Region of Waterloo Official Plan

[Viewfromthe42]

Our local experience would show you a good example of this. Woolwich isn't the kind of place that wants a Wal-Mart, but it sees that Wal-Mart wants to be near Waterloo. So it lets them build on the border with Waterloo, giving Woolwich control and tax benefits. Especially if you're a small population with a large land area, and an employer wants to access your area, it's no longer about only should you gain the tax revenue and not your neighbour, but should you get to decide where to pollute and not your neighbour.

And this bill allows the lowest levels to decide, so Woolwich council passes this, and the Region of Waterloo council can't do anything.

[tomh009]

So do municipal bylaws override the regional ones?

[Pheidippides]

If any municipality refuses to pass an "open for business" by-law that takes advantage of the new gaping holes created by the new provincial legislation they would then be put on the province's naughty list and can expect reduced or no provincial funding for local initiatives.

[Spokes]

If a municipality didn't pass such a bylaw, could they be taken to the OMB/LPAT (or whatever it is now) that they SHOULD have it?

[tomh009]

If a municipality didn't pass such a bylaw, could they be taken to the OMB/LPAT (or whatever it is now) that they SHOULD have it?

I don't think so. My reading of the proposed legislation just gives municipalities the ability to do so, it does not require them to do it.

[Pheidippides]

I could see a developer challenging it on the basis of, "well municipality X has an open for business zoning by-law that frees us of regulatory burden therefore, region Y who does not have an open for business zoning by-law, is placing undue, excessive, and unfair burden upon us."

Am I reading the proposed law correctly that it also gets rid of density bonusing/trade-offs?

[Spokes]

As in it makes them not allowed?

[tomh009]

I could see a developer challenging it on the basis of, "well municipality X has an open for business zoning by-law that frees us of regulatory burden therefore, region Y who does not have an open for business zoning by-law, is placing undue, excessive, and unfair burden upon us."

Am I reading the proposed law correctly that it also gets rid of density bonusing/trade-offs?

Given that every municipality has different zoning rules and different areas zoned differently, I don't think you'd get very far with that legal challenge (in Canadian courts).

Where did you see the reference to bonusing in the proposed legislation? I read through it but did not spot it.

[Pheidippides]

I first came across a reference to it in this Twitter rant.

The new law, Bill 66, Restoring Ontario's Competitiveness Act, 2018 states that,
"...
Non-application of listed provisions

(6) The following provisions [of the Planning Act] do not apply to an open-for-business planning by-law:
....
5. Section 37
..."


And section 37 of the planning act refers to density bonusing:
"Increased density, etc., provision by-law
37 (1) The council of a local municipality may, in a by-law passed under section 34, authorize increases in the height and density of development otherwise permitted by the by-law that will be permitted in return for the provision of such facilities, services or matters as are set out in the by-law."

[tomh009]

So it basically says the city could allow increased height or density without corresponding concessions by the developer. In reality, the city council can already do that today (and sometimes does).

[Pheidippides]

From TVO.org:
"And Bill 66 doesn’t simply bypass environmental and planning law — municipalities will not be required to notify the public or hold public hearings about “open for business” zoning bylaws. This raises an alarming prospect: a municipal council could, if its own procedural bylaws allowed it, introduce a motion in the middle of a council meeting — not permitting time for public questions or debate — vote in favour of it, and then send it off to the minister for approval. Such a bylaw would not be subject to appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (formerly the Ontario Municipal Board) and could come into force 20 days later."


From Environmental Registry of Ontario:
The proposed regulation would also:

• require confirmation that the proposal is for a new major employment use;
  
• require evidence that the proposal would meet a minimum job creation threshold (e.g. 50 jobs for municipalities with a population of less than 250,000 people, or 100 jobs for municipalities with a population of more than 250,000 people);
  
• identify the uses of land, buildings or structures that may be authorized by the tool, such as manufacturing and research and development, but not residential, commercial or retail as the primary use;
  
• prescribe how notice is to be given to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing following the passing of an open-for-business by-law (similar to how the Minister is notified following the passing of a zoning by-law – e.g. email and personal service).
  

[MacBerry]

If a municipality didn't pass such a bylaw, could they be taken to the OMB/LPAT (or whatever it is now) that they SHOULD have it?

I don't think so. My reading of the proposed legislation just gives municipalities the ability to do so, it does not require them to do it.

Most of what they intend to do if Bill 66 passes will be by "regulation" which can and will change everything at the stroke of a pen on a Friday at 6:00 p.m., when the current government wants to. You can see those developer monies flowing into Conservative party funds to enhance the business of businesses related to "Open For Business" not "For The People"

Ontario gets what it voted for ... CONs govern by sloganeering

[timio]

Good news from the Planning and Works committee agenda for Tuesday:

That
The Regional Municipality of Waterloo not support the Proposed
Amendments to the Planning Act as set out in Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s
Competitiveness Act, 2018 as it fails to adequately protect human health and
safety and in particular the safety of the Region of Waterloo’s drinking water
resources;
And That
if amendments to the Planning Act proceed through Bill 66, Restoring
Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018 that Section 39 of the Clean Water Act,
2006 continue to apply to any proposed by-law;
And That Report PDL-CPL-19-01/PDL-LEG-19/03, dated January 8, 2019, be
submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as The Regional
Municipality of Waterloo’s response to the proposed amendments to the Planning
Act included in Bill 66, Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, 2018.

Still need to see what the cities and municipalities decide to see if we're unanimous in the region.

[jeffster]

Good news from the Planning and Works committee agenda for Tuesday:


Still need to see what the cities and municipalities decide to see if we're unanimous in the region.

....I highly doubt it; for sure Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo will be unanimous, but I for sure see Woolwich, Wilmot and North Dumfries not going along with it. Unsure of Wellesley, but that's only because that township really doesn't touch the 3 cities (it kind of touches Waterloo at one corner, but that's it).

[robdrimmie]

....I highly doubt it; for sure Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo will be unanimous, but I for sure see Woolwich, Wilmot and North Dumfries not going along with it. Unsure of Wellesley, but that's only because that township really doesn't touch the 3 cities (it kind of touches Waterloo at one corner, but that's it).

Why won't the townships support it? I know very little of township politics outside of the Observer's LRT cartoons.