HomeMy WebLinkAboutCL 10-03
CitJ¡ o~
REPORT TO
COUNCIL
Report Number: CL 10-03
Date: March 17,2003
From:
Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM
City Clerk
Subject:
GTA Task Force on OMB Reform
Recommendation:
WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board was created to resolve municipal land use
issues at a time when municipal governments were small and had limited planning
expertise; and
WHEREAS the role and mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board have not been
significantly altered in response to increased municipal planning skills or expanded
municipal responsibilities for land use planning under the Planning Act; and
WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board has broad planning powers and can make
decisions in the absence of a full municipal review of a planning application and can
overturn local planning decisions; and
WHEREAS Ontario municipalities invest significant resources in staff time, legal and
other associated costs in establishing and implementing local planning policy; and
WHEREAS there is growing concern from municipalities and citizens that the decisions
of the Ontario Municipal Board are eroding local planning authority; and
WHEREAS there have been numerous Council resolutions, municipal reports and
reports from planning professionals and academics advocating reform of the Ontario
Municipal Board; and
WHEREAS the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, an informed group of municipal
elected representatives and staff, after study and consultation, has made practical
recommendations for improvements to the planning appeal process;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby
endorses the Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform dated March 5, 2003; and
FURTHER THAT this resolution be circulated to the Chair of the GTA Task Force on
OMB Reform, the Attorney General, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and
the Provincial party leaders.
Report CL 10-02
Date: March 17,2003
Subject: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform
Page 2 .
Executive Summary:
To consider the endorsement of the Final Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB
Reform.
Financial Implications:
Not applicable
Background:
Please find attached to this Report correspondence from the 15 members of the GTA
Task Force on OMB Reform in which they convey their final report, which is also
attached hereto.
The Task Force recommendations contained in the Final Report focus on four key
areas of improvement:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Update the role of the Ontario Municipal Board
Enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information
Support citizen participation through intervenor funding
Promote an independent and fair tribunal
Several Ontario municipalities have passed resolutions expressing frustration with the
Ontario Municipal Board and seeking some type of reform of that agency. More
particularly, the City of Pickering Council passed the following resolution at its regular
meeting of February 4, 2002:
WHEREAS in a review of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by the
Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) it was found that 15 GTA
municipalities spent over $20 million on cases relating to policy issues
and new large-scale urban area designations over the last five years; and
WHEREAS the Corporation of the City of Pickering dedicates significant
resources in staff time, legal fees and other related costs, as outlined in
the memo from the Solicitor for the City dated January 31, 2002 to
represent the corporation at cases before the OMB; and
WHEREAS the members of the OMB are appointed by the Government of
Ontario and have no direct accountability back to the electorate; and
Report CL 10-02
Date: March 17,2003
Subject: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform
Page 3
WHEREAS the original intent of the OMB was to be a check against bad or
biased planning but has grown into a body that may overturn sound
planning decisions and reshaping communities in a manner that is
contrary to their will and vision; and
WHEREAS there is an increasing trend for developers to appeal matters
before local Councils to the OMB prior to the elected representatives
considering the matter and often before public statutory meetings occur;
and
WHEREAS in many recent decisions the OMB has overturned decisions of
local councils because a land use was not expressly prohibited thus
creating an impossible burden to municipal official plans which will
require a laundry list of allowable and disallowed uses for protection; and
WHEREAS a municipal official plan should be broad based and flexible
but will become encumbered by restrictions that may have undesired
outcomes in an attempt to provide protection from the OMB; and
WHEREAS the Government of Ontario can not expect 'smart growth' to
occur in an environment where local planning and years of public input
and debate can be overturned by an appointed body with often little
knowledge of the municipalities who's future they are shaping; and
WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report on the OMB states that "as an
appointed tribunal, the OMB should not be determining growth patterns of
the GT A" and notes that, "municipal taxpayers, after paying for
exhaustive planning policy processes, have to pay an unacceptable price
to defend their decisions in the OMB arena"; and
WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report further states "There is no
evidence, at least in the opinion of municipalities, to suggest that the $20
million plus yields a higher quality of life and a better-planned GT A than
would have been yielded by the decision-making of the elected municipal
councils, following the exhaustive planning processes and legal
requirements that we now follow".
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering
urges the Government of Ontario to remove or, at the least, radically
reduce the role of OMB back to a pure check against bad or biased
planning; and
Report CL 10-02
Date: March 17, 2003
Subject: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform
Page 4
THAT the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be requested to act
upon the report done by the Town of Caledon, work done by the GTSB
and requests of municipalities by applying meaningful and lasting
pressure to dissolve or radically alter the OMS; and
THAT the leadership candidates for the Ontario Progressive Conservative
Party and the leader of the Official Opposition be requested to respond
back to the Council of Corporation of the City of Pickering as to their
position on this issue; and
THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Region of Durham be
requested to endorse this motion; and
THAT this motion be circulated to;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
All area Mayors and Chairs
Janet Ecker, M.P.P - Pickering-Ajax-Whitby
Jim Flaherty, M.P.P. - Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance
Tony Clement, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Elizabeth Witmer, Environment Minister
Ernie Eves, former Minister of Finance and candidate for the
leadership of the Ontario PC party
Dalton McGuinty, leader of the Official Opposition
Mike Harris - Premier of the Province of Ontario
Chris Stockwell, M.P.P.
Attachments:
1.
2.
Letter dated March 7, 2003 from GTA Task Force on OMB Reform
Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform
Prepared By:
//'J
" " ,
¿""">/
,/,/
" é
/ Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
""-7
'(
Report CL 10-02
Date: March 17, 2003
Subject: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform
Page 5
Attachments
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
,.
GTA Task Force
on OMB Reform
Roger M. Anderson
Chair
c/o
Region of Durham
605 Rossland Rd.
East
Whitby, ON
L1N 6A3
Ph:
905-668-7711
Fax:
905-668-1567
.I-\TTACHMEi\n
I
I
It REPORT#~,,~.. /0 - t:! "3
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
March 7, 2003
TO: .
Cl'::Ai'\"':¡:i r'.~'i¡F"¡.""'t\¡
-"- ¡ """"""""V¡I/
Clerks of Greater Toronto Area Municipalities
FROM: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform
Dear Madam or Sir,
Please find attached a copy of the Final Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB
Reform for consideration and endorsement by your Council.
Last summer, Durham Regional Council endorsed the City of Mississauga's
resolution that highlighted the need for reform of the Ontario Municipal Board appeal
process. That resolution outlined the many problems and costs that municipalities
were experiencing in defending their planning decisions at the OMB. Durham
Council was acutely aware of these difficulties. Council instructed Regional Chair
Anderson to invite GTA municipalities to form a Task Force with the goal of
preparing recommendations to the Province for significant changes to the OMB
process.
