Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (“ERO”) posting 019-8369 and Ontario’s Regulatory Registry (“ORR”) posting 24-MMAH010 regarding the proposed Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, and Municipal Act, 2001 Changes (Schedules 4, 9, and 12 of Bill 185 - the proposed Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024).

Please note that the following comments and recommendations are provided by City of Mississauga staff and have been endorsed by City Council at its meeting on May 1, 2024. The report to City Council is provided in the supporting link below.

The following contains a summary of the City of Mississauga's comments on ERO 019-8369 and ORR 24-MMAH010. In addition, detailed comments on the proposed changes are provided in the attached table (supporting document) below.

INTRODUCTION

Addressing Ontario’s housing challenges will require coordinated effort from all levels of government. The City of Mississauga is committed to doing its part to help address the housing crisis. This includes making sure there are no municipal barriers to develop 120,000 homes in Mississauga by 2031, and releasing an Action Plan for New Housing to help get us there.

We support the Province’s efforts to address housing supply and suggest modifications to certain areas of proposed Bill 185 as noted below. Detailed comments are included in the attached table.

ALLOCATION OF WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE CAPACITY

Key Recommendation:
• The City requires further details to understand how to enforce its allocation system, and potential impacts.

MUNICIPALITIES ASSISTING INDUSTRY TO ATTRACT INVESTMENT

Key Recommendations:
• Consult with municipal economic development leaders in developing the draft regulations to ensure they optimize incentive tools without unintended negative impacts on municipalities.
• Regulations should address:
o The type and size of investment that would qualify.
o Defined parameters for eligibility and ineligibility.
o Define “commercial enterprise”.
o Whether developers would be eligible for incentives under this tool or aimed directly at companies.
o Whether downtown office tenants would be included.
o How this would work with existing incentive tools, such as CIPs.
o The approval process to provide a grant, and whether Provincial or Municipal approval is required on a case-by-case. Alternatively, whether a city-wide CIP is required
o How would this apply to existing businesses, or is it to apply to new net investments/companies currently not located in Ontario.
o Elements/criteria to be considered for grant assistance.
o Clarify what is meant by “Desirable in the provincial interest to attract investment in Ontario”.
o How success is to be measured for the return on the investment.
o Clarify that existing grants and supports are not being replaced by this incentive.

REMOVE PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES FROM PEEL, HALTON, AND YORK

The City of Mississauga is committed to working with the Transition Board, appointed by the Province and the Regional Municipality of Peel to ensure seamless transition of regional planning responsibilities. The City is prepared to assume upper-tier planning responsibilities from the Region of Peel on July 1, 2024.

REMOVE PARKING MINIMUMS FROM MTSAS AND OTHER PRESCRIBED AREAS

The City has been reducing parking requirements over the years. Removing parking requirements should be done in a manner that minimizes impact on residents and businesses of existing and new developments. The municipality has limited tools available to require measures to help encourage transit and alternative modes of transportation.

Key Recommendations:
• Clarify what is meant by “Parking Facilities”.
• Clarify that municipalities can still regulate parking standards (e.g. parking aisle, size of space) if a developer chooses to provide parking.
• Consider making municipal parking an eligible DC service to aid in the development of shared lots.
• Consider options for municipalities to impose criteria in MTSAs to ensure alternative transportation choices are available, for example:
o TDM measures such as car share and bike share spaces and dedicated drop off/pick up spaces for rideshare and taxis. These measures are especially important in MTSAs where transit service and active transportation infrastructure are not yet fully constructed
o Site distance to a Station
o Having a mix of land uses near the station
• The City requests that the elimination of parking requirements not apply to non-residential uses (e.g. commercial), lower density residential uses, visitor and accessible parking.

LIMITS THIRD PARTY APPEALS

The City generally supports this change, but there should be consideration to recognize unique circumstances where additional participation rights are warranted (e.g. areas where there are potential for land use compatibility issues).

Key Recommendations:
• Enhance criteria in Planning Act to enable OLT to grant party status to third parties to recognize unique circumstances where additional participation rights are warranted.
• Equip municipalities with more concrete/mandatory policy direction in PPS that municipalities are required to implement to help protect third-party interests.

REMOVAL OF PRE-CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

Pre-consultation is a valuable tool for improving the calibre of applications.

