Perth County to submit concerns over province’s Bill 98 planning changes

By Galen Simmons

Perth County council has endorsed planning staff’s comments on the province’s latest round of proposed planning and development legislation, raising concerns about the impact Bill 98 could have on local decision-making, rural planning and municipal flexibility.

At its May 7 meeting, county director of planning Andrea Hächler presented a report outlining staff comments on Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, before the May 14 provincial comment deadline.

“With the bill came out 21 related Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) postings that municipalities have been invited to comment on,” Hächler said. “The bill proposed nine pieces of legislation be changed, including the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act, Building Code Act and Municipal Act.

“ … You’ll note I only commented on seven of the nine (legislation) changes because I felt those impact Perth County the most. … This was released on March 30 and we were given to April 29 to comment. Luckily, that deadline was extended to May 14, so I was able to get a report to council and we’ll have time to get comments into the ERO posting.”

Bill 98 is the 19th piece of provincial legislation related to land-use planning and development in the past eight years. The bill received second reading April 14.

The proposed changes include standardizing municipal official plans, reforming site-plan control, establishing a minimum residential lot size in fully serviced settlement areas, prohibiting some mandatory enhanced development standards at the lot level, streamlining complete-application requirements and updating parkland dedication rules.

While county staff say they support efforts to make planning processes more efficient and user-friendly, Hächler raised concerns that some of the proposed changes would reduce municipal discretion and limit Perth County’s ability to respond to its specific rural, agricultural and settlement-area contexts.

One of the major proposed changes would allow the province to prescribe a standard structure, table of contents, list of schedules and land-use designations for all municipal official plans. The county’s official plan would need to comply with those requirements by Jan. 1, 2029.

“Just simply standardizing official plans doesn’t give us the ability to address area-specific contexts,” Hächler said. “Perth County in particular has prime agricultural lands, you have smaller, rural settlement areas and we definitely don’t have an official plan that would look like a City of Toronto official plan or a Region of Muskoka official plan.”

Staff cautioned that while consistency may help in some cases, a one-size-fits-all approach could limit the county’s ability to reflect local landscapes, resources and land-use patterns. Staff also warned standardized designations could result in more official plan amendments to address site-specific circumstances.

“So, we’re asking the province to allow us to build in site-specific contexts and not to standardize official plans to that extent,” Hächler said.

The county also raised significant concerns with the province’s proposed site-plan-control changes. Bill 98 proposes removing site-plan control as a land-use planning tool and replacing it with a more standardized process focused on public health and safety. The legislation would also limit the number of circulations, create different review streams depending on project complexity and introduce a site-plan review panel or arbitration process for applications exceeding statutory timelines.

County staff are not supportive of removing site-plan control, noting it remains an important tool for addressing matters such as access, grading, drainage, stormwater management, building location, parking, garbage storage and snow storage.

“The stormwater and the grading and stuff like that; is there another way we can ensure those are being done without site-plan control?” Coun. Hugh McDermid asked during the council discussion.

“There is a bare minimum that your building officials can ask for through the building permit that would likely speak to grading and drainage. However, in terms of any sort of compatibility issues (with neighbouring properties), we wouldn’t be able to address those any longer,” Hächler responded, noting the locations of things like garbage dumpsters and snow-storage areas, as well as the types of outdoor lighting within a proposed development would not be subject to change regardless of their impact on neighbours.

Staff also argue the province could reduce the number of application circulations by restoring municipal authority to require pre-consultation before an application is submitted. While many applicants already take part in pre-consultation voluntarily, staff say applications submitted without that early discussion can take longer to review.

Another proposed change would give the minister authority to set a minimum residential lot size in fully serviced settlement areas. The proposed minimum would be 175 square metres, roughly equivalent to a lot nine metres wide and 19 metres deep.

While county planning staff say they generally support smaller residential lot sizes and have been exploring reductions through local zoning bylaw reviews, the report raises concerns that the proposed minimum may be too small in some situations. Staff identified potential impacts related to stormwater management, reduced permeable area, parking, driveway spacing and sightlines, particularly for corner lots.

Bill 98 also proposes changes to the way municipalities can require studies and materials as part of a complete planning application. The province is considering a standardized list of core and contingent studies, as well as expanded electronic submission requirements.

County staff caution that a provincewide online submission model could create barriers in rural areas where internet service may be limited or unreliable. The report also notes the needs of the traditional Anabaptist community, where modern technology is not used, should be considered.

Staff also raised concerns about proposed changes to Minister’s Zoning Orders that would remove the legislative requirement for the minister to provide public notice on amendments or revocations. County staff recommend public consultation and consent from the host municipality before changes are made to existing MZOs.

On parkland dedication, the proposed changes would require municipalities to accept a broader range of lands, including some encumbered lands and privately owned public spaces, toward parkland requirements. Staff warn this could lead to smaller, disconnected or less useful parcels that do not align with municipal parks and trails plans.

In its report, county staff acknowledge the province’s goal of supporting more residential development but note planning applications in Perth County generally meet legislative timelines and there are already a significant number of approved residential units in serviced settlement areas.

Council directed planning staff to submit the county’s comments to the province and forward the report to the county’s lower-tier municipalities for information.