This report is the result of a focussed effort by a group of GT A municipal politicians
and staff since September 2002. We encourage your Council to study the Report
and add your support for reform of the planning appeal process in Ontario.
The Task Force requests that your Council formally endorse the Report and inform
the Task Force Chair of its decision. A model Council resolution is attached for your
use if desired. In the interests of raising the profile of this issue in both the public
and political arenas during the anticipated provincial election campaign, we urge you
to respond to Chair Roger Anderson at the Region of Durham by April 15, 2003.
Sincerely,
~ ~::;;¿5;¡T: ¿ ~
oger Anderson
Regional Chair
Region of Durham
4~~
Andre~son
Senior Solicitor
Region of Durham
/
~ :¿;!£
~~ '--~
rank D'Amico
Councillor
City of Hamilton
ATTACHMENT#~TO REPORï#.s.:.~. /0 ,., 0>
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
Alex Geor. ff
Commission f Planning
Region of Durham
~
Paul Mallard
Manager, Developm t Planning
Planning and Development Department
City of Hamilton
~
Senior Planner
Planning & Development
Town of Ajax
/1/ /'-
./,. ~/C ~ ,
/~ .fi/ ~/
/-.t-~l. k~
Patrick O'Connor
Director of Legal Services
Corporate Services Department
Region of Peel
cr.
~;;:~
Arvin Prasad
Director of J:>lanning Policy and Research
Planning Department
Region of Peel
~¿~
Assistant Corporate Counsel
City of Hamilton
Mark ~HØand
CityrR'égiónal Councillor
City o~ckering
ß\\A\~
../.
"
Ann Mulvale
Mayor
Town of Oakville
Steve Parish
Mayor
Town of Ajax
",
~~.'~
Don Sinclair
Director, Development Law
Corporate and Legal Services Department
Region of York
/ ;~c REPORT# C' ~_Ið'~ C' ;,
MODEL RESOLUTION FOR ENDORSEMENT
WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board was created to resolve municipal land use'
issues at a time when municipal governments were small and had limited
planning expertise;
AND WHEREAS the role and mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board have not
been significantly altered in response to increased municipal planning skills or
expanded municipal responsibilities for land use planning under the Planning Act,
AND WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board has broad planning powers and can
make decisions in the absence of a full municipal review of a planning application
and can overturn local planning decisions;
AND WHEREAS Ontario Municipalities invest significant resources in staff time,
legal and other associated costs in establishing and implementing local planning
policy;
AND WHEREAS there is growing concern from municipalities and citizens that the
decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board are eroding local planning authority;
AND WHEREAS there have been numerous Council Resolutions, municipal
reports and reports from planning professionals and academics advocating
reform of the Ontario Municipal Board;
AND WHEREAS the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, an informed group of
municipal elected representatives and staff, after study and consultation, has
made practical recommendations for improvements to the planning appeal
process;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the
endorses the Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform dated March 5,
2003 ;
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT this resolution be circulated to the Chair
of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, the Attorney General, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the provincial party leaders.
j~..TTACHMEI\JT #,-~-'" TO REPORT # <"f_J 0" 0 3
Report of the
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
Recommendations for
Reforming the Ontario Municipal Board and
Ontario's Planning Appeal Process
March 7, 2003
"1'1'
a
, 1.',"1 C':"O"" 1.1"1" 4. C L. / 0 - CJ -:s
n,_, /\ t1"-......-"-
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
SUBJECT:
Recommendations for Reforming the Ontario Municipal Board and
Ontario's Planning Appeal Process
REPORT:
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to recommend reforms to the Ontario Municipal Board
(OM B) and the related land use planning appeal process, and to seek endorsement of
these recommendations by the local and regional governments within the Greater
Toronto Area. The Task Force will then forward the endorsed recommendations to the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General and others who may
be in a position to implement or influence those reforms.
BACKGROUND
Originally created as the Office of the Provincial Municipal Auditor in 1897 to supervise
account keeping by municipalities, the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board was formed
in 1906 with an added responsibility for railways. Renamed the Ontario Municipal
Board in 1932, its powers have expanded greatly over time and the Board now obtains
its jurisdiction from more than 100 statutes. This report is concerned with its
jurisdiction under the Planning Act
The Board was created to arbitrate municipal issues in a predominantly rural society
where municipal government was small and unsophisticated. After World War II,
Ontario's population became increasingly urban, planning departments began to
emerge in Ontario cities and towns, and land use planning legislation began to be
enacted provincially. At the dawn of the 21st century, Southern Ontario, in particular,
is primarily an urban culture with rapid development in and around its major cities.
Municipalities now possess considerable planning expertise. Since 1995, the Province
has downloaded most land use planning responsibilities to the municipal level of
government. The new Municipal Act 2001 recognizes municipalities as an order of
government.
While the OMB has undergone some administrative changes over the years and recent
...._-..-p¡:Q~duralimp , . Mat-e..J::ta~Rot beenÆi€Jnificantly altereQdR--~-._---
response to the increasing maturity of the municipal planning role and process.
1
.,~~TO REPORT #.5l::.- 10 " 0 3
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
FORMATION OF TASK FORCE
Many Ontario municipalities have expressed growing frustration with the planning
appeal process administered by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). They feel it
undermines their planning authority and is a drain on their financial and staff resources.
In June 2002, Durham Regional Council discussed and endorsed a City of Mississauga
resolution citing difficulties experienced by municipalities in relation to the OMB.
Durham Council further directed the Regional Chair, Roger Anderson, to convene a
meeting of Greater Toronto area (GTA) officials to see if, jointly, such a group could
formulate and agree upon recommendations for reform of the OMB appeal process.
On September 16, 2002, a group comprising GTA and Hamilton elected officials and
municipal staff met at the Region of Durham Council Chamber. A possible course of
action to stimulate meaningful reform of the OMB appeal process was discussed and
the group agreed to work as a Task Force to pursue this objective. Attachment 1 lists
the Task Force Members. The Terms of Reference adopted by the Task Force are
provided as Attachment 2. The objective was to prepare a report to the Attorney
General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing recommending reforms that
would address the key issues that municipalities face in the planning appeal process.
