Bill 97, recently proposed by The Honorable S. Clark, has been drawing attention due to its potentially significant implications on land use and development in the province. The bill, encompassing changes to several acts, has brought forth concerns related to Ontario’s agricultural land.
Bill 97 calls for amendments to the Building Code Act, the City of Toronto Act, the Development Charges Act, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act, and the Residential Tenancies Act. These adjustments are seemingly designed to facilitate land development, streamline municipal processes, and potentially alter the dynamics of urban and rural landscapes in the province.
One of the crucial components of this bill relates to changes in the definition of “development” in the context of land use. The current legislation excludes the construction, erection, or placing of a building for residential purposes on a parcel of land containing no more than ten residential units from constituting a “development.” However, the proposed amendment will now include such activities as “development” if the parcel of land is within a prescribed area. This alteration in definition will directly impact how farmland could be converted into residential housing units.
While this alteration may stimulate housing development and help address housing affordability issues in Ontario, concerns about the potential risks to agricultural land have been raised. The alteration could lead to an increase in development pressure on agricultural land, which, if not appropriately managed, could lead to the loss of prime agricultural areas. These areas are critical for local food production and contribute significantly to the economy of Ontario. Moreover, the displacement of agriculture in favor of residential development might escalate conflicts between agricultural and non-agricultural land uses, leading to potential friction between different community groups.
Furthermore, Bill 97 introduces changes to the appointment of inspectors necessary for enforcing the Building Code Act. It potentially grants more regulatory power to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, thereby increasing the centralization of decision-making. While this could streamline the enforcement process, concerns have been raised that this centralization could potentially override local knowledge and expertise in land use planning decisions, especially those relating to agricultural land.
Moreover, changes to the Development Charges Act will see the term “parcel of urban residential land” replaced with “parcel of land,” thereby broadening the act’s scope. This might cause an increase in development charges for farmland, potentially posing financial challenges for farmers and hindering agricultural development.
In light of these potential issues, the implementation of Bill 97 needs a careful balance between housing development needs and the protection of agricultural lands. Agriculture is an essential part of Ontario’s heritage, culture, and economy; thus, any policy changes should be made carefully to sustain the province’s agricultural industry. The amendments proposed in Bill 97 could bring much-needed changes to Ontario’s land use and housing policies. Still, it is also necessary to understand and manage the potential impacts on the agricultural sector to ensure long-term sustainability.
Photo by Allison Batley on Unsplash
1 Comment