News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

T

torplanner

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
310
Reaction score
313
(I didn't see this posted yet... sorry if repost)

The City of Mississauga and Councillors Wong-Tam and Matlow in Toronto want their respective cities (at least) removed from OMB review. No local appeals body would take their place (at least, as how Cllr Wong-Tam sees it). Appeals would go to the Courts.

What do people think of this idea?
 
Appeals would go to the Courts.
Click to expand...

Since the OMB is a court, I don't see the point of such a lateral move. I wonder what the real reason is? Do they think a different independent judiciary body would be more in favour of the City? (I don't see how). Do these councillors want to limit how someone can appeal? Do these councillors really want to eliminate the appeal process all together and have city council be the highest authority? (I would hope not).
 
The actual motion is HERE: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2011.PG9.11

It is being debated today and the intent is to allow appeals to the courts on matters of Law, only. At present the OMB can and does sometimes adjudicate on actual applications and hears applications de novo. For Cities with professional planners this is really not a good thing. If the Committee passes it today it will go to Council and then be sent to the Province - where I suspect nothing will happen.
 
Yes, I think that's the case. I believe they want only points of law, not points of "good planning" or whatever, appealable.

I can see the appeal of this measure. In theory, it could make developers more likely to bargain "in good faith" with the local councillor (because, let's be honest, that's who makes decisions). It would give the municipality to simply shelve applications it doesn't want to deal with (unless there is some other current right to appeal to the Courts I'm not aware of). It would also make third party appeals pretty much non-existent due to costs. Speculating, I would say that this measure will also place downward pressure on density in the City.

But given that the City hasn't even taken advantage of their existing authority to set-up a local appeal body for CoA decisions, I'm not confident in the Council's willingness to really take control of planning in the city.

I'm trying to think of some good developments in the City that were approved at the OMB over the objections of Council. I believe the Minto towers at Y/E were. I also would speculate that if it wasn't for the OMB, Leslieville would have a Wal-Mart right now if it was appealed to the Courts based on how the City processed their application.
 
I'm not confident in the Council's willingness to really take control of planning in the city.
Click to expand...

I'm not so concerned about their willingness to control planning, as I am their unbiased ability to do it with the city's best interest at heart. Councilors are biased towards the constituents of their ward, and that generally means NIMBYs.

Minto Midtown is a good example. Anne Johnston lost her seat because she favoured a compromise. Karen Stintz won because she strongly opposed the development, and intensification in general. Yonge-Eglinton is the obvious place for intensification, given the Yonge line and future Eglinton line intersects here. Not wanting intensification here is bad for city planning and also bad for the TTC.

Karen Stintz is the new head of the TTC...anything appear wrong here?

Perhaps Ford can make Don Cherry the new head of a cycling committee?
 
The main purpose of the OMB is to prevent planning decisions from being made for political purposes rather than basing them on established planning rational. If one side or the other thinks that a municipal council has made a decision that is contrary to their Official Plan, or contrary to Provincial planning policy, they can appeal it to the OMB. If you take the OMB away municipal councils will be able to get away with making decisions to appease the voters (e.g. NIMBY’s) or to appease their political supporters (e.g. developers) without any fear of retribution.

The ‘problem’ with the OMB is that municipal councilors currently abuse the system by making decisions that they know are contrary to their Official Plan or Provincial planning policy (and often contrary to their own planning staff's advice), because they know the OMB will overturn their decision and then they can say they it wasn’t their fault. This gives people the impression that the OMB always sides with the developers, which isn’t true. The OMB always sides with the City’s Official Plan and Provincial planning policy. If people are unhappy with the OMB’s decision they should be changing their Official Plans and their Provincial government, not getting rid of the OMB.

Having said that, there is certain room for a revamping of the OMB.
 
Last edited:
PGM unanimously approves motion to request that the Province abolish the OMB or at least remove Toronto from its jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:
howl said:
The main purpose of the OMB is to prevent planning decisions from being made for political purposes rather than basing them on established planning rational. If one side or the other thinks that a municipal council has made a decision that is contrary to their Official Plan, or contrary to Provincial planning policy, they can appeal it to the OMB. If you take the OMB away municipal councils will be able to get away with making decisions to appease the voters (e.g. NIMBY’s) or to appease their political supporters (e.g. developers) without any fear of retribution.

The ‘problem’ with the OMB is that municipal councilors currently abuse the system by making decisions that they know are contrary to their Official Plan or Provincial planning policy (and often contrary to their own planning staff's advice), because they know the OMB will overturn their decision and then they can say they it wasn’t their fault. This gives people the impression that the OMB always sides with the developers, which isn’t true. The OMB always sides with the City’s Official Plan and Provincial planning policy. If people are unhappy with the OMB’s decision they should be changing their Official Plans and their Provincial government, not getting rid of the OMB.

Having said that, there is certain room for a revamping of the OMB.
Click to expand...


You hit the nail on the head.

I don't see how switching from one judicial format to another will change anything.

Councillors are always conflicted with constituents (voters) and developers (fundraisers). Many of them are quite happy about the OMB as it generally takes the 'hard' decisions in municipal planing out of their hands, this way, they can continue to appease both sides..
 
freshcutgrass said:
I'm not so concerned about their willingness to control planning, as I am their unbiased ability to do it with the city's best interest at heart. Councilors are biased towards the constituents of their ward, and that generally means NIMBYs.
Click to expand...
And the OMB is biased towards developers. I can only imagine how much money changes hands there,
 
torplanner said:
I'm trying to think of some good developments in the City that were approved at the OMB over the objections of Council. I believe the Minto towers at Y/E were. I also would speculate that if it wasn't for the OMB, Leslieville would have a Wal-Mart right now if it was appealed to the Courts based on how the City processed their application.
Click to expand...
There are lots of developments all over the city where this happens - look at how ugly Bay St is. Plus near residential areas. Developers come in, get the area rezoned without the area residents knowing about it and then put in an application for a development for condos which is out of scale. What is it with the assumption that only high rise condos mostly 400-6oo sq,ft can go up to make a city? Look at European cities and the scale of their apartment buildings.
 
Palma said:
And the OMB is biased towards developers. I can only imagine how much money changes hands there,
Click to expand...

The money changing hands takes place at the municipal level (i.e. Section 37 bonusing). When a project gets to the OMB, it is simply all out war.
 
Palma said:
There are lots of developments all over the city where this happens - look at how ugly Bay St is. Plus near residential areas. Developers come in, get the area rezoned without the area residents knowing about it and then put in an application for a development for condos which is out of scale. What is it with the assumption that only high rise condos mostly 400-6oo sq,ft can go up to make a city? Look at European cities and the scale of their apartment buildings.
Click to expand...

By your comments, I'm reasonably sure you have no idea how planning and development is done in Toronto/Ontario.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top