HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-501 - Bill 23 More Homes Built Faster Act - Kitchener Comments
DevelopmentServices Departmentwww.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Special Council
DATE OF MEETING: December 12, 2022
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy & Research, 519-741-2200 ext. 7648
Ryan Hagey, Director, Finance Planning and Reporting, 519-741-
2200 ext. 7353
Garett Stevenson, Interim Director Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070
WARD(S) INVOLVED: ALL
DATE OF REPORT: December 8, 2022
REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-501
SUBJECT: Bill 23 More Homes Built Faster Act Kitchener Comments
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to prepare an implementation action plan for Bill 23, More Homes Built
Faster Act, 2022, as well as other recently approved Provincial legislation, including Bill 13,
Supporting People and Businesses Act, 2021, and Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act,
2022, and to report back to Council on, or before, June 26, 2023.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of Bill 23 and related Environmental Registry
of Ontario (ERO) .
Bill 23 was approved and received Royal Assent on November 28.
Kitchener continues to be a leader in Ontario and has already undertaken some of the work that
Bill 23 seeks to achieve through its Development Services Review, Affordable Housing
-law permitting additional residential units (e.g.,
tiny homes) on more than 25,000 residential lots across the city.
Staff comments and questions on Bill 23 were submitted to the Province on November 23 and
were focused in the areas of Development Charges and Park land Dedication; coordination of
planning responsibilities; Site Plan authority; natural heritage responsibilities; and cultural
heritage.
Staff have identified a development charge (DC) revenue loss of at least $40 million over the
next 10 years due to changes advanced through Bill 23.
Staff have identified a park land reduction of at least 50%, and up to 85% in high density type
developments. Bill 23 has the potential to reduce anticipated cash-in-lieu of park land by
approximately $10 to $17 million annually. Additionally, park conveyances are appealable to the
Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) giving the OLT the authority to require the City to accept
encumbered, leased, or strata lands as public park land.
It would require a property tax increase of 10% or more to fund the losses to the community
associated with Bill 23.
Staff are continuing to monitor budget implications of Bill 23 as part of the 2024 and subsequent
budget processes. Additionally, through ongoing process improvement discussions, staff will
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
continue to assess necessary changes to site plan review process, the cultural
heritage policy planning work plan
and deliverables.
This report supportsthe delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
On October 25, 2022 the Province tabled Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, for comment. The
original commenting period for some ERO postings was planned to end on November 24, 2022, but
was extended to December 9, 2022. However, Bill 23 received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022,
prior to the comment period closing. This report provides an overview of Bill 23 and other related
Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) postings
the Province on November 23, 2022 (Attachment A). There were additional ERO postings made at
the same time as those mentioned above (e.g., changes to the greenbelt) which are not applicable
to lands within the City of Kitchener and as such have not been commented on by staff. An additional
two ERO posti
Staff continues to review these postings and will provide technical comments prior to the closing of
comments on December 30, 2022.
REPORT:
On October 25, 2022 the Province tabled Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, for comment. Bill 23
received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022 and amends the following acts:
Development Charges Act, 1997 This Act allows municipalities to pass by-laws to collect
money to pay for certain increased capital costs needed as a result of growth.
Planning Act, 1990 This act sets out rules of land use planning and describes how land use
may be controlled and who may control land.
Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 This Act sets out the rules and procedures of the Provincial
appeal body, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). The OLT hears appeals on a variety of matters
including land use matters.
Conservation Authorities Act, 1990 This Act establishes conservation authorities and their
ability to delivery programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development,
and management of natural resources in watersheds.
Ontario Heritage Act, 1990 This Act provides the framework for the identification and protection
of cultural heritage resources and archaeological resources. The Act also gives the province and
municipalities powers to identify and protect properties and areas of cultural heritage value or
interest.
Additionally, a series of companion postings were made to the ERO on October 25 amending
existing regulations and guidelines and proposing a new regulation. These include:
New regulation for Development for the Protection of People and Property from Natural Hazards
in Ontario This regulation proposes to govern activities that require permits under the
Conservation Authorities Act suggesting that permits focus on flooding and other natural hazards
and the protection of people and property.
Updates to the Additional Residential Units Regulation This regulation implements additional
residential units (including tiny homes) provisions of the Planning Act.
Updates to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulation This regulation implements inclusionary zoning
provisions of the Planning Act.
Updates to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) The OWES is the Provincial
procedure that is used to determine significant wetlands and their boundaries.
Attachment A is a fulsome summary of the changes to the Acts and regulations outline above as
is the result of a
collaborative review of Bill 23 by staff from across the corporation including Legal Services; Financial
Planning and Reporting; Building; Engineering; Planning; Parks and Cemeteries;and Sanitary and
Stormwater Utilities. The final submission was provided through the relevant ERO postings on
November 23.
Kitchener continues to be a leader in Ontario and has already undertaken some of the work that Bill
23 seeks to achieve:
The City has prioritized continuous improvement through the Development Services Review
(DSR) which resulted in the creation of a customer-informed workplan that included 18 lean
improvement projects know as Kaizens involving over 111 staff. Additionally, projects are
underway to implement recommendations from the provincially funded 2021 KPMG report on
Digital Transformation as well as through Streamlining Development Approvals provincial
funding awarded earlier this year to continue to refine our processes. Staff continue to explore
opportunities for process improvements and streaming the development approvals process as
part of the implementation of Bill 109.
Kitchener Council recently approved a $2 million fund to pay development charges for affordable
land dedication bylaw,
exempted parkland dedication requirements for affordable housing. Bill 23 makes affordable
housing projects exempt from development charges and parkland dedication.
In 2021, Kitchener was one of the first municipalities in Ontario to update its zoning by-law to
allow for additional dwelling units (tiny houses) on over 25,000 lots. To date Kitchener has
received 37 applications for additional dwelling units with some already occupied.
Staff outlined several areas of concern and proposed questions to the Province through the ERO
submission (Attachment A). These are:
Development Charge Framework
Bill 23 includes changes in development charge (DC) eligible items, effective November 28, such as
no longer being able to fund growth related studies and land acquisition. Under Bill 23 staff have
estimated a DC revenue loss totaling at least $40 million over the next 10 years. This includes:
$14.6 million due to growth related studies being removed as a DC eligible service
$7.65 million due to land acquisitions being removed as a DC eligible cost
$17M due to new DC rates being phased-in over multiple years
Additional DC revenue losses will also occur but cannot be calculated at this time. The two additional
areas resulting in DC revenue loss relate to:
Attainable housing being exempt from DCs (no definition of attainable housing provided)
DC discounts for purpose-built rental housing (will require detailed analysis of forecasted
construction starts based on typology)
These changes will to supply infrastructure in a timely and coordinated
manner to support growth.
balance of $25M at the end of 2022), as it saves up for significant planned growth-related capital
expenses in the near future. Upcoming DC expenses in the near future include:
$40M for an indoor aquatic facility (2023-2025)
$39M for an indoor turf field (2023-2025)
$20M for Upper Hidden Valley Sewage Pumping Station (2023-2024)
$18M for Strasburg Road South & Watermain (2023-2025)
$15M for an additional fire hall (2023-2025)
These major expenses (in addition to smaller items that make up the entirety of the DC funded capital
program) are already projected to drive the DC reserve into deficit as early as 2024 and remain there
until 2032. The graph below shows the projected balance of the DC reserve turning from a surplus
position to a deficit position over the next five years before any impacts from Bill 23.
