Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-073-25Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: December 8, 2025 Report Number: PDS-073-25 Authored By: Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, Planning and Infrastructure Services Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: PLN 1.1.36 Report Subject: Bill 60: Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 and Provincial Consultation on Simplifying and Standardizing Official Plans – Comments Recommendations: 1.That Report PDS-073-25, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2.That Report PDS-073-25, including the Detailed Comments forming Attachment 1, be endorsed as the Municipality’s comments to the Province on the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (Bill 60) (Environmental Registry of Ontario Postings: 025- 1097, 025-1182, 025-1182, 025-1100, and 025-1101) and forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; 3.That Report PDS-073-25, including the Detailed Comments forming Attachment 2, be endorsed as the Municipality’s comments to the Province on the Consultation on Simplifying and Standardizing Official Plans (ERO Posting 025-1099) and forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and 4.That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-073-25, be advised of Council’s decision. PD-110-25 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-073-25 Report Overview Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 Planning Act Development Charges Act GO Transit Funding Act Transit Oriented Communities Act Highway Traffic Act regional municipalities’ ability to adopt and implement Community Improvement Plans, and supports the Province’s efforts to look at oppor ies’ present staff’s comments the Province on November 21, 2025, subject to Council’s ratification, Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-073-25 1. Background 1.1 On October 22, 2025 Province released Bill 60, the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025. Bill 60 is another omnibus bill proposing changes to numerous Acts that are relevant to municipalities, including the Planning Act, Development Charges Act, GO Transit Funding Act, the Transit Oriented Communities Act, and the Highway Traffic Act. 1.2 On October 22, 2025, the Province also posted consultation materials relating to: Simplifying and Standardizing Official Plans, Enhanced Development Standards, and standardizing Minimum Lot Sizes. 1.3 A 30-day comment window was provided to receive feedback on all proposed changes and consultation documents. A number of Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) postings and Ontario Regulatory Registry (ORR) proposals relate to the proposed changes. This report focuses on the following postings:  ERO 025-1097: Proposed Changes to the Planning Act (Schedule 10 of Bill 60 - the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025)  ERO 025-1182: Proposed Changes to the GO Transit Station Funding Act (Schedule 4 of Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025)  ERO 025-1100: Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes  ERO 025-1101: Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards – Lot Level (outside of buildings)  ERO 025-1099: Consultation on Simplifying and Standardizing Official Plans 1.4 The Province also released a Technical Briefing document that provides and overview of the changes and how Bill 60 and associated consultation documents support the Province’s objectives to streamline the construction of new homes and infrastructure. 2. Bill 60 Summary and Key Comments 2.1 The following section provides a high-level summary of relevant changes introduced by Bill 60. Detailed staff comments on the proposed changes are provided in Attachment 1. Planning Act Amendments 2.2 Currently, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s (MAH) decisions, including those on official plans, are required to be consistent with provincial planning statements and conform to provincial plans. Proposed changes would provide greater authority to the Minister to make planning decisions to advance provincial prioriti es without being required to be consistent with provincial planning statements or provincial plans. This is similar to the flexibility previously granted to Minster’s Zoning Orders (MZOs). It is noted this would not apply to lands within the Greenbelt Plan Area. Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-073-25 2.3 Currently, official plan policies or amendments to policies affecting Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) must be approved by the Minister of MAH. Amendments would remove the requirement for Ministry approval of official plan policies or amendments to policies that identify the lands uses in the PMTSA, provided residential uses would be permitted on all the lands subject to the amendment. Amendments to PMTSA policies related to the people and jobs per hectare minimum target, and minimum densities would continue to be subject to approval by the Minister. It is noted decisions of Council are subject to appeal, whereas decisions by the Minister are not. 2.4 Proposed changes would enable any upper-tier municipality to adopt a Community Improvement Plan (CIP)would and restore previously existing CIPs of upper-tier municipalities that lost planning responsibilities, such as Durham Region. 2.5 Recently, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 (Bill 17) amended the Planning Act to allow as-of-right variances to minimum setback requirements on urban residential lands. Ontario Regulation 257/25 came into force on November 21, 2025, implementing the as-of-right variances to minimum setback. O. Reg. 257/25 states the minimum setback distance is now deemed to be 90 percent of the distance specified by the applicable zoning by-law. Staff is reviewing the impacts of this change for development proposals. 