By Mike Renzella
The Haldimand Press
HALDIMAND—Last week, Haldimand Council got an in-depth look at the many concerns County staff identified for three new pieces of provincial legislation, joining with many other municipalities and organizations in opposing the government’s sweeping development plans aimed at addressing both a growing population and an ongoing affordable housing crisis.
The legislation includes Bill 109, dubbed the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, Bill 23, dubbed the More Homes, Built Faster Act, 2022, and Bill 27, dubbed the Protecting Agricultural Land Act, 2022.
“While Bill 23 is probably the most significant, there are two other pieces of legislation that impact us and what we can do,” said County CAO Craig Manley of the requirements being forced upon the County by the Acts. “If it goes forward in its current iteration, we’re going to have to rethink our financial strategy as it relates to development. We’re going to have to rethink our Capital Program, we’re going to have to develop new ways of doing business that will ensure that our taxpayers, to the extent possible, are protected from having to subsidize development.”
He continued, “There are a number of changes that are going through this, such as removing appeal rights, limiting the types of development that can be looked at from site plans, the fiscal impact. This is fundamentally changing the way we’ve done business over the decades.”
In a comprehensive overview prepared by Manager of Planning and Development Shannon VanDalen and General Manager of Financial and Data Services Mark Merritt, County staff laid out some of the changes.
Haldimand County’s concerns with Bill 109
- The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can now “stop the clock” on the 120-day timeline for ministry approval on official plan matters. Minister Steve Clark used this new ability to suspend the timeframe related to their review of Haldimand’s recent Official Plan Update.
- Site plan approvals must now be delegated to staff, with no Council involvement, and must be approved within 60 days, with municipalities unable to deny or refuse approval. A full refund of fees is required if the 60-day window is missed.
- Municipalities will now be forced to refund fees to developers if decisions on official plan amendments related to zoning do not meet set deadlines. Any decision made past 90 days carries a 50% refund, 150 days a 75% refund, and after 210 days a full refund. The report indicated currently about 40% of such amendments would require some refund, resulting in potentially substantial losses of revenue for the County.
Manager of Planning and Development Mike Evers noted that the refund timelines have a six-month delay in starting, allowing counties time to adjust processes to meet the expedited timelines. Evers said the County could be penalized for issues beyond their control, having to provide refunds even if the delay is the fault of the developers or Ministry, and he hopes to see “some safeguards in place … against abuse by applicants or developers.”
Haldimand County concerns with Bill 23
- Removal of Conservation Authorities’ ability to review or comment on planning applications, opening up potential development in wetlands and regulated areas.
- Changes to the Development Charges Act, requiring full exemption from development charges for affordable and attainable residential units. Currently, the County does not recognize these exemptions and an amendment would be required to conform.
- All new rates must be phased in over a five-year period, with the report stating that lost revenues would need to be recovered from property taxes.
- Eliminating the ability for third parties to appeal Planning Act changes, and only allowing “specified persons”, defined as public bodies like Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, and railway and telecommunications operators to make appeals.
- An expansion of development forms exempted from site plan control, including any development of 10 units or less. This includes critical elements such as design of grading/drainage, stormwater management, lighting, etc., in addition to a loss of architectural control leading to a “significant impact on the overall quality and aesthetic appeal of new developments in the county.”
- The County’s Parkland Dedication Bylaw, enacted last May, currently allows the County to require a conveyance of parkland as a condition of approval for development of subdivisions or condominiums, ensuring sufficient greenspace for residential areas. Under Bill 23, a developer can now include encumbered lands, not suitable for public use, to fulfill this obligation.
“Encumbered lands can include anything from easements, perhaps a hydro corridor with infrastructure running over top right on through to flood plains or swamps,” explained Evers. He noted there may be an appeal process for municipalities, but its usefulness remains unknown. “What that looks like is still being built out…. Developers will, in a sense, be in the driver’s seat in terms of what they identify and attempt to convey to municipalities.”
Haldimand County concerns with Bill 27
- If the bill receives Royal Assent, like Bills 109 and 23, municipalities will not be able to pass a zoning bylaw that changes the uses permitted on agricultural land until an impact assessment is completed. The County report notes this would impact the County’s ability to make decisions on secondary farm uses, which they currently do using OMAFRA guidelines for On-Farm diversified uses.
Following the report, Council sounded off on the legislation. Councillor Dan Lawrence called the public process the “basis of transparency,” bemoaning the loss of control over how new developments will look. He said it is “not a good move for any of our communities with old areas that could potentially just have these new, modern boxes just go up instead of us being able to make the developer blend in.”
Councillor Rob Shirton is waiting for more information before making any judgements, adding, “Don’t think worst case…. I’m sure there’s more coming out and it’s not going to be the way we’re assuming it is. Ford is just gathering information.… He’s going to roll back, at least that’s my assumption.”
Councillor Natalie Stam said she expects pushback from the community.
“If you’re going to make people who weren’t really comfortable with change in the first place pay for that change, it’s not going to go over well,” she said. “I realize that the Province has said we would be made whole, ensuring municipalities receive the funding that would normally come from development charges…. We would be looked at in our good financial position and we might not be accommodated in the way we otherwise would be.”
Mayor Shelley Ann Bentley will construct a letter to Minister Steve Clark on behalf of the County.
“We really need to lobby the province with other municipalities. We need to get together and have a very strong voice and say, ‘No, we are against this’. Saying no is okay, because that is going to make them change maybe a little bit of the legislation,” she said. “Just like the education workers lobbied against the government, all the municipalities in Ontario need to lobby against Doug Ford, absolutely…. I’m so concerned about the public input they are going to take away from our residents to be able to come forward with questions and concerns.”
Bentley’s letter is part of a draft motion, voted for unanimously by Council, which tasks the government with reviewing the legislation and listening to the concerns of Ontario’s municipalities.
