GTA mayors respond to proposed legislation that could open up Greenbelt to development

Thestar.com
December 17, 2018
Stefanie Marotta

New legislation proposed by Premier Doug Ford is causing concern that parts of the two-million-acre Greenbelt could be paved over for development.

If the province passes Bill 66, critics fear that commercial developers could bypass several long-standing laws that aim to protect the natural environment.

Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward says she doesn’t see her city using Bill 66 if it’s passed. “We will not be comprising their safety or quality of life for speed,” she said about the legislation that could open the Greenbelt for development. “At the same time, we’ll do everything we can to ensure Burlington is open for business.”

The proposed legislation, called the Restoring Ontario’s Competitiveness Act, aims to reduce red tape for businesses seeking planning approvals.

Ford has repeatedly said that the intention of the omnibus legislation is not to open up the Greenbelt to housing development.

Ford assured delegates to the Toronto Global Forum on Wednesday that his push to cut “unnecessary red tape” is not about opening up the Greenbelt.

“Right now we have more than double the regulations that we have in British Columbia. Just imagine this, 380,000 regulations . . . right here in Ontario. That’s staggering. That makes it almost impossible to do business,” he said.

Economic Development Minister Todd Smith, who tabled Bill 66, said the Progressive Conservative government would keep its campaign promise to not allow development on the Greenbelt.

The Star reached out to mayors across the GTA for their reaction to the bill. (Some municipalities didn’t provide a comment in time for deadline.)

• Toronto: “City staff are reviewing Bill 66 and its implications. Mayor (John) Tory believes existing environmental and planning safeguards are especially important in a rapidly growing region. There are other ways to make the approval process more efficient without jeopardizing those safeguards.” --Don Peat, spokesperson for Tory

• Burlington: “We stand firm in our commitment to protecting our Greenbelt from development and protecting our farm families and rural agricultural economy. We will also ensure our residents benefit from the protections in all the other pieces of legislation referred to in Bill 66. We will not be comprising their safety or quality of life for speed. I do not see Burlington using this legislation, if it is passed. At the same time, we’ll do everything we can to ensure Burlington is open for business.” --Mayor Marianne Meed Ward

• Oakville: The “Open for Business” zoning bylaw removes the ability for local residents or councillors to influence planning decisions. Specifically, if adopted, the bylaw would allow development to go forward with no public notice, no consultation and no appeal. Additionally, the bylaw would override a “hold” or “H” placed on land by the local councillor or council body, and would exempt developers from their obligations under Section 37 of the Planning Act. This bill is bad for municipalities and bad for constituents. As local representatives, we know that managing development is one of the top responsibilities our residents task us with. It is not in their interest, or ours, to see “Open for Business” zoning put in place.” --Mayor Rob Burton, in a letter to the Greenbelt Leaders co-chair on Wednesday.

• Halton Hills: “This is a complex bill with many components to it as it includes 12 ministries. I don’t want to see diminished changes to the Clean Water Act or seeing the Greenbelt peeled back for residential purposes. I do support the government’s larger objective; wanting to see planning decisions moved along faster than in the past while not compromising safety of our water and the environment. We appreciate the government looking for ways to help communities grow.” --Mayor Rick Bonnette

• Milton: “As I understand it, what they’re proposing is restoring some of Ontario’s competitiveness and I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. Part of it, as I understand it, is that they’re eliminating a lot of the red tape, and allowing municipalities to act quickly in attracting new business and I’m all for that, but certainly --and I want to make it clear --certainly not at the expense of the environment and all of those other things that go along with it. . . . I’m about preservation, but I’m also about common sense.” --Mayor Gordon Krantz

PEEL REGION

• Mississauga: “While we are always looking for ways to cut red tape and make it easier for companies to establish themselves in our city, we must balance this with our commitment to protecting our shared environment and the safety of our residents for future generations to come. Sustainability and responsible development have always been our guiding principles, and we will continue to carefully review every single development application before it proceeds. It’s important to note that Mississauga is already a leader in making it easier for businesses to invest in our city. We have designated pre-zoned lands for business, authorized the issuing of conditional building permits, and created a development liaison position to facilitate the development application process.” --Mayor Bonnie Crombie