Task Force members saw it as essential to engage stakeholders in their review process,
to look at the appeal mechanisms used in other jurisdictions and, with a Provincial
election approaching, to hear the position of each provincial party with respect to the
OMB mandate and function. The Task Force invited a variety of stakeholders in the
planning process to present their views. Representatives of each of the three provincial
political parties were invited to present their party's perspective. The Ontario Municipal
Board was also invited to provide information about the appeal process and any
planned changes. The Task Force also hoped to generate some media interest in the
process so that the broader community would become aware of the issues and the
work underway.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
Based on suggestions from members of the Task Force, sixteen stakeholder groups and
knowledgeable individuals including academics, ratepayer groups, government agencies
and the development industry were invited to appear before the Task Force to present
their recommendations for changes to the OMB appeal process. Three consultation
dates were offered during December 2002 and January 2003. Nine representatives
appeared before the TÇJsk Force (see Attachment 3). Of the. groups invited, only 2did
not respond. Some stakeholders were unable to attend as they were involved with
cases before the Board or because their schedule did not allow it. The Ontario
Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) felt that their February 2002 paper fully explained
their position.
2
XfTACHMEi'P#_"2-- TOREPORT#~_/ü~. (i '3
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
In addition to the stakeholder groups, representatives of the Liberal Party and the New
Democratic Party spoke to the Task Force on Feb. 3, 2003, to explain the kinds of
changes they envisioned making to the OMB or the planning process, if elected.
The Chair of the OMB made a presentation on changes and improvements to the appeal
process that had been made, were underway or were being considered by the OMB
. itself. He provided copies of their Code of Conduct, recently revised forms and some
caseload statistics.
Each group or individual that appeared before the Task Force was asked to make a
short presentation and then respond to questions from Task Force Members. This was
an extremely informative process and covered a full spectrum of views on the OMB,
from those who felt that very little or no change to the appeal process was needed, to
those who felt it was beyond fixing and should be abolished.
Various municipal resolutions calling for reform of the OMB had been passed on to the
Task Force by its members and by the Durham Regional Clerk's Office. Several reports
on the OMS from municipalities, planning professional groups and academics were also
brought to the attention of the Task Force. These also represented quite a broad range
of perspectives. Some focussed on procedural adjustments while others advocated
radical reforms.
The Task Force reviewed the notes and materials from all the presentations, the
municipal motions and the various reports and extracted, grouped and summarized the
recommendations contained in them. See Attachment 4[ Summary of Consultation and
Submission Recommendations.
PLANNING APPEAL PRACTICES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Task Force research showed that the nature of appeal boards, both provincial and local,
and the extent of their authority on land use planning appeals vary significantly from
province to province. Each province has taken a different approach to planning appeals
based upon what was decided, who made the decision, and how the decision was
made.
. . . --~.....- .....
All provinces, with the exception of British Columbia and Quebec, have provincial
boards that have jurisdiction to hear appeals of land use planning decisions made (or
not made) by municipal councils, local or regional planning authorities, committees or
boards. . Gèhërâlly, thèfangê of planning ihstfÚmel'1tsover wniChprovinCiëll boards have
jurisdiction is limited. No provincial board in Canada has jurisdiction over planning-
related matters as extensive as that of the Ontario Municipal Board.
3
I Li".",,', ,:.:,<: ~; ~ fOREPOKf# Ci..fO-' (.ì)
-
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
In most provinces, provincial boards do not have appellate jurisdiction over official
plans. The appellate jurisdiction of provincial boards with respect to other planning
approvals varies from province to province. Generally, zoning by-laws cannot be
appealed to provincial boards, but planning controls that affect the details of
development proposals (for example, development permits and minor variances) can be
appealed.
Some provinces have local boards that hear appeals. However, to the extent that they
have appellate jurisdiction, these local boards typically only review decisions of
administrative officials.
Every province has statutorily codified processes that provide for property owners and
other interested parties to have a full and fair opportunity to present their views to the
original decision-maker and/or an appeal board on planning-related matters. Where
the provinces differ is in their views as to whether appeals to a provincial board and/or
a local board are necessary to ensure that the rules of natural justice or procedural
fairness are respected in the decision-making process. In provinces where appeals of
certain municipal decisions are not allowed (for example, official plans and zoning
bylaws in British Columbia and Alberta), the legislation sets out stringent procedural
requirements. In these situations, a hearing before an appeal board is not seen as
required to ensure that the process is fair.
For those limited matters in respect of which provincial boards have appellate
jurisdiction, the legislation typically provides for de novo hearings!.
ISSUES IDENTIFICATION
The following key issues were identified as a result of the consultation and research:
Role and Jurisdiction of the Board
. The OMB :
. can overrule or support decisions of elected councils
. is not accountable to the electorate
. often makes decisions that undermine local Official Plans created through
considerable public consultation
. deals with much more than Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issues and
approval of Official Plans
1 "de novo" hearing: According to the Guide to the Ontario Municipal Board, p.g, a hearing before the
OMB is "usually a new prepentation of the issues. This means that the Member(s) look at each
application or appeal from the beginning as if no decision had ever been made by a previous tribunal
such as a municipal council, a committee of adjustment, land division committee or the Assessment
Review Board (therefore you must prove your case again). The Board can make any decisions that the
earlier tribunal could have made and the decision may be different".
4
2- TO REPORT # vet. / ú - 0 '3
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
. No other Canadian jurisdiction has an appeal body with a similar scope of
planning appeal powers
. Guidelines & limits on the OMB mandate are unclear.
Procedural Complaints
. 90 day appeal period is perceived as an unrealistic processing timeframe for
municipalities
. Hearing is not a true appeal or review, but a de novo hearing
. Pre-hearing process and mediation often are not used.
Barriers to Public Participation
. OMB procedures are complex, legalistic and are perceived as a barrier to public
participation
. 90 day appeal provision can circumvent local planning process and may limit
opportunity for public input
. Citizen input is given less weight as evidence than professional opinion
. Cost, time requirements are a barrier to public participation
Cost of Municipalj Agency Participation
. Deters municipal participation
. Potential of costly OMB hearing affects local planning decisions
. Diverts scarce municipal/agency resources from other planning needs and local
expenditure priorities
. Municipalities are forced to spend large sums if they are to defend local planning
decisions
Credibility jImpartiality of OMB
. Appointment process, length of tenure could be revised to enhance the Board's
independence
. There is no transparent process for evaluating the performance of the OMB or its
members
Strength of the Planning Policy Framework
. Planning Act could give the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) more weight
. Provincial Policy Statements are vague in some respects
. Local planning process/ Official Plans could be given more weight
----------------------
Value Added by the OMB Process
. No evidence to demonstrate that decisions of the Board are better planning
decisions than those made at the municipal level
. OMB perceived as being less open to innovative planning than it is to more
traditional planning
. Little evidence to show that the OMB is successful in taking into account
cumulative impacts of discrete planning decisions.
5
"\ .~-, fOREPORT#CL /o~ C»~
-
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
ANAL YSIS
Two basic principles seemed to be at the heart of the issues discussed by stakeholders
and form the basis for the Task Force's recommendations:
. Planning decisions of democratically elected Municipal Councils should not be
replaced by the decision of a Provincially appointed body unless there is
demonstrable evidence of error or impropriety on the part of the Council.