2.6 Bill 60 proposes changes to the Planning Act that would provide the Minister of MAH authority to enact regulations for additional as-of-right variances from locally established minimum and maximum zoning provisions. The type and degree of variance would be prescribed and could relate to height, lot coverage, etc. on specified lands (e.g. urban residential lands). Transition provisions relating to as-of-right variances are also proposed. Staff will continue to monitor for updates relating to regulations implementing additional types of as-of-right variances introduced by Bill 60 and assess implications. 2.7 Currently, MZOs are made by Minister’s regulation under the Planning Act. Changes are proposed whereby MZOs would no longer be regulations. The Province indicates this is intended to streamline its internal processes to facilitate faster decisions. MZOs would still follow the current MZO framework. GO Transit Station Funding Act Changes 2.8 Bill 60 proposes amendments to the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023 to provide municipalities with greater flexibility in determining when Transit Station Charges are to be paid. Under the proposed changes, municipalities may choose to collect the charge either at the time of permit issuance or at building occupancy for new residential developments near future GO Transit stations. 2.9 These changes are consistent with recent amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997 introduced through Bill 17 earlier this year, which similarly provide flexibility in the timing of development charge payments. Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-073-25 Development Charges Act Changes 2.10 Proposed changes include the creation of a new service class for land. Land, which could be included in other service categories, will be removed as part of the eligible costs for services and included in its own service category. 2.11 The Province is also proposing to require municipalities to provide copies of the DC Background Study and the by-law to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing upon request. 2.12 The annual “Treasurer Statement” will be required to be completed by June 30th of each year, and provided to the Minister by July 15th. The Municipality already complies with these timelines and posts the statements on its website in advance of these dates. There are proposed increased requirements for disclosure in the Treasurer Statement annually which will provide additional financial transparency for the Reserve Funds of each DC service category. 2.13 The DC Background Study is proposed to include requirements for “Local Service Policy”. The Municipality already includes this in its study and by-law. Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes 2.14 In connection with Bill 60, the Province is consulting on the risks and benefits of reducing or removing minimum lot size requirements on parcels of urban residential land, as defined in the Planning Act (those that include full municipal water and wastewater servicing). Currently, municipalities have authority to establish zoning by-laws that are specific to certain geographic areas and neighbourhoods in consideration of local context, including minimum lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, and height. Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards 2.15 Earlier this year as part of the Bill 17 changes to the Building Code Act, the Province clarified that municipalities are not able to create or enforce their own construction standards. 2.16 The consultation documents suggest changes that will further limit municipalities' ability to implement mandatory green development standards, beyond building construction, by removing lot level, outside of the building standards from the scope of site plan control (e.g. bioswales, requirements for native species planting, etc.). The Province has indicated its intent would be to eliminate enhanced site plan controls on development standards by the spring construction season. Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-073-25 Key Comments 2.17 Detailed staff comments are included as Attachment 1 to this report, and key messages are articulated below. 2.18 Staff generally supports the proposed changes to the Planning Act that would:  Enable municipal councils to approve policies relating to the use of land, buildings or structures within PMTSAs. This would remove an additional layer of approval and speed up implementation in critical strategic growth areas; and  Reinstate upper-tier municipalities’ ability to adopt and implement CIPs, and to provide funding support for community development initiatives. 2.19 Staff does not support additional as-of-right variances to the zoning by-law or provincially standardized minimum lot sizes and zoning requirements. Staff has concerns about the cumulative impacts of as-of-right variances on the function of the neighbourhood and supportive infrastructure in the absence of a review process. These changes reduce municipalities’ autonomy to establish minimum lot sizes that properly consider local context and service levels. 2.20 Clarington’s green municipal framework is currently under development. The program has been modified from a mandatory set of standards to a voluntary framework in response to the Province’s Bill 17 restrictions on green construction standards. Additional limits to remove green lot level standards from the scope of site plan control reinforces this change in direction to a voluntary green development framework. 2.21 Notwithstanding comment 2.19, the Province is requested to maintain municipalities’ use of site plan control, to implement development standards that align with strategic and policy directions relating to energy conservation, air quality, and climate change resilience that are also consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. 