Development Charges Reserve Fund Projected Yearend Balance (2022-2027)
in deficit or more likely cause the City to delay the delivery of important growth-related
infrastructure projects. Kitchener does not have surplus funds in the DC reserve fund that
are not allocated to a future project.
Parkland Dedication Framework
and alongside it adopted two updated documents relating to Park Dedication The Park Dedication
By-Law and Council Policy. Spaces (2022) establishes the target local park provision at 10 square
meters of park space per person, linked directly to the current average provision and maximizing
park dedication contributions under the Planning Act.
Under Bill 23, all types of park dedication will be reduced by 50% and reductions could be as high
as 85% for higher density developments. This change effectively halves the alternative rates in the
Planning Act, resulting in a minimum 50% reduction of park land in all future development. The result
is a reduction in total park dedication equivalent to 6.7 square meters per person in new community
development (i.e., subdivisions) and 4 square meters per person in established communities (i.e.,
site plan development).
Further reductions are levied onto park dedication through the use of a land area cap. Under Bill 23,
the City can now take park land up to 10% of the land for developments less than 5 hectares and
15% for developments greater than 5 hectares. The cap does not factor into new community
developments maintaining the 6.7 square meter per person average expected park land provision.
The cap at the highest density ranges in existing communities will reduce park land by up to 85%
and provide near zero park land provisions at the highest density range.
Direct cash-in-lieu of parkland revenue loss is anticipated between $10M -$17M annually, with
initial longer term revenue loss estimates of between $200M-$340M over 20 years.
The result will be park land being provided at a substantially reduced provision rates relative
or park land that is relegated to otherwise undevelopable lands
if available at all, particularly in critical needs communities.
Bill 23 also proposes a system in which developers have the means to propose encumbered, leased,
or strata portions of their development. If the City does not accept these lands as park land, the
decision is appealable to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) by the developer. The OLT has the
authority to require the municipality to accept these lands as park land, regardless of any by-law or
policy in place. The City maintains its position that strata parks, privately owned public spaces
(POPS) or leased properties, are not equivalent to publicly owned park property. It has been
demonstrated across North America that privately owned public spaces are not maintained
consistently or as equitably compared to public parks. The proposal of potentially dozens of
fractured, undesirable park spaces will continue to reduce overall provisions that are being reduced
by up to 85% by this Bill. While the provision is a concern, the ability of the OLT to mandate the
taking of lands that are categorically unsuitable as park land has potential long-term implications to
quality, and even public nature of parks in Kitchener and Ontario will be negatively impacted by this
proposed change.
Th
service levels are expected to decline significantly as the City continues to grow. This is particularly
problematic in intensification areas where smaller units are being built and residents will increasingly
rely on public amenity space as part of their quality of life.
has been appealed and is proceeding through the Ontario Land Tribunal process, staff are seeking
clarification from the Province on how Bill 23 changes are to be implemented given the lack of
transition clauses in the legislation.
Regional Planning Authorities
Bill 23 removes planning responsibilities from select upper-tier municipalities including the Region
of Waterloo. These changes are not yet in effect. Additionally, on November 16 the Province
announced that provincial facilitators will be appointed to work with select regional governments,
including the Region of Waterloo and lower-tier governments within the Region, to assess the best
mix of roles and responsibilities between upper and lower-tier governments. Staff see merit in a
jurisdiction. Coordination of growth in geographic areas with shared interests and infrastructure, like
groundwater/sourcewater protection, wastewater and water treatment, natural heritage, and transit
is beneficial. Coordination will assist with continuing to balance increasing housing supply while
maintaining agricultural lands for needed food supply and protecting and conserving lands that are
an integral part of our watershed and natural heritage system that cross municipal boundaries.
Site Plan Exemption
Bill 23 excludes buildings of 10 units or less from site plan control. Further, Bill 23 excludes exterior
design matters including character, scale, appearance, and design features. Excluding these types
of developments and matters from site plan control has impli
mitigate matters related to parking lots, grading (property drainage), building design and
appearance, and new servicing. Staff has successfully worked with applicants through its site plan
process to improve site design and eliminate off-site impacts. Staff are continuing to understand the
implications of this change and may need to implement new Building Permit review processes in
early 2023.
Natural heritage system review/evaluation jurisdiction
Bill 23 limits the role of the GRCA to matters related to natural hazards and will no longer permit
memorandum of understandings (MOUs) for services. Kitchener works in partnership with the
Region of Waterloo and GRCA on matters related to natural hazards and natural heritage to ensure
a consistent streamlined approach to conservation, enhancement, and restoration. Bill 23 presents
challenges in ensuring a cross municipal, consistent approach to the conservation, protection, and
restoration of natural heritage systems.
Cultural heritage register and designation
Among the changes within Bill 23 are changes to the timing of the review and addition of properties
to heritage registers. This change requires the evaluation and designation process to be complete
for all cultura-year timeframe which will be
challenging to achieve.
Ontario Land Tribunal
Changes introduced to the Ontario land Tribunal Act through Bill 23 include, among other things, the
ability for the Ontario
costs. Currently, costs are rarely awarded by the OLT. This change, combined with development
application timeline changes introduced earlier this year through Bill 109 will have the effect of putting
pressure on approval authorities to make quick decisions and to resolve matters outside of the OLT.
Staff are continuing to monitor and assess the implications of the implementation of Bill 23. Budget
and resource implications will be considered as part of the 2024 and subsequent budget processes.
Bill 109, More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022
On November 20, 2022, Minister Steve Clark indicated that the Provincial government will introduce
legislation that, if passed, would delay the implementation of development application refund
requirements set out in Bill 109 by six months, from January 1, 2023 to July 1, 2023. Staff will
continue to monitor for this legislation.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports the delivery of core services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The
a 10-year timeframe. The estimated impacts of Bill 23 on DC revenues over the next 10 years is at
least a $40M loss (over 10% of projected revenues). These impacts are summarized in the table
below. Additional DC revenue losses are possible as staff continues to understand how Bill 23 is
intended to be implemented.
