OMB/Planning Reform Information Session Report – March 28, 2007

[posting]

OMB/PLANNING REFORM INFORMATION SESSION – MARCH 28, 2007
Federation of Urban Neighbourhoods of Ontario Report

William Phillips, President of the Federation of Urban Neighbourhoods of Ontario was invited to an information session on Bill 51, the Planning Amendment Act,which was proclaimed on January 1, 2007. The Act makes many changes to the way planning will take place in the Province of Ontario and the rules governing the operation of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The changes do not affect applications made prior to January 1, 2007.

Some of the significant changes contained in the Act are as follows:

· Official plan (OP) documents to be updated not less frequently than every 5 years.

· A council/planning board can refuse to accept an application until it is complete.

· Municipalities have 30 days to confirm receipt of a ‘complete application’.

· Complete information to be made available to the public.

· Public open house required for official plan and zoning by-laws updates and those amendments related to the Development Permit System (DPS).

· 20 day time limit for applicants to appeal a refusal to adopt a requested official plan amendment and a refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

· Planning Act: clause 2(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians.

· Supporting sustainability by allowing energy efficiency as an eligible community improvement activity.

· Grants and loans for energy efficient uses.

· Community improvement activities can also include construction.

· Clarification that the provision of affordable housing is included within the definition of “community improvement”.

· Clarifying municipal ability to regulate minimum and maximum density and height.

· Enhancing municipal authority to permit accessory apartments.

· Site plan control matters now include the external design of buildings that relate to character, scale, appearance and design features.

· Municipalities can reduce cash-in-lieu payments for redevelopment proposals that meet sustainability criteria set out in the official plan, provided there is no available land to be conveyed.

· OMB to “have regard to” any decision made by a municipal council or an approval authority related to the same planning matter and to any supporting information and material that the council or approval authority considered in making their
decision.

· Notice that Council can reconsider its decision in light on new information and material.

· For the most part, to appeal a decision a person or public body must have made a submission to Council.

· The same requirements apply to adding a person or public body as a party to a hearing unless the Board is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to add the person as a party.

· Two new reasons the Board can dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing: “abuse of process” and substantially different application.

· Local appeal bodies are an option tool for municipalities, which may hear stand alone consent and minor variance appeals.


Further information about the changes to the OMB and Planning Reform can be found on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing website at http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_23647_1.html

[Dogma]

Please note: The meeting for the Amherstview Ferry rates increase...

One comment that stands out in this article:

Sure I can understand the concern on rates rising...and the service remains the same "in theory".

And I believe it is ones choice to live on an island, which comes with it unique lifestyle risks.

But, two things seem to be "assumed" by "Island living".

1) That it is a "right" - and that it cost no more to live there than the mainland.
- i.e The third crossing should be done because of "access to the mainland" for hospital time etc.

2) That in 23 years or 50 for that matter in some minds - nothing has changed nor should it.
- We should not pay for "additional" services beyond (Health, Education, Community Services & basic infastructure)
for this limited amount of people.



It was standing room only at the March 26 meeting of Loyalist Township Council, as dozens of local residents turned up to express their concerns over the township's plan to raise ferry rates for trips to and from Amherst Island.

“I would like to thank the islanders who have come to show their voice and their opinion here tonight”, said Judith Harrower, the first island resident to address council.

Harrower questioned the necessity of the rate increase and criticized township staff's inability to offer a valid reason as to why the hike is warranted.

“What this is is the lifeline of our community and it's been strangled by inflated administrative costs”, said Caroline Yull. “I'm appalled.”

The proposed fare hike would increase the round-trip price to the island from $6 to $8 for an average-sized vehicle. Larger vehicles and school buses would pay $16 for a return trip, while any vehicle requiring three spaces would face a $24 fee.

Yull, who has lived on Amherst Island for over 20 years, expressed her concerns about the dramatic rise in ferry costs over the last two decades. “It does not compute.

In 23 years there has not been that much change in that ferry service”, said Yull. “We live or die by that ferry.”