. Property rights are important and aggrieved parties should be entitled to some
relief and remedy when a Municipal Council acts improperly, arbitrarily or outside
of its jurisdiction.
In balancing these two guiding principles, the Task Force rejected the option of
advocating the abolition of the Ontario Municipal Board. While abolition would clearly
recognize the authority of elected Municipal Councils, it may not adequately provide for
the rights and remedies of aggrieved parties. While the courts could play this role, the
Task Force felt that the Ontario Municipal Board does possess helpful qualifications and
experience with respect to municipal planning matters. These could not be easily
duplicated and replaced by the Courts. Some stakeholders viewed the courts as a
potentially more expensive and less inclusive mechanism for appeal.
The Task Force believes that the current system of OMB planning appeals does not give
adequate deference to the process that municipalities go through in developing their
Official Plans. Changes should be made to the planning system that support and
validate the plans and decisions generated through the municipal planning process.
Therefore, in formulating its recommendations, the Task Force focused on what they
felt were the primary flaws of the present system and the reforms that would most
effectively address the issues identified in the research and consultation process. The
Task Force anticipates that its recommendations would work best in conjunction with a
stronger, clearer Provincial Policy Statement that should result from the PPS review
currently underway.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Task Force recommendations focus on four key areas of improvement:
1. Update the role of the Ontario Municipal Board
2. Enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information
3. Support citizen participation through intervenor funding
4. Promote an independent and fair tribunal.
6
ATTACHMEl'n" *+ fJ,. TO Rr:POR"'ì ::,i .c i-.. /0 - () '3
'Ii --, 1- -."'. -
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
The Task Force believes that these improvements are achievable with the changes
proposed.
1. Uodate the Role of the OMS
Municipalities have grown and matured since the OMB was created. Provincial planning
legislation and policy have also matured and support a rigorous public process for the
development of municipal planning instruments such as Official Plans. The new
Municipal Act recognizes municipalities as an order of government. The Province has
delegated approvals of local Official Plans to single and upper tier municipalities. The
role and mandate of the OMB should be updated to recognize and respond to these
changes. The Board should provide a true appeal or review mechanism as a last
resort for dealing with faulty decisions, rather than substituting themselves as the
planning decision-maker.
Provincial legislation gives the primary responsibility for land use planning within a
community to the municipal government. The Planning Act sets out a detailed
procedure that municipalities are expected to follow in discharging that responsibility. A
municipality is, and should be, required to go through a full, complete and open public
process to establish or amend its Official Plan, zoning regulations and other planning
instruments. Having gone through that mandated process, the municipality's
decisions should be final and binding unless it can be demonstrated that a
significant error or impropriety has taken place. The onus of demonstrating
the error or impropriety should be placed on the complaining party.
However, under the present system, appeals result in hearings de novo that effectively
void the municipal planning process and decision, and allow the Board to substitute its
own process and decision. The Task Force believes that an applicant's rights of appeal
should arise only where a Municipal Council makes a clearly improper or unreasonable
decision or deprives the parties of their rights to natural justice.
Recommendation:
The Task Force strongly recommends that the OMB process should be a review or true
appeal of the municipal planning decision and not an automatic hearing de novo. To
achieve this, the Task Force recommends that a two stage process be adopted.
At the first stage, the Board would review the planning process and the
complaint and determine whether leave to appeal should be granted. Leave
to appeal would be granted only if the objecting party establishes to the
Board's satisfaction that the Council has acted unreasonably. To make this
determination, the Task Forte suggests that Board could apply a test such as
the following:
7
:2,... rc REPORT # c.!::... /0' ("3
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
That no reasonable Council, applying sound planning principles and
acting in good faith, could have made the same decision or have failed
to make a decision.
Only if the Board finds that the Municipal Council demonstrably failed to act
reasonably could an appeal proceed to the second stage, a hearing de novo.
This screening process should greatly reduce the number of appeals by granting proper
deference to the municipal planning process and requiring an appellant to demonstrate
a substantial error as the basis for appeal. A de novo hearing should become an
exception, reducing costs to all parties and providing for a more timely resolution of
planning matters.
2. Enable Timelv Municipal Decisions Based on Complete :Information
Most submissions to the Task Force highlighted difficulties related to the 90 day appeal
provision in the Planning Act This provision allows an applicant to launch an OMB
appeal 90 days after submitting an application, if the municipality has not yet rendered
a decision. Stakeholders cited numerous cases where the studies to support a proper
planning decision could not possibly be completed in 90 days (e.g. a four-season
environmental impact study) or where an applicant provided required studies only a few
days before the 90 day deadline. These situations made it impossible for the
municipalities or other commenting agencies to review the information before the
deadline. Resources have to be diverted from normal business to hastily review last
minute submissions. Only the Urban Development Institute and the Greater Toronto
Homebuilders were satisfied with the present 90 day rule and felt that abuse of the rule
was rare.
If a duly elected Council has the primary responsibility and authority to render well-
considered planning decisions for its community, that Council must have sufficient time
and reliable information to make such decisions. Based on the consultations, the Task
Force believes that the 90 day appeal provision presents a major problem in this regard.
A fundamental problem is the present definition of a "complete" application in the
Planning Act and regulations. Currently, an applicant need only submit a planning
application form and cheque for the application fee to "start the 90 day clock ticking".
This definition of "completeness" fails to recognize that an applicant should provide
necessary studies and information related to their application in a timely way, to permit
municipalities to render an informed planning decision.
Before removing the municipality from the decision-making process and substituting the
Board, the municipality should be given a reasonable opportunity to make an informed
decision. Based on statistics presented by David Johnson, Chair of the OMB, 75% of
appeals are not referred in any case until 150 days after municipal receipt of the
8
i~ :B.~. fC REPORT#~/o.", c ~
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
application. The Task Force believes it is sensible that an appeal period should not
commence until a truly complete application is in the hands of the municipality.
Where an application is submitted with all the information needed to make a decision, .
municipalities would be able to render a properly considered planning decision within
150 days on most applications. Straight-forward applications may be dealt with more
quickly. There will also be complex applications that require a municipal review period
of more than 150 days due to the need for extensive public consultation, multi-season
studies or peer review of studies.
The Province has seen fit to vest municipalities with land use planning responsibilities.
Thus, the starting assumption for the planning appeal system should be that elected
Municipal Councils can be trusted to properly fulfill legislative requirements, to act in
good faith and to make timely, well-considered planning decisions.