DC Act ChangesFinancial Impact (Preliminary)
1. Phasing of DC rates$17M
2. Study Related Costs$15M
3. Land Acquistion Costs$8M
4. Exemptions of DCs for "attainable" housingNot Calculated
5. Discount for purpose built rental unitsNot Calculated
Total$40M
Notes:
1. Full DC rates to be phased in over 5 years (80% yr 1, 85% yr 2, 90% yr 3, 95% yr 4)
2. Growth related studies have been eliminated as an eligible DC service
3. Land acquisition costs may no longer be eligible to be funded by DCs
4. DC exemptions for "attainable" housing (attainable has not been defined)
5. Discounts to be provided for purpose built units, with higher discounts for larger units
In addition, parkland dedication (land) and cash-in-lieu contributions will be reduced by at least 50%
with current anticipated cash-in-lieu loses estimated at approximately $10 to $17M annually. The
land funding as part of Bill 23 is a loss of revenue
between $200M-$340M over 20 years.
To illustrate the impact of these changes. At the low end, the impact of the reduction to development
charges and cash-in-lieu of parkland is $14M annually. A 1% inc
generates $1.4M. Therefore, it would require a property tax increase of 10% or more to fund the
losses to the community associated with Bill 23.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM website with the agenda in advance of the
council / committee meeting.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Development Charges Act, 1997
Planning Act, 1990
Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021
Conservation Authorities Act, 1990
Ontario Heritage Act, 1990
REVIEWED BY: Katherine Hughes, Assistant City Solicitor
Mark Parris, Landscape Architect
APPROVED BY: Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer
Denise McGoldrick, General Manager Infrastructure Services
Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services
Dan Chapman, Chief Administrative Officer
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A City of Kitchener Comments on Bill 23 More Homes Built
Faster Act and Related October 25, 2022 ERO Postings
1
t
c
A
r
Strategy,
e
t
s
a
, where
F
6172)
t
-
l
i
u
B
and policy documents
s
e
m
o
H
(ERO posting 019
e
, regulations,
r
o
ilding Code
M
3
on the following ERO postings
legislation
2
l
l
i
B
n
o
r the City, but the specific impact is unknown.
s
t
n
e
m
City of Kitchener Comments and QuestionsDevelopment Charges Act, 1997, Comments Kitchener appreciates the addition of definitions for affordable rental and affordable ownership housing
as this will assist with determining what developments are exempt. in line with the proposed DC exemptions for affordable housing projects outlined in Bill 23. DC exemptions for
other housing forms proposed will decrease DC revenues fo Questions of clarification A definition of attainable housing is recommended to provide clarity on this proposed DC exemption.
Additionally, clarification is sought on what is meant by the following criteria listed in the description of attainable
m
o
C
r
proposed changes to various
e
n
e
h
xisting lot)
c
s
Additional comments may be provided
e
relevant
t
i
g
K an
n
i
f
t
s
o
6172)
-
o
y
p
t
i
2
C
O
2
-
R 0
1
2
E
,
0
t
2
5
c
and third units on
-
2
A
2
0
r
2
2 e
(ERO posting 019
t
,
0
s
5 a
2
(second
-
F
2
:
)
t
D
l
s
r
i
S
e
u
:
DC
D
B
b
s
o
o
ERO postings tabled October 25, 2022.
t e
t
c
m
updates to the regulation of development for the protection of people and property from natural hazards in Ontario
A
the
o
O
t
H
d
n
e
e
t a later date
r
e
t
o
profit housing
a
-
m
l
M
Proposed Review of A Place to Grow and Provincial Policy Statement
h
e
:
r
c
3
Affordable rental housing (defined)Affordable ownership housing (defined)Attainable housing (not defined, criteria provided)NonInclusionary zoning unitsResidential rental additions in
buildings greater than 4 unitsAdditional dwelling units
a
2
d
t
l
l
t
n
i
Proposed Amendment and What it MeansDevelopment Charges Act, 1997, Development Charge exemptions The following types of residential units will be exempt from paying Development Charges
(
Aa contained within warranted, a B
,
built
have
to
2
be
rthervenues
from
rates
u
f
slow the
to
the City
alternative
it should
does not
DC re
already
significant
may
in
full DC
instead of June
while
(
is proposed
who
infrastructure
which
Should
.
it
,
and offsets from
of
require
2022
less housing
, adopted bylaw
at a minimum
tomers
. The current proposal will and
s
,
housing
based on the
cu
communities
allowing
place
ty. Alternative revenue sources
for
January 1
construction
reduction of $17M
stituted
is passed
to
.
a
23
:
lack of adequate funding
nit was developed as part of a prescribed
rebates
the supply of
incomplete
/
their projects
will need to be explored.delay the
currently in
DC
collected
,
(On November 21, 2022)
would be
tax funded infrastructure
This will
and
23
retroactively
DC framework provides for the ability to freeze DC
serviced
impact
be available
impact
apply
DC bylaws
determine
not after the date Bill
he
in
in period.
-
would
-
rovision is going to be in
. T
unintended consequence of
DC funds to be
of governmentslegislative
necessary infrastructure to support growth
in p
the goal of increasing
for
-
the
phase
which
2022
having poorly
,
levels
amendment to Bill
Reduce DC revenues required to support new housing units Have andwaits
2022)
,
City of Kitchener Comments and QuestionsComments The proposed changes in DC eligible items does not reduce the need of infrastructure required to support growth, but rather moves us
including the potential for other revenue sourcesdelivery of align with In anhave the 1May 30over the phase If a phasecome into effect negatively impactadministration to chosen to move
forward with being charged. The current rates enabling developers to pay at existing rates as long as they move
an
proved that changes the
related studies) are proposed to be removed
-
proposed to be phased in starting at 80% in
It is our understanding that on November 21, 2022
Proposed Amendment and What it MeansEligible capital costs Certain studies (i.e. growthfrom the list of DC eligible capital costs. New DC rate increases are year 1 and increasing by
5% per year for each year thereafter for DC bylaws that are approve after June 1, 2022. Note amendment to Bill 23 was tabled and apabove date from June 1 to January 1, 2022.
,
3
, such
a more
edundant.
determine that
decrease DC revenues for the City
may
to ensure that cost recovery through DCs
will no longer be DC eligible is needed.
ledges the this may act as an incentive for rental units,
is necessary
municipalities to review and update bylaws more frequently.
with inflation.
s
enables
quent review
igher growth municipalities like Kitchener may
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions ahead with their project within two years. This protects developers from large rate increases making the proposed phase in approach r Questions
of clarification The legislation proposes that growth studies and DC background studies will no longer be DC eligible. Clarification on whether other studiesas EA related studies,Comments
This Hfrekeeps pace Comments Kitchener acknowspecifically larger rental units. Thisbut the specific impact is unknown. Comment Having a prescribed interest rate defined in legislation
will be helpful in ensuring a consistent approach across the province. The proposed interest rate is current rate.Comment Kitchener has made efficient use of its DC reserves that includes
a plan for its expenditure in a planned, timely fashion. This proposed change will add administrative steps to an already efficient process.
