City of Brampton May 29,…

City of Brampton

May 29, 2019

The Honourable Doug Ford
Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1

The Honourable Steve Clark
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
17th Floor, 777 Bay St.
Toronto ON M5G 2E5

Re: Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019

Dear Premier Ford and Minister Clark:

The City of Brampton appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019. The City supports the need for greater housing affordability in Ontario, and is currently developing its first affordable housing strategy, Housing Brampton, to improve housing choices and affordability for all our residents.

Our initial review and analysis of Bill 108, which unfortunately was introduced following very little consultation with municipalities, suggests that the proposed changes within the legislation are unlikely to achieve its intended outcomes. For example, there is no evidence to suggest development charges (DCs) or parkland dedication requirements have an impact on the price of new housing. At the same, a glaring omission in the legislation is any means by which the savings from Bill 108 to developers would be passed along to prospective homebuyers.

Although the lack of consultation with municipalities prior to the introduction of Bill
108 is disappointing, my most pressing concern is that the 30-day commenting period respecting the ERO postings is simply inadequate. Bill 108 proposes significant changes for land use planning related decision-making processes and reductions in the collection of DCs. We require additional time to analyze and understand the full impact, and to consult with our residents, who will ultimately be directly affected by many of the proposed changes.

Brampton City Council is formally requesting an extension to the consultation period, and that the Province conduct meaningful consultation with municipalities and other stakeholders prior to the Legislation receiving Royal Assent, which I understand is scheduled for as early as June 4, 2019.
In the meantime, included with this letter is the City of Brampton’s detailed report as well as our consolidated recommendations and amendments to Bill 108.

The City’s The City is interested in continuing to engage with the Province as it moves forward to ensure that available housing within GTA and across the Province is affordable.

Sincerely,
Patrick Brown
Mayor

Planning Act
Bill 108 - (Schedule 12) – the proposed More Homes, More Choice Act: Amendments to the Planning Act (ERO 019-0016)

City Recommendations:

1. That the existing timelines prescribed in the Planning Act not be changed;
2. That Bill 108 be amended to add a provision allowing a suspension of the timelines upon agreement of the municipality and the applicant.
3. That Bill 108 be amended to reinstate subsections 34(11.0.0.0.3) and 17(7.0.2.1), so that Council can approve something different from what was applied for and be deemed to given an approval of the alternative proposal.
4. That the Province create a list of criteria/parameters for the establishment of the Community Planning Permit System (CPP) to guide municipal decisions to implement a CPP, rather than the Ministry directing adoption of a CPP;
5. That all CPP Official Plan policies not subject be to appeal, instead of only those adopted as a result of Ministry direction.
6. That the authority to implement inclusionary zoning policies should be expanded to include other areas that are subject to growth pressure, higher housing demand and in proximity to higher order transit.
7. That Brampton supports limiting third party appeals of plans of subdivision and approval authority non-decisions on Official Plans and Official plan amendments.
8. That municipalities be empowered, rather than required, to permit additional residential units in both primary and ancillary buildings based on local affordability needs and land use plans given the variations in each municipality’s urban fabric.
9. That municipalities be granted authority to apply restrictions and requirements to second units and accessory units to ensure orderly and proper intensification.
10. That the Province refrain from implementing the Community Benefits Charge (CBC) until sufficient detail has been released to determine the impact on municipalities’ ability to fund the growth-related services that were previously paid for through collection of development charges.
11. That parkland dedication, cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication, and library/recreation be removed from the CBC and that both be applicable to development, as is the case currently.
12. That current development charges by-laws and any development charges by-laws passed prior to issuance of the regulations related to CBCs, remain in effect until the later of four years from the date of passing of regulations relating to CBCs, or the expiry of the development charges by-law.
13. That the Bill be amended to provide for municipalities to enter into agreements respecting delivery of in-kind facilities, services or matters, and that such agreements be registered on title to the property, and enforceable against future owners.
14. That the parkland dedication rate of 1 ha per 300 units be retained to ensure adequate provision of parks to all neighbourhoods.
15. That the requirement to spend or allocate at least 60% of the funds in the special CBC account be removed.
16. That CBC rates should be based on the actual cost of the services, rather than land values.
17. That the process for disputes regarding land values between municipalities and applicants be streamlined to provide that the owner shall select an appraiser from the list referred to in proposed subsection 37(22), and the land value so provided shall be determinative.
18. That owners be required to immediately provide any additional payment to the municipality where such additional payments are appropriate.
19. That the Province empower municipalities to exempt certain desirable forms of development from the CBC, rather than requiring it.
20. That in the event that the Province intends to proceed with excluding certain development from the CBC, Office and mixed-use developments meeting certain density target and other criteria established by the municipality would be appropriate to be exempt.
21. That the existing appeal grounds, i.e. tests for consistency with Provincial Policy Statements, Provincial Plans and the Official Plan, be maintained.

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal

City Recommendations:

22. That the City recommend the Province consider regulations that would support more deference for the decisions of municipal councils, including maintaining the existing appeal grounds, i.e. tests for consistency with provincial policy statements, provincial plans and the Official Plan.
23. That subject to the City’s comments regarding the proposed return to the de novo hearing regime and the elimination of the conformity and consistency test (see Items 21 an d 22), it is recommended the City support the amendments to sections 32 and 33 which provide for conditions of mandatory mediation, narrowing of issues, examination of witnesses, and other hearing related matters.
24. That the City supports the amendments to Section 33(1) to empower the tribunal to limit any examination or cross-examination of a witness in specified circumstances.
25. It is recommended the Province not repeal the ability of the Tribunal to state a case to the Divisional Court on questions of law, as this provides the Tribunal with an appropriate method of resolving disputes at an early stage where the Tribunal may determine judicial consideration or determination is required.
26. It is recommended for the Province to amend Bill 108 to provide for greeter deference to the decision of municipal councils.

Provincial Policy Statement

City Recommendation:

27. It is recommended the City request that municipalities be given the opportunity to comment on draft proposed changes to the PPS.