On February 27 Council agenda there is a staff report reviewing the specific implications of Bill 23 on King Township. Since its tabling there have been staff reports reviewing the policy changes included in the bill and general comments as to how it would impact King; and now, here are the specifics. As I have written previously I think Bill 23 is a dangerous piece of legislation as it challenges the ability of municipalities to develop sustainable communities and to protect the environment; furthermore I do not believe it will facilitate building more affordable homes more quickly. But, the legislation is now in force; this report reviews the impact and very importantly indicates possible mitigation actions that we can take.
The severe curtailment of the conservation authorities ability to comment on development applications is very serious. This policy change is particularly significant for King as there is still a lot of development happening in greenfield areas ( i.e. where it is still natural) and King has a landscape which we are proud of because of it natural features. I totally agree with proposal to engage with third parties to provide the ecological expertise. I am curious as to how we will do this. For example we have contracted with engineering firms to be our consultants as required; will we do this or will we do it on a case by case basis?
The changes to the Ontario Heritage Act are very significant given we say that we are” proud of our cultural heritage” in numerous documents, including Our King, our official plan. I concur that additional resources are required. There is the work to designate the selected priority properties as reviewed in the report; in addition I anticipate that there will be more inquiries from property owners seeking to understand their options to de-list. King needs to act quickly to secure additional resources as most municipalities are in a similar situation as King; to say that we have 166 listed properties is not unusual if you scan the situation across Ontario.
There are profound changes to the Planning Act.
- Meaningful public engagement is being curtailed. e.g. 3rd party appeals to Committee of Adjustment are no longer permitted. Statutory public meetings for draft plan of subdivisions are no longer required. I am happy to see that our Staff have committed to holding the latter with exception. I believe that the exception would be that relevant public meetings were held for Official Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw amendments.
- The scope of site plan control is being limited: only permitted for residential developments with 10 or more units; plans and drawings related to exterior design and landscaping cannot be required by municipality. Staff has already taken action to address the inability to have site plan control for residential development in the Oak Ridges Moraine with the Provincial Plans Conformity Review Process which Council approved February 6; and are considering how to do same in Greenbelt area.
- Additional residential units (up to three) are permitted as of right to existing residential units. This is one policy change which has my support. I believe there is need for an effective communication plan as to how to execute this e.g. role of building services etc.
As already commented by many the modifications to parkland are shocking given that the importance of our parks was clearly demonstrated during the pandemic. And its ironic that as we seek to build more houses for more people that we say that we need 50% less parkland than we used to required. As to how this is going to impact King is not clear yet, but work is underway to understand and incorporate into masterplan.
Bill 23 includes updates to Ontario Wetland Evaluation System. Given King’s landscape the impact of this will likely be huge. As “the gun is at our head” I concur with the recommendation to develop a Wetland Offset Program. I want to know how we will do this; how will we fund the work to develop it. As one of the values of a wetland is flood mitigation how will we address the loss of such at the original location of the wetland.
Financial Considerations
- Since the tabling of Bill 23 there have been frequent media reports of municipalities identifying the loss of revenues due to the change in development charges (DCs). As reviewed in the report impact on King could be $3-4 million per year over the next 10 years. And as other municipalities have said, without a new funding source municipalities will have to make up the difference through increased taxes or a reduction in service. To date the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing says that municipalities will be whole but has offered no information as to how this will occur. I think our Staff’s plan to monitor is the right action at this point.
- The financial impact of Bill 23 is not only the change in DC’s. As noted in the report additional resources are required because of changes to Ontario Heritage Act. Possibly will need resources for the Wetland Offset Program. I believe that it is assumed that the resources we will contract with to replace the expertise of the Conservation Authorities will be charged back to the proponents. Also I gather it is being assumed that we will not lose revenues because of failure to meet deadlines.
As always you can make comments or ask questions about this report. Contact clerks@king.ca to register for making a deputation and/or send in your comments by email to clerks@king.ca by noon on Monday February 6 and they will be circulated to Council. And I welcome you to contact me directly or make a comment on my blog.
I am an environmentalist, a conservationist and a responsible citizen who cares about our community. I want to protect the GreenBelt to the fullest extent possible with one exception: if Southlake Regional Health Center would be interested in selecting the plot of land on Mill Road between Bathurst and Dufferin or thereabouts, I would be in favour of forfeiting some of the Greenbelt for that purpose. If it comes attached with the development of 6000 housing units on that important protected land, I would not be in favour. People need to realize we have aquifers that feed Toronto’s residents. To jeopardize that is foolish, short-sighted, and uninformed at best, wanton greed at worst.
Putting the cost of conservation expertise onto the developers is a conflict of interest…haven’t we always been suspicious of developers doing their own envir. assessments!
The whole thing is a tragedy for
municipalities AND all the things we should be doing to prevent, as best we can, the ravages on our environment
from the climate crisis. I doubt those two words were mentioned even once in Bill 23. Very sad.
Hi Mary, The intent is for King, in the absence of conservation authorities expertise, to hire 3rd party and that the costs of such will be recovered from the applicant/proponent. And as indicated this is the plan for now and that there may be future actions and/or staffing recommendations.
Debbie, as always thank you for the effort and time you take to keep constituents well-informed. Bill 23 certainly challenges municipalities in many areas. I’m especially concerned that robust ecological reviews take place where needed, not by consultants paid by developers but by clearly independent consultants that are not beholden to a proponent. Like you I support the opportunity to see up to three residential units on existing lots with only one unit, providing the design and placement on lots highly respects the character of a neighbourhood, and doesn’t result in more clear-cutting of lots. I’m not supportive of offsetting wetlands, as I’ve read in several places including the Ontario Nature website that offsetting for the most part is not very successful, and take many years to replicate the naturally occurring wetland. I believe we need to do all we can to preserve our wetlands in place. They are connected to other surrounding features and eco-systems. Thank you for reading my comments. JBC
Hi Bruce, To ensure no misunderstanding. If we don’t have the conservation authorities to do the necessary ecological reviews the proposal is for us to hire 3rd party and that the proponent will pay for that. And thank you for your comment about wetlands; I agree, we need to do what we can to keep them where they naturally are.