Recommendations:
Therefore the Task Force recommends the following:
. Amend the Planning Actto create a definition of "complete application" that
includes information and documentation required by a municipality to
properly process the application and make an informed decision. The
information required to constitute a complete application will include
1) any requirements of general application contained in municipal
planning documents (e.g. Official Plan) and
2) any other information reasonably required to make a sound planning
decision on that specific application.
A municipality could reject an incomplete application.
. Amend the Planning Act to mandate pre-çonsultation between the
municipality and the applicant on all Official Plan amendment applications.
Municipalities should provide written confirmation of the information
requirements to the applicant within a specified time after the pre-
consultation.
. Amend the Planning Act to provide that a dispute, in regard to the
information required in order to constitute a complete application, could be
brought to the Board or arbitrated at any time.
. Give the OMB the jurisdiction and direction to stay any appeal process,
including a request for leave to appeal, if it determines that any information
required to make a decision has hot been made available to the
municipality or that the municipality has not had sufficient time to consider
such necessary information.
9
J.'~'T'f'ACkIMEN'l f ';}..... Tl'\ R¡::r.,"('\¡1.T :f~.i. (' L /0 ~ () ')
II, I. '-,....,~..,,-,..ð¡. -,-
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
. Establish a time period of 150 days from receipt of a complete application
for municipal review and processing of an application. Only after 150 days
could leave to appeal a lack of decision be obtained by convincing the
Board that the lack of decision is unreasonable (see the test for
"reasonableness" proposed on page 8).
3. Support Citizen Participation - Intervenor FundinQ
All of the stakeholders who presented to the Task Force commented on the obstacles
faced by ordinary citizens in participating in the OMB process. Expense, time
commitment and legal complexity were repeatedly cited as barriers to citizen
participation in the OMB process. Citizen groups often cannot effectively present and
defend a public interest at an OMB hearing without legal representation and expert
evidence.
The 90 day appeal provision was seen as a means for developers to circumvent public
participation. The frequent shift of a hearing into a negotiation of settlement was also
noted as sometimes eliminating the public voice from the proceedings.
The Task Force feels that public and third party participation in the OMB hearing
process, especially on complex Official Plan and zoning matters, is no longer possible
without expert assistance. Creating an intervenor funding mechanism may be the only
way to ensure that citizens groups are able to participate on a level playing field with
other parties in a de novo hearing.
However the Task Force believes the best way to support public participation in
planning matters is to make full use of the municipal planning process. That process
includes both informal and structured opportunities for public involvement and is geared
toward gathering citizen input into such things as Official Plans, secondary plans and
zoning changes. Participation is inexpensive for citizens and does not require special
expertise. This aspect of the planning process should be made as effective as possible
to ensure that balanced plans and good decisions are made at the local level. Public
participation should be supported and validated by an OMB process that affords an
appropriate respect and deference to the plans developed and decisions made utilizing
this public input.
If municipal planning decisions are shown greater deference in the OMB appeal process,
as suggested in the previous recommendations, and de novo hearings become the
exception instead of the rule, the need for intervenor funding as a means to ensure
public participation should be significantly reduced.
10
!:\TTACHMEN~f #~TO REPORJ#~C:::_~ /0 - 05>
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
Recommendation:
The Task Force recommends that the Province establish a program to fund 3rd party
public participation in OMS de novo hearings with clear criteria defining eligibility. To
qualify for funding a citizen's group should:
. be incorporated or appropriately organized to take on the rights and
responsibilities of participating in an OMS proceeding
. have participated in the local planning process
. have the ability to raise a portion of the funds required for the appeal
process.
In addition, to qualify for funding, the case in which the group wishes to participate
should involve issues of broad public or provincial interest (e.g. protection of
environment, affordable housing or farmland). The province should allocate an amount
annually to support intervenor funding, possibly supplemented with a small surcharge
on development applications, and set a cap on the amount available to a single group.
The government may wish to specify how funding could be used (e.g. to retain legal
counsel).
4. Promote an Independent and Fair Tribunal
The Task Force feels that generally the OMB members are well qualified and discharge
their duty effectively. While statistics presented to the Task Force do not support the
notion that the OMB is "a captured agency" in terms of its decisions, there is definitely a
public perception that the Board and the appeal process, as currently structured, favour
developers.
Recommendation:
The Task Force believes that several changes could be made to enhance both the
reality and the perception of the Board as an impartial and fair arbiter. It is therefore
recommended that:
~-------- ----------
. The term of appointment be increased to 6 years
. A job description, outlining the qualifications and expertise required of Board
Members, be developed and used in the selection process
. An open process be adopted for soliciting qualified applicants
. A non-partisan, multi-stakeholder screening committee be created to
- interview and recommend to Cabinet candidates for appointment or
reappointment
. A rnore open performance evaluation process for Board Members be
implemented.
11
;)
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
cL lo.~ 6,,",>
If the all the Task Force recommendations are implemented, the Province may find that
fewer Board members are needed as the incidence of appeals and hearings should be
significantly reduced.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the Task Force feels that if implemented, the recommendations above will
substantially address the criticism of the current planning appeal process that was
documented in our consultations.
By updating the role of the OMB to make it primarily a review body, with a specific
standard of review to guide it, the number of hearings should be significantly reduced,
lowering the costs for all parties. The continued availability of a de novo hearing in the
case of egregious error offers an incentive for municipalities to make sure they conduct
themselves properly in planning matters. It also offers applicants and appellants
recourse if a serious mistake occurs.
However, the starting assumption must be that Municipal Councils properly fulfill their
legislated duty and responsibility to make good planning decisions for their
communities. Official Plans and zoning bylaws are a result of the community input
process mandated in the Planning Act. The OMB must not intervene to assume
decision-making authority unless such intervention is demonstrably justifiable. This is
essential to build citizen confidence in the process and will provide greater certainty for
the development industry. If every planning decision of a Municipal Council can be
challenged, then that confidence and certainty does not exist. The planning process
loses credibility and the Municipal Council is considered ineffectual on planning matters.
Municipal Councils must also live up to their plans in order to provide this certainty.
Without the palpable threat of a full OMB hearing hovering over each planning decision,
a Council's resolve to stand by their plan should be enhanced. With the system
proposed, where a mistake is the basis for an appeal, municipalities will have added
incentive to make sure their process is solid, that public input is widely sought and well
reflected in their reports and decisions. This public input will be acquired in a setting
which is much more informal and accessible than an OMB hearing.
The "justified appeal" process recommended by the Task Force gives greater weight to
both the local planning process and the public input that are part of that process.
Documentation of both would be examined during the review stage of the two step
process the Task force has proposed. By reducing the incidence of appeals: costs
should be reduced for all parties. Providing intervenor funding for exceptional cases
that do warrant the full hearing de novo, due to some grave error, would ensure that
effective participation by citizens in the more complex process can occur.
