An Act Replacing OMB

Jan 7, 2018 | The Issues | 4 comments

On Jan. 8th Council agenda there is a staff report reviewing implications of Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watershed Act.  (This is the Act which eliminates Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).)The Act provides a framework whereby those who hear appeals of Council decisions on land use applications are required to give much more regard to the policies of the local municipalities.  Other changes include restriction on what can be appealed and how the appeal is actually carried out with an objective of making the process shorter.  A critical aspect of the Act is the plan for transitioning to it:    I am in full agreement with the Staff recommendation on feedback on the transition plan except I would like to see our rationale for a different transition schedule to be stronger.

The proposed transition plan essentially “rewards” all the proponents who have registered appeals since May 2017 when the possibility of significantly modifying the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) scope and process was announced.  Since then many proponents have registered appeals at the first opportunity with the hope that doing so would give them right to have the appeal heard under current OMB rules which is exactly what the proposed transition does.  Given what I have observed over the last 7 years it is very evident that registration of appeals has occurred far more quickly than was done previously.  As the intent of Bill 139 is to give more authority to the local municipality and to reduce costs and time the proposed transition schedule is very disappointing.  With proposed transition plans it will be several years before appeals are consistent with the objectives of Bill 139.

To date, it has received Royal Assent but is still not proclaimed which is forcasted for spring 2018.

4 Comments

  1. Mike Shackleford

    Hi Debbie,

    One has to question the Provincial government’s true commitment to ending the OMB’s autocratic and arbitrary reign.

    It would seem that the creation of the LPAT maybe more a PR gesture to appease irate citizens than a wish to actually curtail over development or inappropriate development.

    Its a very clever maneuver. The Province dictate to the Regional governments as to the parameters of future planning; the Regional government dictates to the Municipality as to the parameters of the local Official Plan and once the OP is signed off by the Municipality it is locked into place and negotiation or protest becomes invalid.

    A major policy of the Provincial government is Smart Growth, and within that policy is the subject of intensification. Its actually the “meat” of the whole policy and what it does is give developers a means to proceed with business as normal. The LPAT will in fact hinder any protest from citizens and actually support all development that meets intensification goals set down in the OP, whether they are appropriate or not.

    As autocratic as the OMB was there was still a semblance of democracy at work. Admittedly it was often weighted in the developer’s favour but there was an avenue for discussion and a means to persuade that a development was inappropriate.

    My feeling is that the LPAT will actually close the door more than the OMB ever did.

    It is vital that the draft King OP be examined in minute detail before Council signs off on it. The draft presently has contradictions and unexplained anomalies within it that need to be clarified before ink touches paper.

    Regards,

    Mike

    Reply
    • Debbie

      Hi Mike, In many respects I have similar concerns. I have forwarded to Planning your earlier comment about boundary anomalies. I do hope that you will forward any other “issues” that you observe when you are reviewing the draft OP. Agree that the OP must be scrutinized before approving.

      Reply
  2. Mike Shackleford

    Hi Debbie,

    In reviewing the draft of the new King Township Official Plan, it occurred to me that there seemed to be logic and clarity lacking in some of the figures submitted by Meridian Planning regarding future development in Schomberg. I question if some of these numbers were constructed for effect rather than with any true understanding of the geography of the community.

    For example, the draft indicates that between 2016 and 2031 Schomberg’s population will grow by 300 persons. It states that there will be 120 new single/semi homes, 80 townhouses and 10 apartments for a total of 210 new units. Now, assuming that the minimum home will consist of two persons, that means the population will surely grow by approximately 420 persons, yet the forecast only estimates 300.

    I then tried to figure out where these 210 new units were going to be built.

    ……another 126 units will have been created through intensification. Were the occupants of these units created through intensification counted in the population forecast figure of 300?

    ……….. one has to wonder where all 126 proposed units through intensification are going to go.

    Ironically, most of the proposed intensification area is located on a floodplain. Although the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources and King Township have established a designation for this core area as a Special Policy Area that permits a higher level of risk to flooding than is normally acceptable under Provincial Policy, this concession was only given due to the fact that the original core of the Village was already located on the floodplain. Surely compounding this anomaly by encouraging increased population density is at best foolhardy and with climate change a reality, actually dangerous.

    Regards,

    Mike

    Reply
    • Debbie

      Hi Mike,We all benefit from the scrutiny you are giving to the draft OP. I have forwarded your whole comment to Planning. For this blog I have edited it somewhat to reduce length; I hope this is acceptable to you. The only thing that I can comment on is that I suspect why 210 units don’t equal 420 person is that numbers/unit are <2 persons. I recall this being brought up earlier. Your point about intensification in the flood plain is very good and it is something we need to challenge.

      Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *