information and materials if they are prepared by prescribed professionals (i.e. who other than a P.Eng.)

6 - We are supportive of the proposal to make regulations that permit certain minor variances to maximum height and lot area set out in zoning by-laws “as-of-right”. This will encourage more flexibility, perhaps consider 5% instead of 10%, as construction at times is not an exact science.

Development Charges Act

7 - We hope that answers will be provided to the commentary prepared by Watson & Associates Economists LTD. dated June 4, 2025. Deferral of DC charges to the permit occupancy stage opposed to the permit approval phase makes sense for large residential developments in major urban cores. In Eastern Rural Ontario, our DC rates are modest compared to major urban cores and the deferral for low density residential development could have the potential to create an additional administrative burden (i.e. tracking) on the municipality. We would like further clarification regarding prescribing instruments (i.e. financial securities) that municipalities could require to secure deferred payments.

Documents justificatifs