Comments

View the comments this notice received through the registry. You can either download them all or search and sort below.

Some comments will not be posted online. Learn more about the comment status and our comment and privacy policies.

Download comments

Search comments

Comment ID

80979

Commenting on behalf of

Ontario Retirement Communities Association

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
On behalf of the Ontario Retirement Communities Association, please find attached our submission with our recommendations with respect to amendments to the regulations under the Development Charges Act, 1997. Read more

Comment ID

80986

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
The parkland dedication would cut the amount of parkland that must be set aside by developers by 50%. Parks are already few and far between. Parks are critical for the well being of urban residents such as myself. Read more

Comment ID

80988

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Proposals that reduce development charges or parkland dedication or slow their application are not acceptable. Municipalities can’t be expected to cover the costs of infrastructure needed to support development even temporarily, especially when costs are rising due to impacts of climate change. Read more

Comment ID

80995

Commenting on behalf of

City of Ottawa

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Please see attached letter from Don Herweyer, Acting General Manager of Planning, Real Estate and Economic Development for the City of Ottawa. Read more

Comment ID

81009

Commenting on behalf of

Parks and Recreation Ontario

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Comment on the Proposed Planning Act and Development Charges Act, 1997 Changes: Providing Greater Cost Certainty for Municipal Development-related Charges ERO: 019-6163 Dec 1, 2022 Parks and Recreation Ontario Introduction Read more

Comment ID

81013

Commenting on behalf of

Township of Puslinch

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Whereas Puslinch Council remains significantly concerned with the legislative changes in Bill 23, in addition to comments previously submitted by Puslinch Council, Council resolved as follows; Puslinch Council submits the following additional formal comments: Read more

Comment ID

81018

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
This bill will not help with affordable housing. This bill will hurt municipalities. This bill will do nothing to help the people who live precariously. Read more

Comment ID

81031

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Please maintain the current parkland dedication rates of 1 hectare per 300 dwellings. Also maintain the current cash in lieu of parkland rate at 1 hectare per 500 dwellings, and do not introduce new upper limits on parkland for new development sites. Read more

Comment ID

81037

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Bill 23 encourages developers to build new houses, while reducing developers’ fees, by passing infrastructure costs (roads, hydro, water, sewerage, etc.) to the municipalities and thus increasing taxes. Read more

Comment ID

81039

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Evidence is growing, that developers purchased land ahead of the passage of Bill 23. For the sake of transparency, a public inquiry is required to ensure there has been no favouritism or corruption to the passage of Bill 23.

Comment ID

81040

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Areas now slated for development outside Ottawa’s Greenbelt (and around other Ontario cities) are considered “unceded” Indigenous lands. Nevertheless, First Nations peoples in Ontario have not been consulted on the measures in Bill 23. Read more

Comment ID

81048

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
‘To incent the supply of attainable housing units, a residential unit, in a development designated through regulation, would be exempt from development charges, parkland dedication requirements and community benefit charges.’ Totally opposed to this line of thinking. Read more

Comment ID

81050

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
AMO’s Submission to Proposed Planning Act and Development Charges Act, 1997 Changes: Providing Greater Cost Certainty for Municipal Development-related Charges AMO Submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on: ERO 019-6172 December 9, 2022   Preamble Read more

Comment ID

81054

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Bill 23 would jeopardize the ability of municipalities to use development charges as intended – to gather funds for large infrastructure projects to accommodate and support growth. It would do this by requiring municipalities to spend or allocate 60 per cent of reserve funds each year. Read more

Comment ID

81058

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
Do not proceed with this plan unless environmental protections for wetland and affordable housing terms are present. Ontario should not stand for anything less.

Comment ID

81086

Commenting on behalf of

Individual

Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses
I believe the proposed changes do a disservice to Ontarians by reducing opportunities to spend time in nature, and by decreasing contributions to biodiversity conservation. Read more