12
í ! :;(
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
C L ~6. ~,3
While the OMB may never enjoy public popularity, its credibility as an impartial arbiter
on important issues rests in part on a public perception of fairness and independence.
The current 3 year terms for Board members, the political appointment process, a real
or imagined association with a business-oriented government and the barriers to citizen
participation have somewhat tarnished the public reputation of the Board. Revisions to
the selection, appointment and tenure of Board members, as well as regular
performance evaluation, would help considerably in achieving both the factual and
perceptual independence critical for a quasi-judicial body.
Various stakeholders expressed the desire for greater clarity and direction from the
Province within planning legislation and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The
Task Force agreed that the vagueness of the current PPS and the "have regard for"
provision of the Planning Act are problematic. A key theme of John Chipman's study2 of
the OMB is that the Board developed and applied its own planning policy in the absence
of clear provincial policy direction. Clearer provincial policy should strongly support
municipal Official Plans and the municipal role in delivering land use planning at the
localleve!. Since a review of the Provincial Policy Statement is currently underway and
municipalities have been active participants in that process, the Task Force decided to
confine its recommendations to the planning appeal process. However the Task Force
encourages the Province to expeditiously resolve these broader planning framework
issues through the PPS review process.
The GTA Task Force on OMB Reform has developed these recommendations with the
objectives of resolving some specific issues and improving the planning appeal process
for all involved. We hope our municipal colleagues will see fit to endorse these
recommendations and that the Province will act upon them.
~~------ -------------------------
2 Chipman, John G. 2002. A Law Unto Itself Toronto:The Institute of Public Administration of Canada,
University of Toronto Press.
13
J
fr C L.. /0 " é, ~
1T",.___...
ATTACHMENT 1
GT A TASK FORCE ON OM B REFORM
Membership List
Chair:
Roger Anderson
Chair, Region of Durham
Members:
Andrew Allison
Senior Solicitor
Region of Durham
William F. Bell
Mayor
Town of Richmond Hill
Frank D'Amico
Councillor
City of Hamilton
Kevin Daniel Flynn
Regional Councillor
Ward 1 - Oakville
Region of Halton
Alex Georgieff
Commissioner of Planning
Region of Durham
Mark Holland
City/Regional Councillor
City of Pickering
Paul Mallard
Manager, Development Planning
Planning & Development Department
City of Hamilton
Howard Moscoe
Councillor
City of Toronto
Gary Muller
Senior Planner
Planning & Development
Town of Ajax
Ann Mulvale
Mayor
Town of Oakville (alternate)
Patrick O'Connor
Director of Legal Services
Region of Peel
Steve Parish
Mayor
Town of Ajax
Arvin Prasad
Director of Planning Policy and Research
Planning Department
Region of Peel
Don Sinclair
Director, Development Law
Corporate & Legal Services Department
Region of York
Nancy L. Smith
Assistant Corporate Counsel
City of Hamilton
14
:}
GTA TASKFoRCEONOMB REFORM
c.L. /o~ c '3
Staff Technical Support:
Debi Bently
Deputy Clerk
Clerk's Department
Region of Durham
Stan Floras
Assistant Corporate Counsel
Legal Services
Region of Halton
Jody Wellings
Manager of Current Planning
Planning & Transportation Services
Region of Halton
----------.-
Christine Drimmie
Policy & Research Advisor
Regional Chair & CAD's Office
Region of Durham
Uno Trombino
Planner
Planning Department
Region of Durham
Kai Yew
Manager, Plan Implementation
Planning Department
Region of Durham
15
d
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
L't...IQ-o'3
ATTACHMENT 2
GT A TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM
Terms of Reference
(Revised @20020916)
In response to a motion from the City of Mississauga, the Region of Durham Council instructed
. Chair Roger Anderson to invite GTA municipalities to form a task force on the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB).
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the task force is to review the mandate, purpose and function of the OMB, the
OMB appeal process and related matters and make recommendations for its reform to the local
and regional governments within the 905/705/416 areas and Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing and the Attorney General.
DELIVERABLE
Report on Recommendations for Reform of the Ontario Municipal Board, endorsed by GTA
Municipal Councils.
RESOURCE COMMITMENT
Time of Councillors and staff to attend several meetings; to research, read, review materials,
prepare comments and suggestions; undertake tasks as assigned including consultations with
invited stakeholders, research or writing; Council review of the resulting report.
OPERA TING PRINCIPLES FOR TASK FORCE
. Members of the Task Force are asked to participate as equals, based on their expertise with
OMB issues, not as representatives of their municipality,
. Decision-making will be based on consensus.
. Task Force minutes will be recorded and distributed by staff of the Clerk's Department,
Region of Durham.
. Meetings to be open to public.
REPORTING
Members of the Task Force will be responsible for making information on the activities of the
Task Force available to their respective Councils.
ApPROVAL PROCESS & DISTRIBUTION
Final report will be sent to Councils in the GTA for their endorsement. Councils are asked to
send notice of their endorsement to the Task Force. The Task Force will then submit the
endorsed report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General, the
Opposition parties and AMO. Copies of the report could also be sent to the Red Tape
Commission and the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel.
EVALUATION OF PROGRESS AND IMPACT OF FINAL PRODUCT
. Check at the end of each meeting that the tasks are on target.
. Monitor changes to OMB legislation, Planning Act etc. that reflect the suggestions of the
Task Force. Follow up with Ministers.
16
i:\fTACH!'¡iEi\f'~ ti :;..
-:.¡. C' L. /6 -. c (..