15%
or
4
(
for a DC
with units of all
. DCs are
in a unit
units
.
rental housing developments
units
units
any
bedroom
-
based on the number of bedrooms
)
It is our understanding that on November 21, 2022 an
d by:
units
25% for 3+ bedroom20% for 215% for 1 bedroom and bachelorWater, wastewater, and roads
Proposed Amendment and What it MeansDC Bylaw review timeframe Provides for DC bylaws to be reviewed every 10 years instead of 5 years. DCs for rental housing Provides for reduced DC
rates for rental housing developments morereduce Note amendment to Bill 23 was tabled and approved that changes the reduction to apply toother bedroom type compositions Interest rate
A new section is proposed to provide a maximum interest rate rate freeze and deferrals capped at prime plus 1% (to be updated quarterly).DC reserves A new section is proposed that requires
municipalities to spend or allocate at least 60% of DC reserve fund balances each year for
It
al
that
.
4
a
6172)
-
transit
and
geographic
exist to ensure
(ERO posting 019
across large
,
. Depending on the nature of these
6163)
mechanisms
-
l boundaries.
pressing infrastructure needs
that
most
ensure
(ERO posting 019
with shared interests and infrastructure, like
sible growth. Kitchener intends to submit comments
clarification
according to the
/regions
allocate
-
would be beneficial to
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions Questions of re Planning Act, 1990 Comment It coordinated approach to managing growth areasgroundwater/sourcewater protection, natural heritage,
would assist with continuing to balance increasing housing supply while maintaining agricultural lands for needed food supply and protecting and conserving lands that are an integral
part of our watershed and natural heritage system that cross municipa The Province is currently seeking input on a streamlined Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and Growth Plan which
may result in a change in the provincial priorities outlined in the PPSchanges, coupled with the proposed removal of regional coordination of growth, municipalities will be challenged
in delivering planned, deliberate, fiscally responregarding proposed PPS/Growth Plan changes under separate cover. Kitchener currently has delegated planning approval authority for
all application types under the Planning Act with the exception of OfficiPlans and Official Plan amendments and is supportive of further delegation of Official Plan amendments to Kitchener.
There is an opportunity to continue to work with the Province and the Region on streamlining aspects of the development review process currently reside with the Region, like matters
related to noise studies through the establishment of standard requirements or mitigation measures
and
.
6172)
planning
-
s
oversee
remove
tier municipality does
-
would exist alongside
(ERO posting 019
,
the authority to have an Official
(ROP)
e effect of this
6163)
-
Th
.
such as
,
Official Plan
tier municipalities without planning
(Region)
-
tier municipality is the approval authority for
-
tier municipality without planning
-
(ERO posting 019
esponsibilities, which includes Kitchener.
rvices may be prescribed
from the Region
The regulations are pending.
.
Other DC se
cial Plan. The Region
Proposed Amendment and What it Means Planning Act, 1990 Regional Planning Authority jurisdiction Municipality of WaterlooresponsibilitiesPlan and approve planning applications. Offieventually
incorporate into one new Official Plan for KitchenerThe removal of the Region as a planning authority maOfficial Plan and Official Plan amendments subject to ministerial approval. Establishes
that a lowerplanning applications, in areas where the uppernot have planning r Changes related to upperresponsibilities will come into effect on the day that is prescribed in regulation
rd
.
,
tier
-
5
the
Official Plan
.
parties and where 3
becomes an upper
rd
uccessful
As part of this delegation
for Official Plan amendments
Official Plan and
tier planning responsibilities,
-
the Region
tier planning responsibilities to lower
-
y were generally uns
ary to enable discussions of, among other
Waterloo if
the
As drafted, the proposed legislation appoints the
the ability to overrule. Delegation would ensure a
ovals process.
supportive of planning processes that include community
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions An appropriate transition of uppertier municipalities is necessmatters, resource capacity. Kitchener welcomes the delegation of approval authority
of amendments to its Official Plan. Minister as the approval authority for an Amendment, not at the local level, which may increase the time for a decision to be made. Kitchener supports
further delegation fromProvince and from the Region of WaterlooKitchener would want the same permissions and authorities currently delegated to the Region of municipality without planning
responsibilities. notice would be provided of all Official Plan amendments to the Minister who would retainstreamlined appr Questions of clarification To assist with implementation
of upperclarification of what constitutes a planning responsibility is needed. Kitchener is input early and often throughout the planning process prior to a decision. Kitchener has
had a relatively low appeal rate by 3party appeals were filed
anyone who
party appeals).
rd
ded to facilitate
on all new matters
the public meeting (i.e. 3
tier municipalities without planning
-
as part of
planning applications can be appealed by
proposes to remove these types of appeals
a submission
orities are proposed to be removed.
Proposed Amendment and What it MeansAppeal rights the narrowing of appeal rights to the applicant, relevant municipality, minister and certain public bodies. Appeal rights for upperresponsibilities
(e.g. the Region of Waterloo) and Conservation Auth Currently, most made Bill 23
6
he Provincial Policy Statement
early adopters of a new zoning
wide standards for additional units as this
for second and third residential units. The
-
existed
his form of missing middle housing and ensuring rules to
.
here
ound
City of Kitchener Comments and QuestionsComments Kitchener is a leader in establishing land use and zoning permissions for second and third units on residential lands. Permissions for
2 units (e.g. duplexes) have Additionally, Kitchener was among theframework to permit 3 residential units, in the form of additional residential dwellings (attached and detached) across
much of Kitchener. encouraging tenable appropriate building setbacks and lot sizes to address safety and servicing requirements. Subsection 35.1 (2) enables the Minister to make regulations
establishing requirements and standardsCity would support Provincewould enable a consistent approach across Ontario municipalities. We f Comment Kitchener supports the continued use
of tto assist with establishing matters of provincial interest and also supports a role for municipalities in decisions on their Official Plans.Comment
party
rd
maintains 3
of provincial interest. References to
scale residential development up to 3
-
ablish a minimum floor area for ADUs.
are currently before the Ontario Land Tribunal
ll matters that
.
It is our understanding that on November 21, 2022 an
Proposed Amendment and What it Means and on awhere no hearing has been scheduled. Note amendment to Bill 23 was tabled and approved appeals Additional residential units added to facilitate
the DC exemption for these types of units and to enable the permission of small Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws cannot prohibit the use of up to three residential units on a lot where
zero, one or two units are ancillary (i.e. ADUs). Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws also cannot require more than one parking space or est The Minister may make regulations to establish
requirements and standards for second and third residential units.Matters of provincial interest The Minister may amend an OP if they are of the opinion that the plan is likely to adversely
affect a matterthe Provincial Policy Statement and obligation of the Minister to provide municipalities with the opportunity to revise their Official Plans is proposed to be removed.Community
Benefits Charges
7
10 units
from site
at this time.
forms
housing
achieved through site
tree conservation, lighting
for all
jects.
removed
a similar approach to vacant land
s
authority is
if site plan
.
less
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions Kitchener is in the process of considering the merits of a community benefits charge bylaw and has no comments on this change Comment Kitchener
is supportive of excluding certain types of dwellings plan control such as additional dwelling units and street fronting townhouse dwellings. Kitchener is also supportive of site plan
control for land lease communities and takecondos to ensure functional, safe pro Further, there is merit in continuing, at a minimum scoped site plan control for other forms of multiple
dwellings to mitigate impacts to adjacent properties and ensure functionality for residents of the development including grading and drainage, and waste storage. The matters noted
above are important for safety and site functionality and may necessitate the use of other planning or municipal act tools like zoning bylaws to achieve the same means that is plan
controlor Kitchener takes a streamlined approach to development standards through our Urban Design Manual which gives flexibility to establish the
.