This change introduces a risk to the overall integrity of land development processes. When a voluntary exception is made without clear justification or criteria, it undermines the consistency and fairness that stakeholders expect, potentially resulting in a loss of trust or transparency, and adding further complexity or cost for all stakeholders.

Most Mississauga builders and developers recognize the importance of pre-consultation because it enhances the value of their proposals, is seen as a due diligence measure, and safeguards against risks that could lead to substantial costs for all stakeholders.

Key Recommendations:
• Allow municipalities the flexibility to determine when pre-application consultation is required.
• Allow municipalities pause the clock or other enforceable mechanism to require additional information that was not identified/ submitted.

PROCEDURAL CHANGES: MOTION RE DISPUTE FOR COMPLETE OPA APPLICATION

Generally, improvements to the OLT are welcomed, however, the City does not support the proposed policy in its current state. The draft is too ambiguous and would lead to uncertainty for proponents and City staff in the development application process.

Key Recommendation:
• The policy should be amended to provide clearer guidance for the municipality and applicant.

REPEAL OF REFUND OF FEES INTRODUCED BY BILL 109

The City is supportive of the proposed change.

ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ARU) REQUIREMENT AND STANDARDS

The City is supportive of this change, as it complements the City’s work in increasing the mix of housing options in Mississauga.

Response to Discussion Question 1:
• The in-force zoning related to ARUs is quite flexible in and takes into consideration our local context. A broad exemption of further standards could potential impacts for adjacent properties.
• For internal ARUs, no further changes to the City’s By-Law are necessary. Since most ARU are being accommodated in existing dwelling structures, there is no need to change lot coverage, setbacks, height, etc.
• For external ARUs, Mississauga has already provided zoning flexibility in the form of additional lot coverage and minimal setbacks, while balancing impacts to neighbouring properties through appropriate height and size permissions.
• It should be at the discretion of municipalities to identify reductions in max lot and setbacks requirements to ensure ARUs comply with drainage and Lot Grading By-laws.
• The City request the province make municipalities whole for lost revenue from statutory DC and parkland ARU exemptions.
Response to Discussion Question 2:
• Through the City’s consultation on Increasing Housing Choices in Neighbourhoods the following additional barriers were identified:
o the cost of construction
o impact of being a landlord on personal income tax
o how much property taxes would increase after MPAC reassesses the property with an ARU
o the ability to remove delinquent tenants and LTB backlog
• The City has removed many municipal fees associated with ARUs (e.g. DCs and cash-in-lieu of parkland) and is exploring building permit grants and pre-approved plans as a incentive to increase supply.
• The Province should consider a public education program to encourage Ontarians to become small landlords providing them with relevant resources and financial incentives such as tax incentives.

LAPSING OF APPROVALS OF PLANS AND DRAWINGS

The City is supportive of this change, but this change on its own may be insufficient to achieve the desired objectives.

There may be cases where an extension to timelines for lapsing of approvals would be preferred and much simpler than requiring a new application.

Key Recommendations:
• Consider additional tools to expedite timelines between planning approvals and construction starts.
• Municipalities should be allowed to extend timelines for the lapsing of approvals.

POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTION EXEMPTIONS

The City recommends that this policy be refined as the exemptions will challenge the ability to plan for future infrastructure and growth needs.

The proposed exemptions are overly broad, particularly where development is proposed private land or in combination with other private developments (e.g. a campus in a mall or a mixed use residential building).

Key Recommendations:
• The Province is urged to retain Planning Act processes for post-secondary institutions proposing development on private land.
• Prescribed requirements should continue to include parkland dedication.
• Clarify what is meant by “publicly-assisted university.”

NON-APPLICATION – COMMUNITY SERVICE FACILITIES

The City recommends that this policy be refined as the exemptions will challenge the ability to plan for future infrastructure and growth needs.

There is also concern that the development of community service facilities does not take into consideration the provision for an urban (e.g., schools situated within a tower podium, or high-rise long-term care homes).

The City would support the ability to retain review of these developments but agree that an expedited review process is appropriate. The province should still have the ability to issue site-specific MZO’s where warranted and allows for a municipal role in implementation.

Key Recommendations:
• A municipal role should be maintained in the review of applications for community service facilities. This would ensure issues are addressed through the appropriate process and early in the design of such facilities, avoiding costly delays
• Prescribed requirements should continue to include parkland dedication.