"'""".,..,.",,- ,J
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
ATTACHMENT 3
Stakeholders and Sources consulted by the Task Force in the
preparation of this report:
MUNICIPAL RESOLUTIONS AND REPORTS RECEIVED BY TASK FORCE
Aurora - Sept. 24, 2002
Burlington - Mar. 18, 2002
Caledon - Sept. 21,2001
Durham Region - June 19, 2002
Halton Hills - Oct. 2001
Halton Region - June 19, 2002
Mississauga - May 8, 2002
Oakville - April 2, 2002
Oshawa - Sept. 9, 2002
Ottawa - June 26,2002
Peel Region - Aug. 8, 2002
Pickering - Feb. 4, 2002
Toronto - May 23,2002
Whitchurch-Stouffville - Oct. 15, 2002
STAKEHOLDER PRESENTA TIONS TO GT A TASK FORCE:
Dr. John Chipman - Jan. 20, 2003
Greater Toronto Homebuilders Association - Jan. 20,2003
Joshua Creek Ratepayers Association Inc. - Jan. 13, 2003
New Democratic Party (Ontario), Michael Prue - Feb. 3, 2003
Oakvillegreen - Jan.13, 2003
Ontario Liberal Party, David Caplan - Feb. 3, 2003
Ontario Municipal Board, Chair, David Johnson - Feb. 3, 2003
Pickering East Shore Community Association - Jan. 20, 2003
John Sewell - Jan. 13,2003
Toronto Region Conservation Authority - Jan. 20, 2003
Urban Development Institute (Ontario and Peel Chapter) - Jan. 20, 2003
OTHER REPORTS CONSUL TED:
Greater Toronto Services Board, Countryside and Environment Working Group - Oct.5,
2001 -
Ontario Association of Chief Planning Officials (OACPO) - 1999 report to OMS
Ontario Professional Planners Institute Report and Recommendations - Feb. 25, 2002
Chipman, John G. 2002. A Law Unto Itself Toronto: The Institute of Public
Administration of Canada, University of Toronto Press
Joint Recommendations - Ontario Municipal Board Process and Procedures -
AMO,OPP/, Toronto Board of Trade, GTHBA, UDI_! Feb. 20, 2003
Ontario Municipal Board Annual Report 1998-2000
OMB - Your Guide to the Ontario Municipal Board - Dec.2000
17
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION AND SUBMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
ISSUES ID NTIFED
Role and Jurisdiction of OMB
. Mandate Scope of Board
. Nature 0 Appeals heard
. Nature 0 Hearings held
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE
Disband/abolish OMB
Use divisional court for appeals on egregious errors
Eliminate OMB planning appeal role and strengthen municipal
planning process to cover any outstanding quasi-judicial needs.
Create a local appeal mechanism within planning process
Put Cabinet back as an appeal body.
Province should review OMB role and function and include
consultation with public and municipalities
--
. ATTACHMENT 4
BY WHOM
...--..
Sewell, Pickering, Joshua
Creek
Sewell
Chipman, TRCA
Toronto, Ottawa, Sewell,
Chipman, Liberals
Joshua Creek
GTSB, Halton Hills,
Mississauga, Aurora,
Caledon, Burlington,
Halton, Durham, Oshawa,
Liberals, NDP
Province should review Planning Act, OMB Act re: appeal process I Whitchurch-Stouffville,
and role of OMB Sewell, Toronto
AMO should apply pressure on behalf of Ontario municipalities to
dissolve or radically alter the OMS's role
Retain OMB with current mandate and role
Retain board but drastically overhaul it
Burlington, Caledon,
Halton, Halton Hills,
OPPI, UDI, GTBHA
Liberals
Change/ reduce OMB role to an inter-municipal dispute resolution I Chipman, PESCA
body only
Change /reduce mandate of OMB to eliminate "minor" issues I Liberals, NDP
¡~
c
~
n',
-0
0
~
-¡
:::t;
f~
"
()
"
~
..)
GTA TASK/FoRCE ON OMS REFORM
ISSUES ID. NTIFED
. Screenin Mechanism/Gatekeeper
.
Burden of Proof
-------.
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE
Eliminate appeals of approved Official Plans, policy decisions on
growth, land use
Developer should not be allowed to appeal an urban boundary
Restrict OMB role in review of municipal policy decisions to a
review of the quality of the planning process
Limit role of OMB to planning issues that have broad public
interest
Set strict, narrow grounds for appeal
Need clear jurisdictional guidelines for OMB
Have a subcommittee that screens cases requesting appeal and
make appeals the exception rather than the rule
Increase burden of proof required of appellants before hearing
qranted
Where no clear provincial interest is defined, should have less
costly, local alternative forum for dispute resolution
Change appeal period to 90 days from receipt of all required
information
Change to a 180 day process with all municipal documentation
requirements to be met within 1st 90 days or applicant must
reapply.
Amend Planning Act to allow for more realistic timeframes based
on application type
BY WHOM
Caledon, Mississauga,
Durham, Oakville, Oshawa
Joshua Creek
Caledon, Oakville
Liberals
PESCA, Joshua Creek,
Chipman, NDP
Liberals
PESCA
Sewell, OACPO
Toronto, Ottawa
Liberals, TRCA
NDP
Toronto, Oakvillegreen,
TRCA
19
~
(\
1"
"
()
;
<:J
vJ
GT A TASK ¡:ORCE ON OMS REFORM
ISSUES IDI NTIFED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WHOM
Amend Planning Act to enable municipality to detail information OACPO,TRCA
required for their review to constitute a complete application
If Planning Act changed (previous recommendation), Ottawa
municipalities should define "complete application" in Official Plan
or their application procedures
OMB should change procedure to not deal with 90 day appeals Toronto, Ottawa, OACPO,
where information required for municipal review has not been OPPI
provided in timely way and apply case management techniques
. 90 day Ptovision used to Don't allow piggy-back appeals TRCA
circumve. t public input
. Appeal Þtocess can be used either OMB needs to further improve administrative practices and OPPI, Halton, Joshua
to delay r speed up planning procedures Creek, PESCA. GTH BA,
process! Whitchurch-Stouffville
I
Don't allow site-specific "strategic" appeals by developers seeking TRCA
to have a future proposal considered under existing rules in a
municipality where a planning policy review is about to begin.
Improve pre-hearing process, reduce appeal times and costs by OPPI, Toronto, TRCA,
using mediation and dispute resolution OACPO, Whitchurch-
Stouffville
Pilot use of pre-hearing to agree to information requirements to OMB
aqree to timelines
Mandatory mediation should be required for certain types of OPPI
applications
. Hearing ç rocess Increase routine use of pre-hearing mediation UDI, GTHBA, Toronto,
DArco
Develop mediation protocol OMB
Hearings should be true review, not "de novo" process PESCA
20
~
(\
r.
'.
Ç).
I
0
...)
GT A TASK ¡:ORCE ON OMS REFORM
ISSUES IDI ¡'NTIFED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WHOM
OMB should review its own practices and procedures Ottawa, Whitchurch-
Stouffville
. . ....-. "'.""""'., .,
Cost of Mu ~icipal, Agency
Participatic n
. Deters p blic and municipal Reduce costs by improving administrative process UDI, GTHBA, Toronto,
participa ion TRCA
. Threat 0 potential OMB costs Make appeals the exception, not the rule PESCA
affects IT unicipal planning
decisiom
Enact consequences for threatening with OMB appeal. Joshua Creek
. Diverts s arce municipal and Increase amount of time for application review by municipalities TRCA, GTSB, Mississauga,
commen ing agency resources and commenting agencies Durham, Oshawa
from oth r planning needs and
local exp "nditure priorities
Require a complete application before review period clock is TRCA, GTSB, Mississauga,
started Durham, Oshawa
Require appellant to indemnify commenting agency for costs TRCA
involved, especially in tight timeline situation
. Double c sts to municipalities first Reduce costs by strictly limiting what can be appealed Caledon, Oakville,
for plann ng process with public Pickering, Aurora
input the n to defend plan at OMB.
