News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Isn't residential also technically 'employment' as it provides construction and various trades employment, among others?

Agreed, I wonder if there's built-in loopholes that might allow this to happen- i.e. a commercial development with residential attached.
 
Isn't residential also technically 'employment' as it provides construction and various trades employment, among others?

That was basically my question. When they it has to create jobs, do they mean it has to be an EMPLOYMENT USE or will some developer say his project will create a bunch of jobs for a few months and get the minister to sign off on a subdivision. The analyses of what this all means seem to still be coming in.
 
Employment areas refer to uses like industrial, warehouses, offices, etc. Residential and most commercial uses don't count as employment uses. That's not to say that they won't open up the Greenbelt for residential at some point in the future, but this legislation, if accurate, doesn't appear to do that.
 
Even if restricted to non-residential, I wonder what the knock-on effects will be. A city declares an Open Business zone to attract an employer, but that employer will only come if it can attract people to work there. So they insist on a supply of housing. Now the city is desperate to expedite new residential on a “just do it” basis, where absent all this they might support their planning dept in driving a harder bargain with the proponent.
I also wonder whether there are grounds for legal challenge. I’m not that knowledgeable about how much of the “red tape” that Ford is trying to obliterate originated in past court cases, as opposed to how much has been imposed by legislation and regulation drafting over the years. My layman’s gut tells me that there may be landmark court cases that can’t be overriden even by the Legislature.
When this story broke during the election, the backlash was pretty immediate. I’m hoping there may be headlines shortly. This is an awfully brash move, even for Ford’s posse.

- Paul
 
Employment use or not, what concerns me is all that would be so much road kill if this is passed, literally, and figuratively.

The following is what an 'open for business planning by law would be exempt from'

(6) The following provisions do not apply to an open-for-business planning by-law:

1. Subsection 3 (5).

2. Section 24.

3. Subsections 34 (10.0.0.1) to (34).

4. Section 36.

5. Section 37.

6. Section 39 of the Clean Water Act, 2006.

7. Section 20 of the Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015.

8. Section 7 of the Greenbelt Act, 2005.

9. Section 6 of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008.

10. Subsection 31.1 (4) of the Metrolinx Act, 2006.

11. Section 7 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001.

12. Section 13 of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994.

13. Subsection 14 (1) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005.

14. Section 12 of the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016.


the first 5 are the Planning Act, I believe.

For further clarity, in most of these, the applicable section is the subsection in the act that says a decision taking under the Planning Act shall conform with this law.
 
If this move actually created affordable housing
Depends on how you define affordable.

If people are willing to buying it, then one might call it by definition, "affordable".

For this government, I am sure that definition of affordability is what they might be considering.
 
Employment use or not, what concerns me is all that would be so much road kill if this is passed, literally, and figuratively.

The following is what an 'open for business planning by law would be exempt from'

(6) The following provisions do not apply to an open-for-business planning by-law:

1. Subsection 3 (5).

2. Section 24.

3. Subsections 34 (10.0.0.1) to (34).

4. Section 36.

5. Section 37.

6. Section 39 of the Clean Water Act, 2006.

7. Section 20 of the Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015.

8. Section 7 of the Greenbelt Act, 2005.

9. Section 6 of the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008.

10. Subsection 31.1 (4) of the Metrolinx Act, 2006.

11. Section 7 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001.

12. Section 13 of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994.

13. Subsection 14 (1) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005.

14. Section 12 of the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016.


the first 5 are the Planning Act, I believe.

For further clarity, in most of these, the applicable section is the subsection in the act that says a decision taking under the Planning Act shall conform with this law.

1. Provincial Policy Statement (!)

2. Official Plan

3. Zoning notices/appeals

4. Holding Zones

5. Benefit agreements

6. Source protection Plans

7. Great Lake Protection Plan initiatives

8. Greenbelt Plan

9. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan designated policies

10. Transportation planning policy statement issued under Metrolinx Act

11. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan

12. Parkway West Belt Plan

13. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Growth Plan for Northern Ontario

14. Policy statement issued through Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act,

The Niagara Escarpment Plan seems to be one of the few plans left out

I guess with the PPS and OP exemptions these employment uses can be placed on prime agricultural lands or designated natural heritage systems throughout the province! Don't think just inner GTA and Simcoe (which will be a gong show) but Niagara, London, Ottawa, Windsor, Cornwall, Huron County, Sudbury, etc Even if the main City uses this tool responsibility, what about the surrounding Townships?

here's the details on the reg defining what projects would apply.
https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/013-4239
 
Last edited:

Back
Top