Please see the City of…

Please see below comments prepared by the City of Mississauga. A link to the Corporate Report that was presented to the City's General Committee for endorsement has also been provided. Please refer to Items 5.2 and 9.13.

Comments

1. Ministerial Zoning Orders should not be used routinely

Staff are of the opinion that in most cases the benefits derived from MZOs are not worth deviation from the standard planning process.

The frequent use of MZOs can undermine the Growth Plan, Official Plan and Zoning frameworks that were established through a public process to carefully balance social, economic and environmental considerations in planning matters.

Moreover, MZOs result in local communities and adjacent landowners having no practical or meaningful influence over development outcomes and remove any opportunity for redress by way of appeal to LPAT. Public engagement is an important component of community planning and leads to better projects and improved support of planning outcomes.

The use of an MZO can also set a precedent that may lead to more MZO requests from other landowners. Staff and Councillors have been receiving an increasing number of inquiries to support site-specific MZO requests given the recent orders in Mississauga and elsewhere in the Greater Toronto Area.

2. MZOs may not provide a more timely response to zoning changes than the regular statutory process

Mississauga’s Planning and Building Department is proud of its service record in issuing planning and building permits. In response to the COVID 19 pandemic, the Department shifted to fully online operations through e-Plans and all planning and building permits have continued to been issued without interruption.

The Department also has other measures in place to ensure that developments can quickly move through the planning process. For example, the City has used development liaisons, who can help large scale and complex applications move through the planning process. The Department frequently receives positive feedback from the development sector on how smoothly applications are able to move through the City’s processes.

Given this, City staff question if MZOs would provide a much more timely response to zoning changes than the regular statutory process.
 
3. Regional growth amendments require substantial infrastructure investments that benefit from a comprehensive review process to reduce costs over the long run

An MZO can lead to a quicker settlement area expansion or a conversion of an employment area to residential land use. However, piecemeal decisions on these matters can lead to the creation of communities that are fragmented, more costly to service, and have less access to services such as transit, parks and schools. There could also be land use compatibility (air quality, noise etc) and potential environmental impacts associated with the premature change of land-use designations. City staff suggest that these regional planning matters benefit from undergoing a MCR process.

Additionally, City staff do not consider MZOs should be used where they result in the need for a municipality to make multi-million dollar investments in infrastructure. For example, large settlement area expansions create new servicing requirements and these types of decisions benefit from being made in a coordinated manner.

4. MZOs require the Province to be involved in highly localized planning matters and impact the City’s ability to cover development related costs

The Province has recently issued two MZOs in Mississauga:

• MZO 448/20 – 600 Eglinton Avenue East – Long-term care, residential singe detached, semi detached, townhouse and apartment uses.
• EMZO 477/20 – 210 Speakman Drive – long-term care, hospital, retirement home, hospice, adult day care facility for seniors, medical office and accessory uses.

These two MZOs are the City’s first experience with these orders; as such, some coordination and process challenges have been experienced.

City staff have found that the details contained in these two MZOs do not align with Mississauga’s current Zoning By-law (i.e. zoning and land use definitions). The proposed developments do not meet some of the City’s engineering requirements, nor do they clarify how engineering costs are to be covered (e.g. costs associated with new road access etc). City staff also consider that the Province should take the lead in communicating the contents of this MZO to the local community.

These MZOs result in the Province being involved in highly localized planning matters. The Province does not have the expertise to implement detailed municipal planning provisions nor are they sufficiently proximate to the local municipal context to have a full and proper appreciation of local land use circumstances. Moreover, by up-zoning lands, the Province is making it difficult for the City to negotiate for costs associated with a development to be covered by the applicant and not passed onto the municipality.

If the Province is going to intervene in local planning matters it should be responsible for informing the community on the contents of this MZO and the underlying rationale. City staff should not be expected to explain and MZO when they have had no involvement in its formulation or implementation.

5. If the Government decides to frequently use of MZOs, it should only support use of this tool where it will provide direct public benefits

The Province should only use MZOs where they provide a direct public benefit, such as positive public health outcomes or significant job creation. Given the Province now have the authority to require inclusionary zoning – all MZOs should support ‘missing middle’ affordable housing.

To increase transparency around the use of MZOs the Province should consider establishing clear criteria for their use, such as:
• Projects with a clear and direct public benefit.
• Projects that have support from both lower and upper tiers of Council
• Projects that will not require a municipality to make major infrastructure investments
o And if there must be, funding agreements are put in place to support these investments by the developer or other levels of government
• Projects that do not impact heritage assets, all heritage buildings should be preserved
• Projects that meet a community need, and this need should be clearly demonstrated by the Province to the upper and lower tier municipalities, as well as the public

It is also suggested that:
• MZO’s be reviewed by the local municipal Planning Department prior to being issued. City Officials believe that are ways to work together to achieve the goal for the lands in question.
• MZO’s should expire if they are not developed within a certain time period
• The Provincial Government should be responsible for communicating the status of an MZO application that has been made, the rationale behind the request, and for an explanation on why some request are successful and others are not.
o The Province should also be responsible for communicating the impact of the MZO to the community.

MZOs should not be used to support market rate residential developments. Mississauga currently has over 20,000 zoned residential units that are awaiting development. MZOs are not likely to address housing affordability challenges unless the orders explicitly require affordable units. If the Province is looking to support affordable housing, it should use MZOs to mandate inclusionary zoning on government owned lands before they are sold or developed.

More long-term care beds are clearly needed in Mississauga and the Province should consider locating future facilities on land it owns where conversions are not required.

Conclusion

City staff support the Government’s commitment to streamline the development process and make housing more affordable. However, MZOs are blunt force tool that reduces the role of council and the public in the planning process.

If the Government intends to continue to make frequent use of MZOs, then City staff suggest that their use should be limited to situations that have a clear public benefit and supporting rationale and that consultation with upper and lower-tier municipalities be a mandatory part of this process.

To increase the supply of affordable housing units staff suggest the Province consider expanding IZ city-wide, allowing conditional zoning and adhering to housing first principles. This would include mandating affordable housing units as a condition of sale on government owned lands before disposition occurs. Further, the Province could also streamline approvals by reducing the role of LPAT in local municipal decision making.