I Reduce cost and duplication having review rather than "de novo" Oshawa, Chipman
hearing
I
21
J
9..)
r\
1'.
ó:
0
V
GTA TASK FORCE ON OMS REFORM
ISSUE~ ID NTIFED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WHOM
Barriers to Public Participation .
. Legalistic nature of process Create a separate more informal part of OMB hearing process to UDI, GTHBA, OPPI
I obtain greater citizen input
Review prehearing practices to create greater involvement by all OPPI, UDI
stakeholders in an appeal
I Assign case officer to assist citizen groups in understanding the Joshua Creek
I process
I Clearer citizen's guidebook to OMB procedures is needed OPPI, OACPO, OMB
I
. Timing o~ hearings Hold some hearings in evenings Joshua Creek,
I Oakvillegreen, PESCA
. Notificati( n process Increase notification time, geographic area and modes of Oakvillegreen
communication
Allow audio/video recordings of hearings Oakvillegreen, Joshua
Creek
. 90 Day a peal reduces public Increase pre-hearing notification to public Joshua Creek
input op~ ortunities
OMB should exercise its right to dismiss appeals where grounds TRCA
for appeal are weak, where local public process being avoided
. Intervene r funding Provide intervenor funding to citizen 3rd parties, participants PESCA, Oakvillegreen,
NDP
Finance intervenor funding from hearing costs paid by developers Joshua Creek, TRCA
. De novo earing ignores any Make hearing a true review, not "de novo" process PESCA, TRCA
previous 1ublic input
. 3rd Partie stiqmatized by Board Citizen opinion and written citizen statements should be given Oakvilleqreen,
,."..
...'
-.;
su-
r\
r-
è)
,...
~
GTA TASKJFORCE ON OMS REFORM
ISSUES IDENTIFED
------------
. competefce, expertise,
impartial ty of Board members
question d
I
i
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE
more weight by board
---
Request Attorney General to review OMB appointment
procedures
Establish professional qualifications for Board members
Increase tenure of appointment (5 to 10 years)
Increase remuneration to attract qualified candidate, to reflect
scope of responsibilities
Create transparent, impartial selection/appointment process
(most groups listed mentioned multiple aspects of the
appointment process)
Have AMO comment on/vet OMB member selection
Increase training for Board members
Institute performance reviews by impartial panel
Create multi-stakeholder panel to annually review OMB member
performance against specific parameters and publicly report
Create stronger integrity/conflict guidelines for members
Plannin P -lie Framework
. Strengh of provincial legislation I Provide clearer provincial planning legislation and policy
and po icy framework statements as framework for planning decisions
-
Provincial Policy Statements should give clear direction on issues
like environment, transit¡ affordable housing, farmland
Amend Planning Act to require "consistency with PPS" rather
than "regard for"
BY WHOM
Joshua Creek
OPPI, GTHBA¡ UOl,
Sewell, Whitchurch
StouffvilleHalton,
Burlington, Oakville,
Oshawa, Oakvillegreen,
Joshua Creek, Liberals,
NDP
NDP
Toronto
Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Oakvillegreen
Liberals
Pickering
Sewell, TRCA
Liberals, NDP
Liberals, NDP
23
----
~
f\
l'
~
)
C)
~
GTA TASK ¡::ORCE ON OMS REFORM
ISSUES IDI NTIFED RECOMMENDATIO('.'S MADE BY WHOM
. Weigh of official plans in OMB Province should provide clearer guidelines on interpretation, Toronto, Sewell, TRCA
appeal process implementation of Provincial interest provisions
i
I Increase Board's deference to Official Plans and municipal Oakville, Mississauga,
I planning process and decisions Durham, Pickering,
Oshawa, PESCA. Aurora,
Burlington, Oakvillegreen,
--------- ------------ Liberals, NDP --
Value Adde :J of OM B AppeaT---
Process
. No "perf( rmance measurement" Detailed Review/assessment of OMB role, process and results Sewell
of OMB, 0 evaluation that shows should be conducted every 10 years
OMB imp oves planning outcomes -
Role of OMB should be reviewed as part of the review of the Caledon, Oakville, Halton
Provincial Policy Statement Hills
I
I
Determine whether OMB decisions are significantly better than Halton Hills, Caledon
planning decisions made by Councils
. No other Province or State has an Abolish OMB or eliminate planning appeal function Sewell, Chipman
OMB typE appeal body
Review of OMB should consider process used in other Canadian Oshawa
iurisdictions
. Credibilib of planning process and Increase Board's deference to Official Plans, municipal planning Oakville, Mississauga,
Official PI ~ms undermined process and decisions. Durham, Pickering,
Oshawa, PESCA. Aurora,
I Burlington, Oakvillegreen,
Liberals, NDP
. Difficult t Þ promote or protect OMB needs flexibility to incorporate new ideas (i.e. Smart Oakvillegreen
innovativ ~ planning at the OMB Growth) into their decisions.
24
su.
~~:
H\
: ".
"
C>
J
0
vJ
GTA TASK !¡=ORCE ON OMS REFORM
ISSUES IDI NTIFED RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY WHOM
. Hearing f ocus is very site-specific; Need stronger policy statements at the Provincial level to require TRCA
broader i þsues, cumulative greater attention to cumulative impacts on environment.
impacts ( ften not considered
-------------------- - .----------.----.----.----- _._--------------.--._- ..------------.. .---...-.-
OTHER I5S OES
. DevelopE r influence in political Amend municipal election legislation to eliminate developer Joshua Creek
process funding of political candidates.
. Some O~ B decisions display "US OMB should have more regard to applicable laws, Provincial Joshua Creek
style" of egard to private property policy.
rights wt ich has little basis in
Canadian law.
Munici þalities that requested or supported creation of a municipal committee or task force to make recommendations on
):
-i
:Þ
n
:J:
-<,-
~/
, --
,
reforiof the OMB by Council resolution:
I Burlington Oshawa
I Caledon Ottawa
I Durham Peel
Halton Piekering
Halton Hills Toronto
Oakville
~
Acronms used in chart:
AMO= ssociation of Municipalities of Ontario
GTBH = Greater Toronto Home Builders Association
GTSB Greater Toronto Services Board
NDP= ew Democratic Party (Ontario)
OACP = Ontario Association of Chief Planning Officials
OMB=Ontario Municipal Board
OPPI= Ontario Professional Planners Institute
PESCA= Pickering East Shore Community Association
TRCA=Toronto Region Conservation Authority
UDI - Urban Development Institute
f)
j'
"-
()
)
C)
VJ
25