2.22 Clarington staff supports the Province’s efforts to facilitate increasing Ontario’s housing supply and associated infrastructure and looks forward working with the Province to achieve these goals in an environmentally, socially, and fiscally responsible way. 3. Official Plan Content Consultation Summary and Key Comments 3.1 The Province indicated it has received concerns that municipal official plans have become lengthy, complicated, restrictive documents that take years to prepare and update, are difficult to understand, and vary widely between municipalities. 3.2 In response, the Province is consulting on how to simplify, standardize and make more permissive municipal official plans so they are shorter, easier to understand, and more consistent across Ontario (ERO Posting 025-1099). Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-073-25 3.3 Proposed changes include (i) standardizing the structure including requiring specific chapters in specific order (ii) limiting the length of official plans (e.g. 250 pages or 65,000 words), and creating standardized but more permissive land use designations. 3.4 The consultation documents consist of a series of discussion questions and acknowledge the important role of official plans in:  Setting goals for future development and policies on how to reach these goals;  Helping communities decide where and how to grow or build;  Making sure that growth is coordinated and meets the community’s needs;  Helping communities effectively manage land and resources while protecting the natural environment;  Providing a framework for establishing municipal zoning by-laws to set local regulations and standards, like the minimum and maximum size of lots and heigh t of buildings; and  Providing a way to evaluate and settle conflicting land uses while meeting local, regional, and provincial interests. Key Comments 3.5 Detailed staff comments are included as Attachment 2 to this report, and key messages are below. 3.6 Clarington staff supports the Province’s efforts to look at how official plans are structured and used to appropriately guide development within municipalities across Ontario. 3.7 Staff does not support standardization (e.g. page limits) where it affects the value of the content and is concerned about the extent to which simplification could undermine the purpose of a municipal official plan, which is to set out the long-term vision for how a community sees itself growing in the context of what Council and res idents value. 3.8 Staff requests the Province to maintain municipal autonomy in developing official plans, and not remove the ability to undertake secondary plans to implement provincial direction in a way that celebrates the character and unique attributes of each city, town, and countryside. 3.9 Staff would not support transition provisions that require municipalities to comply with a new official plan framework by a specific date (e.g. within two years). Staff would support transition provisions that require official plans to comply with a new official plan framework, or any updated requirements of the Province, at the next scheduled five- or ten-year review. Implementing provincial updates as part of their scheduled review would better enable municipalities to plan and budget for the significant resources required to undertake an update to the Official Plan, reducing impacts on resources and other projects. Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-073-25 3.10 Staff looks forward to working collaboratively with the Province to improve the effectiveness of official plans, striking a balance by increasing and diversifying Ontario’s housing supply in way that recognizes local values and meets the community’s needs. 4. Financial Considerations 4.1 Financial implications of Bill 60 and changes to official plan content resulting from the ongoing provincial consultation are difficult to assess at this time, as many details and implementing regulations have not yet been released. Staff will continue to monitor the impacts of these changes incorporate them, as necessary, into budgeting processes going forward. 5. Strategic Plan 5.1 The changes proposed by Bill 60 and the results of the consultation on the content of municipal official plans have the potential to impact how Clarington achieves the Lead priorities of the Strategic Plan to promote effective and long-term fiscal management, and the Grow Responsibly priorities to design and implement Priority Green Standards for all developments. 6. Climate Change 6.1 The changes proposed have potential to impact Clarington’s ability to achieve its Strategic Plan climate change related objectives to:  Grow resilient, sustainable and complete communities supported by the development of priority green development standards for development applications; and  Be a leader in anticipating and addressing the impacts of climate change by advocating for provincial and federal legislation, regulation, and policy changes that are aimed at reducing carbon emissions. 7. Concurrence 7.1 This report has been reviewed by the Deputy CAO/Treasurer who concurs with the recommendations. Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PDS-073-25 8. Conclusion 8.1 The purpose of this report is to (i) provide a high-level summary of the changes introduced by the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 (Bill 60), and topics open for consultation on official plan content, and development standards, and (ii) present staff’s draft comments which were submitted to the Province, subject to Council’s ratification, before the 30-day comment period closed on November 22, 2025. 8.2 It is respectfully recommended the Recommendations be adopted as presented. Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, sallin@clarington.net or 905-623-3379 ext. 2419 or Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning, lbackus@clarington.net or 905-623-3379 ext.2413. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Draft Staff Comments on Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes, and Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards Attachment 2 – Draft Staff Comments on Consultation on simplifying and standardizing official plans Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Attachment 1 to Report PDS-073-25 Attachment 1 to PDS-073-25 – DRAFT Staff Comments on Bill 60 - Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025, Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes, and Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards Comments on Bill 60 Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments 1 025-1097 Changes to the Planning Act (Schedule 10) 3 Policy Statements Currently, Minister’s decisions (e.g. on official plans) are required to be consistent with the provincial planning statements and conform to provincial plans. New subsections 3(5.1) and 3(5.2) provide greater authority to the Minister to make other planning decisions to advance provincial priorities without being required to be consistent with provincial planning statements or provincial plans, similar to the flexibility previously granted to Minster’s Zoning Orders (MZOs). It is noted this would not apply to lands within the Greenbelt Plan Area. No The Province is requested to provide additional information as to the types of circumstances in which this type of decision might occur. 2 16 Contents of Official Plan – Protected Major Transit Station Areas Currently, official plan policies or amendments affecting Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) must be approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and are not subject to appeal. A new subsection 16(18.1) would remove the requirement for Ministry approval of official plan policies or amendments to policies that identify the authorized uses of land, buildings or structures in the PMTSA, provided residential uses would be authorized on all of the lands within the PMTSA that are subject to the amendment. It is noted decisions of Council are subject to appeal, whereas decisions by the Minister are not. Amendments to PMTSA policies related to the people and jobs per hectare minimum target, and minimum densities would continue to be subject to approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yes Staff generally supports the proposed change to enable Council to approve policies or amendments to policies relating to the use of lands within PMTSAs. This would remove an additional layer of approval and speed up implementation of in these critical strategic growth areas. 3 28 Community Improvement Plans Currently, only prescribed upper-tier municipalities can establish Community Improvement Plans (CIPs), and upper tier municipalities that lost planning responsibilities, such as Durham Region, are no longer able to establish, implement, or continue to provide funding support to lower-tier CIPs. New subsections 28(2.1) and 28(14) would enable any upper-tier municipality to adopt a CIP would and restore previously existing CIPs of upper- tier municipalities that lost planning responsibilities, such as Durham Region. Yes Staff supports the reinstatement of upper-tier municipalities’ ability to adopt and implement CIPs and welcomes the opportunity to work with the Region of Durham in this capacity to support CIP programs and funding towards community development initiatives in Clarington. 4 34 Zoning By-laws (Minimum and Maximum Standards) Recently, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 (Bill 17) amended the Planning Act to allow as-of-right variances to minimum setback requirements within a prescribed percentage range (e.g. 10 percent) on urban residential lands. Currently, this as-of right variance only applies to setback requirements. Bill 60 proposes new subsections 34(1.3.1), (1.3.2) and (1.3.3) and that would enable the Minister of Municipal Affairs No Staff does not support additional as-of-right variances to zoning by-law requirements and has concerns about the cumulative impacts of permitting variances from neighbourhood specific development standards without a review process to consider context. Attachment 1 to Report PDS-073-25 Comments on Bill 60 Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments and Housing authority to enact regulations to allow additional variances from minimum and maximum zoning provisions to be permitted as-of-right, in accordance with prescribed performance standards (e.g. height) on specified lands (e.g. urban residential lands). Municipal zoning standards are established based on technical requirements and local characteristics, and levels of servicing. Each standard interacts with others to create a functional building lot. For example, lot coverage and hard surface considerations for stormwater management, and minimum functional space between walls of buildings on neighbouring properties (drainage, rear yard access etc.). Under the minor variance process, these area- or parcel-specific considerations are assessed to determine whether the requested variance is appropriate in that context. The Province is requested to pause on enacting regulations to allow as-right-variances from additional zoning standards until municipalities have an opportunity to work collaboratively with the Province to monitor local impacts of the previous amendment to allow as-of-right variances from minimum setbacks. 