.
clarifies that an allows the review
matters related to
where a bylaw has been
able or attainable units, CBCs are
ith municipalities for in kind matters
rated based on the land value in proportion to
-
.
ting to building construction
It is our understanding that on November 21, 2022 an It is our understanding that on November 21, 2022 an
Proposed Amendment and What it Means Establishes a maximum amount of CBC to specify that, in the case of additions, CBCs are prothe net increase in floor areas only, as opposed to the
entire property. Additionally, If a project includes affordreduced in proportion total share of affordable or attainable units Note amendment to Bill 23 was tabled and approved thatagreement
can be made wprovided through CBCs. In kind matters were already permitted in the Planning Act.Site Plan Control Amends the definition of development to exclude developments that are
10 units or less. For all developments subject to site plan control, municipalities will no longer be able to request drawings and review exterior design including character, scale,
appearance, design features, sustainable design Note amendment to Bill 23 was tabled and approved that of matters relapassed in accordance with the Municipal Act. Additionally, sustainable
design matters can be considered through site plan control
-
.
unit
-
8
.
)
le
i.e.,
and
s
matters of
regulatory
The site plan
site plan control
tolerant and non
-
consistent and
look to
address
chener uses plan
windscreen
elevation review
because
(
to
Kit
minute city (e.g. active
-
time to a project approval
to address important
style rather than full
plan
positions
ons
site
ati
adequately staff that team to quickly
es for trees, drought
regul
zoning permissions for missing midd
Consideration should be given to limiting
adding
plan review, new developments exempt from
development review
.
any site
, variances may increase to address the unique challenges
of 10 units or less, the City will likely
, adding additional process and
s
safety
s that are proposed. If site plan review is not possible for
currently studying
ution without a need for major or minor changes to zoning
Without
and
not an option
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions best solregulations. If standards are codified into zoning is of urban infill Kitchener supports the removal of character as a review consideration
for building elevations. Kitchener does not try to control aesthetics (materiality, architectural style) through However, window and door openings, balcony placement and orientation
of the building are important features in a 15transportation and equity). exemptions to building materials and designexemption from exterior design. Features such as canopies, for
example, are important from a health and safety perspective. Additionally, landscape design review could be scoped to placement, species and soil voluminvasive species and functional
outdoor amenityhealth Should the exclusion for landscape design come into effect, it will also have a revenue implication for plan review fees.review fees to fund predictable revenue
is required to process development approvals. The City is housing opportunities in neighborhoods above and beyond the threepermissiondevelopmentmechanisms (e.g. zoning)matters considered
through the site plan review process.review process is important to address site compatibility and functional issues.
Proposed Amendment and What it Means
,
9
e
built
that is
quickly
change
our
.
ed
lieu of land
. The cap yielding
-
in
-
sustainable design
Ontario Housing
all approved
the trajectory
Kitchener has been very
tantially
transform
and cash
under Bill 23
review
with
subs
land
hin MTSAs.
dow, noise, and wind criteria. Having
create greater concern for infill
wide standards (
wit
higher density scenarios
as it aligns
ollars in just a few short years, which -
incentive for local approval authorities
continue to
d
the initiative being taken by several
in
and
to
and
illion
b
recommendation 12c) for evaluating acceptable
quality
$1
opportunity
site plan control
for the community
the
d
climate impacts including sha
-
.
double
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions review could be lower developments successful in meeting our intensification targets with large redevelopments as well as smaller infill projects
projects worth almost hasform Bill 109 already implements new regulations in 2023 for the refund of site plan application fees, which is an to approve site plan in an expedient manner.
We also would welcome Province Affordability Task Force microa set standard would allow the industry to design to this standard and eliminate the need for lengthy peer review of these
studies (and implementing agreements) through the approval process. We welcomematters throughbeing advanced through changes to building codes across the countrymitigation and adaptation,Ontario
municipalities on green development standards. There arefficiencies in building construction and operating costs that can be advanced through sustainable design. Comments conveyances
will be reduced by at least 50%reduces higher density park land dedication negligible park land per person
aximum rate
m
-
the maximum rate of parkland dedication to:
s
nd Dedication
one hectare (ha) per 600 units (down from one ha per 300 units) for the conveyance of land;
Proposed Amendment and What it MeansParkla Reduce
law
-
to
10
uently,
achieve
ore severe
law sets the
or 1 hectare
-
m
approach
n
ed
space than the
even
The changes
rate of 10 sq m per
perso
a provision cap on
ewly developed
a balanc
, and
igher density developments will
10 sq.m. per
park provision
. H
.
30% less local park
lieu of land
impacts on development proformas -
On the highest density sites, the by
s
in
.
-
cash
. The strategy takes
with an inability to generate park land
argets are set for Major Transit Station Areas.
under Bill 23. Kitchener has concerns with this
law and policy utilize two critical limits to
-
target provisions
supply
community in Kitchener. Impacts are
a hard cap on
bylaw and policy
maximum per unit cap that is 86% less than the maximum
average
the
ites that have provided parkland dedication through a site plan control
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions In August 2022 Kitchener approved a new parkland dedication bylaw together with a parkland strategy, Places and Spaces. dedication parkland dedication
that considerand realistic and achievable parkland provision targets. They generally enable the City to maintain its current person. Lower, realistic t The new strategy, bythe balance
land conveyances to be no greater than per 300 units, whichever is lowersets permitted under current legislation for the highest density sites (less than 1 ha per 1000 units). Fustage
to provide critical open space needed to support more housing, while mitigating impacts on developers bottom line and, conseqhousing supply. Sprocess but have not yet received a building
permit may be eligible for a park dedication rebateapproach. One of the predicted outcomes of this bill is that ngreenfield communities would have current through infill and intensification
areaserode existing park commensurate with
% of the
for larger
10
of the site area
or 15%
or value dedicated exceed
5 ha or smaller;
s
for site
lieu;
-
in
-
area
nd in no case shall the land
and one ha per 1000 units (down from one ha per 500 units) for cashasite sites
Proposed Amendment and What it Means
on
to
.
others
11
housing.