• Caledon: “The town is currently reviewing the potential impacts of Bill 66 on our community. While council as a whole makes decisions as they relate to development, I can say that the preservation and protection of Caledon’s agricultural land and natural environment is very important to the residents of Caledon and must be strongly considered in all decisions made by council.” --Mayor Allan Thompson

DURHAM REGION

• Pickering: “It’s too premature for Mayor Dave Ryan to comment on Bill 66 at this time. As this has just literally landed on our desk, our planning staff have not yet had an opportunity to review and discuss in thorough detail. In turn, they will brief the mayor accordingly.” --Mark Guinto, manager, public affairs and corporate communications

• Whitby: “Town staff are currently reviewing Bill 66 and will be reporting to council in early 2019.” --Mayor Don Mitchell

• Clarington: “Our Planning Services Department, as well as Clarington Board of Trade and Office of Economic Development, work with developers to walk them through the planning process to eliminate any red tape. . . .The municipality follows its Official Plan as well as regional and provincial policies that guide planning applications. Clarington is watching developments on Bill 66; it is too early to comment on the details of the proposed legislation. If and when Bill 66 is approved, Clarington council will decide the municipality’s position and how we will move forward.” --Mayor Adrian Foster

• Uxbridge: “We must find a balance between protecting our environment and creating jobs close to our homes. I hope that our municipal and provincial governments can work together to find that balance.” --Mayor Dave Barton

• Scugog: “Greenbelt communities like Scugog require an enhanced degree of sustained financial assistance from the province, either through direct transfer payments, guaranteed grants, or through some degree of preferential weighing in grant application and suitable and sustainable planning processes. The township is encouraged with the proposal to provide opportunities to permit manufacturing and research development that creates a large number of jobs. We would only consider controlled development of small border sections of lands that are adjacent to our industrial areas (e.g. Port Perry and Blackstock)” --Mayor Bobbie Drew

YORK REGION

• Markham: Mayor Frank Scarpitti welcomes the government’s removal of red tape, but promised that the city would not “turn our back on the environment.”

“It’s perhaps a little early for me to be sounding the alarm bells,” Scarpitti said in a phone interview.

• Aurora: “I am greatly concerned about the implications of the new “open for business” legislation, in particular as it speaks to potential impacts to the integrity of the Greenbelt. I personally would not be in favour of entering discussions with the province regarding the potential removal of any town lands that are currently protected areas and would oppose any such move. Our Official Plan reflects our community’s collective vision for current and future planning. And as such, the OP clearly designates land that is protected. It also provides clearly designated land to meet future employment land needs in the long term. We have no need to “discuss” the option of removing designated land from protected areas. --Mayor Tom Mrakas

• Vaughan: “We’re still reviewing the legislation.” --Michael Genova, director, corporate and strategic communications

• Georgina: “With the recent tabling of Bill 66 from the province, council is interested in learning more details as to what exactly this will mean. Council will be looking to engage staff for further research and exploration of how this will impact residents and our community as a whole.” --Mayor Margaret Quirk

• King: “King Township isn’t prepared to make a comment on Bill 66 at this time as our planning department is still reviewing the bill on its potential impacts on the municipality. We anticipate a staff report on the issue will be brought to council in January.” --Jason Ballantyne, communications officer

• Richmond Hill: “We will continue to monitor the progress of Bill 66 and its associated proposed regulation. We are asking our staff for a report and the Region of York for a report on any impact on our planned urban structure and our infrastructure master plan so we can take a position before Jan. 20, 2019. Richmond Hill is strongly committed to the conservation of our natural environment. For example, our Official Plan has been developed around the protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt areas. . . . The bill may be a tool to create employment lands along the 400 series highways that are needed to carry goods and services but that does not affect every municipality.” --Mayor Dave Barrow

AMO

Association of Municipalities of Ontario: “Bill 66 sets out a framework for a new land use planning tool. We understand the intent is to facilitate the zoning of lands for industrial and commercial uses; it is not for residential development. The framework rests on the Minister of Municipal Affairs’ review criteria, and on the minister’s approval to use the new tool. The criteria will be important. We will need details about the approval criteria before we can provide a meaningful analysis.” --AMO Executive Director Pat Vanini