5 025-1182 Proposed Changes to the GO Transit Station Funding Act, (Schedule 4) Bill 60 proposes amendments to the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023 to provide municipalities with greater flexibility in determining when Transit Station Charges are to be paid. Under the proposed changes, municipalities may choose to collect the charge either at the time of permit issuance or at building occupancy for new residential developments near future GO Transit stations. These changes are consistent with recent amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997 introduced through Bill 17, which similarly provide flexibility in the timing of development charge payments. Neutral Staff does not object to a change that would provide municipalities flexibility to determine the optimal time for the transit station charge to be paid based upon local context. 6 25- MMAH018 Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 to Enhance Standardization and Streamlining of the Development The proposed changes will increase transparency for the land costs associated with the DC rate and capital projects. This will be addressed through removing land from existing service area to a land specific service area, with no historical service level but limited to the needs in the next ten years. Local service policies, not currently a requirement, will be a requirement to ensure transparency on what is or is not a DC- eligible project. Yes Transparency of putting land costs into a separate service category will reduce questions from stakeholders. By not restricting land to the service history, it reflects the fact that land values increase over time and needs in the next ten years may exceed historical spends. Local service policies are already a part of Clarington’s DC process. Attachment 1 to Report PDS-073-25 Comments on Bill 60 Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments Charge (DC) Framework A proposal to require municipalities to provide the annual treasurer statements to Council by June 30 each year and to the Minister no later than July 15. Further, a proposed requirement to provide a copy of the DC background study and by-law to the Minister on request. The Municipality provides the Treasurer statement already prior to June 30, and the added requirement to provide copies to the Minister within the timeframes are manageable. 7 25- MMAH030 Implementing Reforms to the Development Charges Framework Proposal would merge water supply services and wastewater services for the purpose of DC credits. Proposal to make benefit to existing allocations more transparent in DC background studies. The proposal would require the DC background studies to include descriptions of the methodology used for benefit to existing calculations including assumptions. Proposal to require land costs to be in a new service class, see item 10. Proposal to make financial statements relating to DCs more transparent and easily accessible. This would include a requirement to identify the amount from each reserve fund that was committed to a project, but not yet spent, at the end of each year; the amount of debt that had been issued for a project; and identify where in the background study the capital costs were estimated. Not Applicable Yes Changes to water and wastewater service DCs are not applicable for the Municipality. Staff do not have an issue with providing the methodology. This provide stakeholders with additional information and provide for clarity on cost drivers. See comments for #10 above While this may require additional work in reporting, the process is already undertaken as part of annual reconciliations. Staff support changes that provide additional clarity and transparency which will reduce misinformation or concerns from stakeholders on the use of DC funds for growth purposes. Staff Comments on Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes Comments on Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments 1 025-1100 Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes What are your thoughts on the benefits and/or risks associated with reducing or removing minimum lot size requirements in low-density urban residential areas to encourage gentle density, increase housing supply, broaden housing options and encourage home ownership? No Staff does not support reducing or removing minimum lot sizes or imposing standardized reductions to minimum lot size requirements in low density urban residential areas. Each municipality and neighbourhoods within urban areas have different characteristics and are equipped with varying levels of infrastructure, services, and amenities (stormwater management, transit service, nearby parkland etc.) that are considered when establishing minimum lot sizes and determining what needs to be accommodated on each urban residential lot. For example, smaller urban communities that are not serviced by transit, or in close proximity to parks or would require space for parking and private amenity area Attachment 1 to Report PDS-073-25 Comments on Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments as part of each lot, whereas a more urbanized city may not. A one size fits all lot size minimum across Ontario does not recognize the differences in service levels across municipalities, communities, and neighbourhoods. Municipalities should maintain autonomy to implement appropriate minimum lot sizes based on local context to ensure proper function of the site and neighbourhood. 