Clarificati
partial credit
has the potential
proportionally
provides
law, along with
-
s has been
law
unsuitable topography,
d publicly accessible
-
hey do not provide reliable
by
. T
already provides for these
have
,
whether any project including one
and wear and management is not
dedication
Nor should the OLT have the ability
park dedication by
age,
y should not be provided credits equal to
take ownership of land that
rnate rate could be applied
awkwardly shaped
new parkland
However, like other municipalities, Kitchener believes that these
.
ns of clarification
small, fractured,
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions Kitchener recommends that itsrecently passed in the province, be tested at the OLT and be implemented for a period of time prior to making additional
changes to the legislative framework for park dedication. Questio exemptions. Clarification is needed on or more affordable units is necessarily subject to the standard 5% requirement,
or if the alte Depending on how affordable ownership and attainable housing are defined and implemented, this could result in a significant reduction in parkland dedication with negative
impacts on park provision. is needed on definitions of affordable ownership and attainable Comments Kitchener recognizes the value and need for a variety of parkland types to support
communities and that these can be delivered in ways that differ from traditional parkland forms. This includes parks which are encumbered, are strata, and are privately ownespaces.
for POPSare not equal to publicly owned park spacesreinvestment in assets as they accountable to a wider community. In addition, ademonstrated across North America, these spaces are
not maintained as consistently, or as equitably accessed as traditional public parks. For this reason, while Kitchener agrees that these forms of parkland have value and should be credited,
thepublicly owned parkland spaces.mandate municipalities to to be
.
with
rental
and
accept the
affordable
, duplexes
.
land to be dedicated to
resulting in inadequate or
es
spells out that the following lands
requirements
may propose
Bill
e
h
their park dedication requirement
. T
existing residential units,
:
evelopers
xemptions
ands suitable for conveyance and OLT appeal
el
--
xempt
can be appealed to the OLT
it
for dedication
Additional Dwelling Units (backyard homes)
Parks on top of private parking garagParks with private underground stormwater cisterns, infiltration galleries, or other infrastructure.Privately owned public spaces (POPS)
Proposed Amendment and What it MeansParkland Dedication Bill 23 proposes to eunits, triplexes from parkland dedication Additionally, exemptions are proposed for affordable ownership
and attainable housing. Parkland Dedication Provides the ability for dthe city to meet all or part of little to no ability for municipalities to provide input or take direction from
their parkland policiesare eligibleBill 23 goes further to state that if municipalities do notproposed land, undesirable land being acquired by municipalities for park purposes
s
to
rate
12
good
and is not
power will
required
d
implications
that includes a
critical to
to the
term
are
-
long
to mandate the taking of
its ability to provide suitable
proposed change
ublic nature of parks in
. This increase
er the Planning Act to waive the
OLT
and
parkland reserve
programmable or otherwise
-
potential
proposed changes
and as such has no concerns with this
has
s
y
law amendment application which still
b
-
ability of the
t
park
for
mean
and organized hearings
unmaintainable, un
Kitchener.
be negatively impacted by this
for passive and active recreation that
instances in Kitchener, subdivision applications are
unsuitable
ity is concerned with
s
The quantity, quality and even p
C
Land Tribunal Act, 2021
may
more efficient
that is
year moratorium requirement
ith poor access,
-
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions wunsuitable for park purposes. While the of parkland dedication, thelandthe financial health open spaceurban life.Ontario supported by Comment
Kitchener has made efficient use of its plan for its expenditure in a planned, timely fashion. This proposed change will add administrative steps to an already efficient process.Please
clarify what is Kitchener currently uses its authority und2change at this time.Comment In almost all accompanied by a zoning byrequires the holding of a public meeting. This proposed
change will not make a substantive difference to the subdivision process.OntarioComments Kitchener has no concerns with this changemean
-
2
removes the
.
ails to comply with an
lieu
-
in
-
there is undue delay by the
where
ing that on November 21, 2022 an
llocation of Cash
a
-
Dismiss Appeals Without Hearings
the proceeding, or where a party f
ocate at least 60% of the monies in the parkland reserve
Land Tribunal Act, 2021
It is our understand
moratorium on applying for a variance on a property where one
he beginning of the year.
t
Proposed Amendment and What it MeansParkland Dedication Beginning in 2023 and each year thereafter, municipalities are required to spend or allat Minor Variances Note amendment to Bill
23 was tabled and approved that yearhas been applied for within the previous 2 years Subdivision of Land Proposed removal of the requirement to hold a public meeting for subdivisions.
OntarioNew Powers to These changes provide the Tribunal with new powers to procedurally dismiss appeals without hearings party bringing order of the Tribunal.
,
13
to render a
hearing, and
even where it could reach into
6141
will create
-
The City does not
.
fulsome
issues prior to a hearing
taxes and
for a
issues
y
art
andum of understanding with the
ERO Posting 019
Costs should not be awarded where
a P
sidered prior to disposition is needed.
tips the balance of any development
to approve development,
1990
evidence for all
unfairly
s
ll over many decades. Kitchener works in partnership
provide
e.
arty is not productive and does not provide a reasonable effort
the City would be funded by municipal
rights of residents,
change, combined with the pressure created by Bill 109
where a Party
articipat
City of Kitchener Comments and QuestionsComments This decision within the statutory time period (rather than working with the developer to resolve issues during the review process)additional
pressure on Councilmay not align with Provincial or Municipal Policy. The Costs awarded against the range of $100K+ for hearings. This, combined with the removal of appeal approval
in favour of the developer.substantial effort has been made by where every effort is made to scope and resolve and object to awarding costs where an appeal is used as a delay tactic
and a where a Pto p Conservation Authorities Act, Questions of clarification Clarification on what certain lands would be and how any potential impacts on natural lands will be con
Comments Kitchener is currently part of a memorRegion of Waterloo and Grand River Conservation Authority regarding services provided by the GRCA on behalf of the Region and local municipalities.
This MOU together with our good working relationship has served Kitchener wewith the Region and GRCA on matters related to natural hazards and natural heritage to ensure a consistent
streamlined approach to conservation, enhancement, and restoration.
rty has
such services.
to order an
6141
-
power
collect fees for
ERO Posting 019
review or comment on development
1990
ies to
municipalities or
programs and services that it agrees to provide
,
changes will give the OLT express
on behalf of
. The province has indicated that the purpose of this proposed
Proposed Amendment and What it MeansDirection to award costs These proposed unsuccessful party to paycosts were rarely awarded by the Tribunal, and only in exceptional been unreasonable,
frivolous or vexatious or if the part has acted in bad amendment is to encourage parties to resolve outstanding issues without going to the OLT. Conservation Authorities Act, Powers
of Conservation Authorities The disposition of certain lands held by conservation authorities will no longer require Requirements for public notice and consultations (in certain circumstances).Munic
ipal programs and services The Conservation Authorizes Act currently authorizes Conservation Authorities to provideon behalf of a municipality under a memorandum of understanding in
respect of the programs and services. Bill 23 proposes to limit these programs and services and will no longer permit conservation authoritapplications
e
14
ce their
tier planning authorities
-
d with the approved development.
ve on upper
as part of infrastructure undertakings under the Environmental
rification is also needed on the role of conservation authorities in
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions Further to our comments abowithout planning responsibilities, should those changes advance, coupled with the proposed changes to the Conservation
Authorities Act there will be no cross municipal jurisdiction to ensure a consistent approach to thconservation, protection and restoration of natural heritage systems. Questions of
clarification It is our understanding that conservation authorities will also no longer be permitted to comment on natural heritage matters nor issue permits on the sameAssessment Act.
