The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCL 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