2 Are there any circumstances where having established minimum lot sizes in municipal zoning by-laws for low-density urban residential parcels are absolutely necessary with respect to the provision of transportation, infrastructure, or upholding public health and safety? No In older neighbourhoods where servicing and stormwater management infrastructure may not be present or sufficient to support widespread changes to density, pervious surface, or drainage patterns. In areas that are not sufficiently serviced with efficient local and regional transit, thereby making it necessary to provide sufficient area on each lot for vehicle parking. It is also noted minimum lot and frontage requirements can help manage on street parking by maintaining sufficient distances between driveways to accommodate vehicles parking on streets where neighbourhoods have experienced gentle intensification through additional residential units. In areas that are subject to conservation under the Ontario Heritage Act, particularly where the lot fabric is identified as an attribute that contributes to the cultural heritage value or interest of the heritage resource. 3 Given the Ontario context and the government’s permissions for additional residential units, what do you suggest should be the smallest size urban residential lot in terms of lot area, frontage or depth (i.e.six metre frontage, 200 square metres area,etc.) What would be the opportunities and limitations? How would these standards work together? No The smallest sized urban residential lot, as specified by lot area, frontage, or depth depends on the municipality’s individual context (e.g. presence of natural heritage features, grades, level of servicing), and permitted built form. In order to ensure proper lot function, an urban residential lot for a single detached dwelling with an additional residential unit in the basement, and a residential unit in an accessory structure would require a different minimum lot area and frontage than a lot for a townhouse unit with or without an additional residential unit. Municipal zoning standards are established based on technical requirements, local characteristics, and levels Attachment 1 to Report PDS-073-25 Comments on Consultation on Minimum Lot Sizes Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments of servicing. Each minimum standard interacts with others to create a functional building lot. A one size fits all approach will make it challenging for municipalities to maintain proper lot and neighbourhood function. 4 What other zoning requirements or performance standards could be needed to support any reduction or removal of minimum lot size requirements on low-density urban residential parcels (i.e., additional residential units, multiplexes, parking requirements, lot coverage, height and density etc.)? Zoning standards including lot coverage maximums, opens space minimums, minimum setback requirements, parking requirements, height, among others, would be required to enable municipalities to ensure lots continue to be developed in a way that will function properly and appropriately both in the context of the lot itself, and the surrounding neighbourhood. Draft Staff Comments on Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards Comments on Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments 1 025-1101 Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards – Lot Level (outside of buildings) What is your interest in and/or experience with the implementation of enhanced development standards at the lot level (outside of buildings)? For example, are you a municipal staff member, homebuilder, planner, Indigenous representative, or member of the public? N/A Comments have been prepared by municipal planning staff. 2 In your experience, are enhanced development standards applied consistently across municipalities? Please provide examples where possible. N/A Enhanced development standards are not necessarily applied consistently across Ontario. However, each municipality uses development standards, and site plan control, as appropriate, to implement strategic policy directions, such as those relating to energy conservation, air quality, and climate change that are also consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. 3 What types of standards, should municipalities be allowed to apply outside of buildings and how do these requirements maintain the health and safety of the site if at all? N/A Standards relating to accessibility, climate resiliency and sustainability, improving visibility and public safety within neighbourhoods, and low impact development measures that reduce strain on or complement conventional infrastructure should be among the types of standards municipalities are able to consider outside of buildings. Attachment 2 to Report PDS-073-25 Attachment 2 to PDS-073-25 – DRAFT Staff Comments on Consultation on simplifying and standardizing official plans Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Discussion Question Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments 1 025-1099 Consultation on simplifying and standardizing official plans Official Plan Structure and Contents What is your perspective on the changes being considered to simplify and standardize the structure and contents of official plans? Yes No Staff is open to considering opportunities to improve clarity and effectiveness of municipal official plans and finding efficiencies in official plan development and update processes. Staff is concerned about the extent to which standardization could undermine the purpose of a municipal official plan, which is to set out the long-term vision for how a community wants to grow, and to makes sure that growth is coordinated and meets the community’s needs. Staff does not support the standardization of official plans where standards are imposed that require each municipality’s official plan to look the same and provide for the development of a standardized built community. Staff also does not support the elimination of secondary plans as part of the official plan. Secondary plans enable a level of specificity in planning for land use, infrastructure, and amenities that is necessary to help guide the development of complete communities. 