Clarification is required on what are permitted/prohibited matters of conservation authority comments outside of Planning Act applications (e.g. the EA Act, Drainage Act). Clamaster
planning studies such as subwatershed studies and related community/secondary plan processes. Finally, it is our understanding that for certain municipalities and under certain conditions
(not yet identified), an approval under the Planning Act could remove the requirement for a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act for activities associateClarification is needed
to understand whether municipalities would assume sole liability for the impact of development on natural hazards within municipal boundaries and on neighbouring upstream and downstream
communities. Questions of clarification Will the revenue stream continue to be adequate to resourremaining responsibilities should the new powers by the Minister be utilized? There
may be downstream implications on municipalities.Questions of clarification Related to comments above, clarification is needed to understand who retains or now has the authority to
consider matters related to pollution
watershed planning, and watershed
-
b
ties (such as certain development activities and activities
hazards (e.g. flooding, slope erosion etc.)
naturalSource protection (Clean Water Act)Watershed based resource managementProvincial water quality monitoring
Proposed Amendment and What it Means programs and services only which include matters related to: Conservation Authorities will no longer be permitted to review matters related to natural
heritage, suservices. Additionally, a conservation authority permit will no longer be required for development within a regulated area where a planning act approval has been granted.
Fees A new section authorizing the Minister to direct Conservation Authorities not to charge the fees it charges for a program or service for a specified period of time.Prohibited activities
Currently, subsection 28(1) of the CA Act provides a blanket prohibition on certain activi
.
in this
15
d
allow owners of
there continues to be
6196
-
have cultural heritage
y
a
m
ERO Posting 019
ct to a future assessment. Kitchener has concerns with
difference in process when dealing with alterations of
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions and the conservation of land. Kitchener reiterates its comments that some matters cross municipal boundaries and benefit for cross jurisdictional
coordination. Ontario Heritage Act, 1990 Questions of clarification Clarity is needed as to the purpose of this change. As it is proposed this may result in a listed properties which
currently do not require a heritage permit.Comments Kitchener continues to see merit and value in finding a balance between cultural heritage conservation and the provincial priorities
outlinesection of Bill 23, including on properties owned or operated by the Province and other prescribed bodies. Questions of clarification Clarity is needed to understand what other
priorities may be prescribed Comments status which consists of properties that significance subjethe proposed change to this mechanism to Bill 23 as it appears that short term measures
for heritage conservation are being limited or removed. It is our understanding that this proposed change would all properties currently listed on a heritage register to object to the
listing. Owners of a listed property can now object to being on the Register
ng, erosion,
6196
-
y added to the list as of June
ERO Posting 019
term care
-
may continue to include properties that are not
Any owner with propert
ministry or prescribed public body to not comply with
d long
TransitHousingHealth anOther infrastructureOther priorities that nay be prescribed
Proposed Amendment and What it Means that would interfere with a watercourse or a wetland, etc.) without a permit. Several factors must be considered by conservation authorities when
making these decisions including control of floodidynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land. Bill 23 proposed to remove pollution and the conservation of land as factors
that conservation authorities can consider. Ontario Heritage Act, 1990 Alterations Bill 23 proposes to include demolition and removal as part of any alteration whereas the Act currently
does not includes demolition and removal for the purposes of specific sections of the Act.Provincial powers to exempt properties from OHA Bill 23 proposes to allow the Lieutenant Governor
in Council to exempt the Crown, orsome/all of certain heritage standards/guidelines if the Lieutenant Governor in Council is of the option that an exemption could advance provincial
priorities in the areas of:Heritage register A heritage registerdesignated but must now have a statement of significance confirming what criteria the property meets in addition to Council
direction that the property may be of cultural heritage value or interest. Bill 23 also proposes to extend objection rights to property owners of properties that are already listed
on the heritage register. Currently objections can only be made at the time that a property is listed on the heritage register.
,
16
ealthcare
ssment (HIA) for
Kitchener is seeking
visited.
Kitchener has always balanced heritage
teria may need to be met for a property to be
year timeframe will at best be challenging. Kitchener is
-
developer on ways that the site can be developed.
year timeframe be re
-
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions regardless of when their property was added. clarification on what criremoved and is integrated into our development review process. Kitchener
currently asks for a Heritage Impact Asseproperties that are listed, or adjacent to a listed property. This provides an opportunity to determine and mitigate any potential impacts,
as well as initiate conversations about potential designation at the same time as working with the Kitchener is concerned that this proposed change through Bill 23 will remove the opportunity
for these conversations which have been generally successful in Kitchener. conservation with matters of public interest and have proven success with the reuse and redevelopment of heritage
resources for hhousing development, award winning offices, and vibrant commercial spaces. Kitchener is concerned that these changability to designate significant cultural heritage resources,
where they are evaluated to determine their significance resulting in potential significant register within a 2supportive of advancing work on reviewing its register and requests that
the proposed 2 requirement mentioned above, seeking input from Heritage Kitchener will
al heritage committee
r after the day Bill 23 comes into effect
Proposed Amendment and What it Means 30, 2021 or on / after July 1, 2021 can object to their property being added and have council reconsider the decision. Bill 23 also proposes that
all properties currently on the register and those added to the register on omust be designated within two years or the properties are automatically removed from the register and cannot
be added back to the register for a period of 5 years. Bill 23 proposes that consultation with a municipis not required for the removal of a property from the register.
. Are
17
district
Permit
there is
age resources.
ement new best
me Heritage
to conserve the
However,
as so
with Bill 23?
change will no longer provide the
stricts as a whole. An amendment
ted
which generally is
e or have other negative implications
contempla
plan stage. This
ing
Kitchener is an industry leader
etc. However, if it allows actions such as the removal of homes
,
to reflect attribute changes of the area and impl
P
City of Kitchener Comments and Questions be challenging.Applications are delegated to staff and are processed in a timely manner. Comments Kitchener acknowledges the opportunities to
further streamline development review process should designation occur at the Official Plan amendment or Zoning Bylaw amendment stage. concern that this may result in the loss of potential
heritProperties that are in the Kitchener Heritage Inventory are reviewed and considered for listing or designation based off the recommendations of a Heritage Impact Assessment. The
recommendations of the HIA are largely implemented at the site opportunity for a municipality to evaluate and list properties on the register as part of development applications.Comment
Kitchener appreciates the potential flexibility introduced in the proposed legislation for amendments to heritage conservation districts. However, Kitchener continues to be supportive
of a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of heritage conservation diprocess may compromise the intent of the heritage conservation Questions of clarification The ability to amend
a HCDP is helpful as Kitchener could update our HCDpracticefrom the district per owner request, this may cause fragmentation which defeats the purpose of an HCD character of an area
as a wholsite specific repeals be
f cultural
in provisions
.
plan
sion.
and
district
property
-
n district bylaw
Proposed Amendment and What it MeansHeritage Designation Where a property is the subject of an Official Plan or Zoning Bylaw amendment or plan of subdivision and there is a matter oheritage
value on the property, the property must already be listed on the register and council must give notice of intention to designate the property within 90 days of the approval of the
Official Plan/Zoning Bylaw amendment or plan of subdivi Heritage Designation Bill 23 would require that Official Plans not only contaabout the establishment of heritage conservation
districts but also that Official Plans outline criteria for determining a heritage conservation district. Provisions have been added to allow the amendment or repeal of a heritage
conservatio
18
ding
address
ERO Posting
-
ancillary (i.e.