2 What distinctions should be made between the content of upper and lower-tier official plans? What considerations should apply in municipalities where the upper-tier official plan acts as the lower-tier official plan? N/A Clarington is part of the Regional Municipality of Durham, an upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities. Clarington has assumed the Regional Official Plan and will be consolidating the upper-tier and lower-tier official plans into one document as part of the upcoming Official Plan review. 3 What is your perspective on limiting development standards in official plans? To what extent should development standards be set out in official plans vs in zoning by-laws? Neutral As part of the upcoming Official Plan review, staff is not opposed to a review of the contents to acknowledge where there may be prescriptive development standards that may be better directed to zoning by-laws (e.g. step backs, setbacks). The Province is requested to provide clarification as to what it considers a development standard. Many official plans began to incorporate prescriptive policies to conform to density and intensification requirements identified in the Growth Plan. 4 What is your perspective on the changes being considered regarding secondary plans and site- specific policies? Are there other ways to address these policies? No Staff agrees that municipalities should have a comprehensive official plan that applies to the entire municipality. Staff does not support eliminating the opportunity for municipalities to develop secondary plans or site-specific policies. Many municipalities are not homogenous and benefit from community or neighbourhood specific policies and secondary plans to address matters like infrastructure and community amenities that consider a sub area’s specific characteristics. Clarington, for example, is comprised of four distinct urban areas, and a large agricultural Attachment 2 to Report PDS-073-25 Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Discussion Question Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments and rural land mass, most of which is located within the Greenbelt. Secondary plans should remain part of official plans to enable more detailed, but necessary, comprehensive planning for land use, infrastructure, and amenities, in support of municipal capital forecasting at the neighbourhood or community scale. 5 What is your perspective on the number and types of standardized schedules, overlays and data proposed to be required? Should any be removed, or are there any other schedules that could help improve official plans? Neutral Many of the proposed standard schedules are already included in the Clarington Official Plan. However, two proposed new schedules, A1 Estimate of Market Need, A2 Serviced Land Requirement are not schedules staff are familiar with so more detail would be needed. In addition, during our last Official Plan review, the Province initially to added F1 Wildland Fire Susceptibility however eventually concluded that this type of data was not available for Clarington and therefor not applicable. Regarding B2 Wastewater and Stormwater; wastewater is the Region of Durham’s infrastructure and would therefore be inappropriate to map in the Clarington Official Plan. In the case of Stormwater, pond locations are only finalized at the end of the planning process, so early identification municipal wide at the OP scale is not appropriate. 6 Limiting the Length of Official Plans What is your perspective on the changes being considered to limit the length of official plans? No Staff does not support a page limit on the length of official plans. Official Plans should be developed, reviewed, and approved based on the value of the contents, not the length of the document. Each municipalit y’s composition, growth forecasts, and needs are different. Therefore, these considerations should be at the core of the development of the official plan, rather than losing valuable policy direction at the expense of an arbitrary page limit. 7 Should there be different limits placed on different types of municipalities (e.g., based on population size)? No Staff does not support a standardization of length based on types of municipalities. Currently, Ontario’s municipalities are unique, having different land areas, populations, natural features, agricultural systems, specific employment industries, levels of infrastructure etc. A municipality may have a small population but robust growth forecasts within the planning horizon, perhaps needing new policies to help guide this growth. Conversely, a largely populated municipality’s growth may be slowing. Official plans should be reflective of each unique municipality and be comprised of policies that appropriately add value. Length should not be the focus. 8 Are there other approaches that could be used to limit the length of official plans? Yes Staff suggests focusing improvements on the value of the content and consider how certain types of policies (e.g. prescriptive standards) may be better accommodated in other available tools. 9 Creating Permissive What is your perspective on the changes being considered to standardize the number and type of land use designations? Neutral Staff is not opposed some standardization of the naming convention for land use designations, provided municipalities retain the autonomy to define what each designation looks like in its local context, and where each designation Attachment 2 to Report PDS-073-25 Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Discussion Question Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments Land Use Designations No may or may not be appropriate. For example, medium - or high- density residential may look different in a largely populated, urbanized municipality than in a mid-sized municipality without supportive transit infrastructure. Staff would not support requirements that reduce municipalities’ ability to plan for and embrace what makes them unique, and the reasons residents and businesses might choose to locate there. 