ADUs.
ts are
sions for 2 units (e.g.
ities for consistency
units.
6197)
-
(ERO posting 019
-
Additional comments on proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act through Bill 23 are
The proposed regulation would focus permitting decisions on matters related to the control of floo
make a single provincial regulation to ensure clear and consistent requirements across all conservation authorities
299/19: Additional Residential Units
/new Regulations
to
to this regulation to be consistent with changes to additional dwelling unit changes to the Planning Act as part of Bill 23.
r was among the early adopters of a new zoning framework to permit 3 residential units, in the form of additional
n encouraging this form of missing middle housing and ensuring rules to enable appropriate building setbacks and lot sizes to
2927
-
Proposed updates Proposed updates to the regulation of development for the protection of people and property from natural hazards in Ontario 019 Summary of Regulation The ministry is
proposing to while still addressing local differences.and other natural hazards and the protection of people and property. These proposed changes are consistent with Bill 23.Comment
Kitchener does not have concerns at this time with the principle of a single provincial regulation for conservation authorprovided that local differences are reflected.provided above.Proposed
change to O.RegSummary of Regulation Changes are proposed Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws cannot prohibit the use of up to three residential units on a lot where zero, one or two uniADUs).
Official Plans and Zoning Bylaws also cannot require more than one parking space or establish a minimum floor area forThe Minister may make regulations to establish requirements and
standards for second and third residential Comment Kitchener is a leader in establishing land use and zoning permissions for second and third units on residential lands. PermisAdditionally,
Kitcheneresidential dwellings (attached and detached) across much of Kitchener.betweesafety and servicing requirements.
.
19
lity
of a
e
a
d
into
he potential
T
.
incorporated
longer term affordability
with their financial
be
capacity to absorb an increase
ude land uses, minimum
assist
ts, which is proposed to be set at
likely
and explore depth and longevity of
balancing
can
that can be required to be affordable
and standards for second and third residential units. The
and see the benefit to
, however there may be some challenges
affordable unit threshold
.
6173
:
here
-
the ability to understand their markets
combined with a 5%
ERO posting 019
-
which can be found
duration
ltiplied by the ratio of the number of affordable units to the total number of units in the
bility
of 25 years
ts a 5% threshold is likely appropriate.
e
Inclusionary Zoning
at the local level to understand the financial impacts of these proposed exemptions.
:
8
year afforda
-
/1
a shifting of responsibility for protected major transit station areas (PMTSAs) from the Region of Waterloo to the
25
wide standards for additional units as this would enable a consistent approach across Ontario municipalities. We
32
PMTSA boundaries. The proposed changes also
-
most appropriate approach for local context is of utmost importance.
. A
To enable inclusionary zoning and provide appeal shelter PMTSA policies must now incl
owever, continuing to provide municipalities with
can see how DC, CBC and parkland dedication exemption for inclusionary zoning units would
limit opportunities to create a significant number of inclusionary zoning affordable units in strong market areas and the abi
H
.
ensure the
may
the amount of parkland to be conveyed for developments or redevelopments if they include certain defined classes of affordabl
policy
to a maximum of 5% of the land mu
inclusionary zoning requirements (i.e. increase them) over time when markets strengthen and have the
Additional work is needed
Kitchener
set an upper limit of 5% of the total proportion of units/floor area in a development set a maximum affordability period exempt affordable units secured through inclusionary zoning from
development charges, community benefits charges, and parklandedicationprescribe the approach to determine the lowest price/rent that can be required for inclusionary zoning uni80% of
the average market rent for rental unitslimitsunitsdevelopment
threshold
modify
Subsection 35.1 (2) enables the Minister to make regulations establishing requirementsCity would support Province Proposed change to O.Reg 2Summary of Regulation The proposed changes
include lower tier municipalities. densities and delineation of Comment Kitchener supports a consistent approach to inclusionary zoning across the province5%toIn the short term and
in weaker markwith the cities of Cambridge, Waterloo, and the Region of Waterloo we are exploring with depth of affordabilitysuccessful affordability toFurther, viability.
20
scientific,
palities)
Kitchener also
ewed and accepted
.
Provincial
, developments that include
providing limited to no ability for a
removing the requirement for the ministry to
are currently not resourced with the technical
6160
-
613
evaluation will be considered complete once it has been
-
.
ERO Posting 019
-
The proposed changes to OWES entirely removes the responsibility for
.
term implications of the potential change on our ability to acquire parkland.
-
evaluation
-
(OWES)
valuation
. Clarity is needed on how affordable ownership will be defined
e
-
n be required through inclusionary zoning generally aligns with the rent thresholds being
a
urther streamlining of development decisions by
)evaluations from the Province (OMNRF) where scientific and technical wetland expertise resides.
.
-
determining lowest price/rent would be based on incomes rather than market.
may present challenges. Kitchener strongly recommends the continuation of
this
ges to the Conservation Authorities Act, means that Kitchener cannot rely on our agency partners for this
and
evaluation of wetlands and updates to mapping of evaluated wetland boundaries
parkland requirements which may have a positive effect on the financial feasibility of inclusionary zoning.
-
,
o ensure consistency with the above changes throughout the manual
evaluation results
ince include inclusionary zoning units within the list of defined classes of affordable units
Ontario Wetland Evaluation System include:
reduced
ce related to re
review, comment, and accept/reject the re
proposed change
It appears that the
updates to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System
guidan
based, peer review process to wetland evaluation and re
Kitchener needs to understand whether there are any long
-
ed
ise for this type of review
addchanges to better recognize the professional opinion of wetland evaluators and the role of local decision makers (e.g. municiother housekeeping edits t
The proposed lower limit for affordable rents that ccontemplated through Kitchensuggests that a more equitable approach to And finally, should the Provthese units would have However
Proposed Summary of Proposed updates to the It is indicated that these changes will allow for freview and confirm wetland Comments It is our understanding that wetland evaluations will
be completed by certified wetland evaluators but will no longer be reviby Provincial wetland biologists. Further it is our understanding that a wetland rereceived by a decision maker
addressing a land use planning and development/resource management mattermunicipality to the assessment and acceptance of wetland (reThis, along with the proposed chanexpertise.expertevidence