10 Would standardized land use designations between upper-tier and lower-tier official plan improve clarity? Where are the opportunities to reduce duplication between the upper and lower- tier official plans in land use designations? Neutral Clarington is part of the Regional Municipality of Durham, an upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities. Clarington has assumed the Regional Official Plan and will be consolidating the upper-tier and lower tier official plans into one document as part of the new official plan review. 11 Are there additional designations that would be required? Are there opportunities to streamline or further combine some of the proposed designations (e.g. Residential I and II, and Mixed Use I and II)? N/A Rural/Countryside (including rural settlement areas) designations should be included. Employment designations that apply to lands outside of Employment Areas should also be included to ensure municipalities are able to appropriately plan for employment uses (such as population-related employment) and avoid development of residential-only communities. 12 Are there implications to making land use designations more streamlined and permissive? No More permissive and streamlined land use designations may make it more challenging to affect the function, look, and feel of both private and public spaces within neighbourhoods. Standardization puts at risk the individuality of each municipality. Public participation and community involvement has been an integral part of land use planning. Many of the changes to provincial legislation and policy over the last few years have made it increasingly challenging for the community to have a voice in shaping the places they have chosen to live, work, and play. Streamlining high level policy documents will further diminish the public’s ability to affect how their community grows. 13 Are there land use designation terminology or descriptions that would be easier to understand? Neutral The proposed standard designations seem common across municipal official plans currently, and familiar to those who are familiar with land use planning and development. The naming convention however, Residential 1 and Residential 2 is quite similar to R1 and R2 – standard residential zones throughout the province. 14 Transitioning to a New Framework What is your perspective on the changes being considered to transition to a standardized official plan framework? Yes No Staff would support transition provisions that require new official plans to conform to a new framework at the next scheduled five - or ten-year review. This would better enable municipalities to plan and budget for the update. Staff would oppose transition provisions where compliance is required by a specified date from the time a new framework comes into effect. This approach would lack regard for the timing of municipalities’ most recent Attachment 2 to Report PDS-073-25 Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Discussion Question Staff Supports Change? Staff Comments official plan review cycle and would put undue pressure on municipa l resources and budgets by requiring another update in advance of the five- year cycle. There would be similar pressure on external consultant resources, often retained to assist municipalities with reviews, if all municipalities were undertaking updates simultaneously to comply with the same deadline. 15 What is a realistic implementation timeline for your municipality to update its official plan to comply with a standardized framework (e.g., structure, land use designations, page/word limits), and why? Please consider staffing, council cycles, data/mapping updates, public engagement, and statutory review requirements in your response. N/A Staff will look to implement any new direction for official plan content as part of the upcoming official plan review, which will also consolidate the Clarington Official Plan and the Durham Regional Official Plan into one document, as directed by the Province. It is anticipated this program will take approximately two to five years to complete in consideration of the necessary background technical studies and council election cycles, and will result in the need for additional staff resources. In addition, staff will be looking to initiate a comprehensive zoning by-law review to dovetail with the Official Plan review program, enabling the relocation of prescriptive, development standard-type policies from the Official Plan into zoning to facilitate efficient development approvals. 16 How can the province best support municipalities in transitioning to a simplified and harmonized official plan framework? N/A The Province could support municipalities with additional resources to support Indigenous Engagement. As well, the Province could support municipalities by stabilizing the provincial framework to enable municipalities to implement these changes. 17 Submission of Official Plans through Online Portal Do you support the move toward allowing submission of official plan information and documents through an online portal? Why or why not? Support Staff is supportive of digital submission for official plans and official plan amendments that require approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Clarington has recently implemented electronic submission for all Planning Act applications. 18 What benefits and/or risks do you foresee from transitioning to submission through an online portal? Support Benefits to transitioning to submission through an online portal could include immediate acknowledgment of a record being received by the Province, and the ability to provide real-time status updates on documents that have been submitted to the Ministry for approval.