freshcutgrass
Senior Member
"Final say" ???
That would be like...the worst possible scenario ever. Which is why it isn't even a consideration of anyone involved.
|
|
|
Toronto Councillors and Mississauga Council want their cities removed from OMB
- Thread starter torplanner
- Start date
"Final say" ???
That would be like...the worst possible scenario ever. Which is why it isn't even a consideration of anyone involved.
ItsTehBean
New Member
You are right. Because we the people believe in the notion that the bigger the government, the more it can take care of us...
Palma
Senior Member
I know it sucks. There is a Plan and developers are also applying to the OMB to override it. What is the point of having an official plan? The great Planners who had no vision when planning suburbs regarding transit, cars, congestion, etc. The same planners who said only 20$ of condos today are investments when I went to an open house regarding the official plan over 1 month ago. Right - they still can't get anything right.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I actually like that there is the OMB there to hold the city to account. When the city is proactive, has neighbourhood plans, has designated heritage structures in advance, and the official plan clearly states that the land use or density was not supported then the city can win rulings at the OMB. Far too often the plans the city has are too vague, set goals for avenues and growth, and the at the last minute the city is scrambling in response to a development application to put in a detailed neighbourhood plan or to throw a heritage designation on a building. Someone needs to hold the city to account that they must put full plans in place so that when a developer buys a property it is known what development potential exists in the property, and that the city doesn't fall into the NIMBY trap where on a city wide scale their official plan is approved, but on every development parcel there is an exception warranted. The OMB is there also to make sure provincial objectives like "green belt" protection and "places to grow" are reflected in what is approved. With each ruling the city looses they should be analyzing why they failed and make sure that (a) their objection was justified, and (b) ensure their future cases have the appropriate background documentation.
Dan416
Senior Member
Well said EnviroTO.
greenleaf
Senior Member
Tell the province you want the city to have control of their planning decisions (aka remove the OMB from planning decisions in Toronto): http://www.glenmurray.onmpp.ca/mNews/8855?l=EN
edit: okay, they are not looking at removal of the OMB.
from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10254
We are interested in hearing your views on how the land use planning and appeal system
is working. Any proposed new approaches or changes should consider the following
guiding principles:
the public is able to participate, be engaged and have their input considered;
the system is led by sound policies that provide clear provincial direction/rules and is
also led by up-to-date municipal documents that reflect matters of both local and
provincial importance;
communities are the primary implementers and decision-makers;
the process should be predictable, cost-effective, simple, efficient and accessible,
with timely decisions; and
the appeal system should be transparent; decision-makers should not rule on appeals
of their own decisions.
Please note that while we are interested in hearing your views, recommendations that
would result in a complete overhaul of the land use planning and appeal system are not
being considered at this time.
More specifically, this consultation will not discuss or consider:
elimination of the OMB;
the OMB’s operations, practices and procedures;
removal of the provincial government’s approval role;
the restriction of the provincial government’s ability to intervene in matters; and
matters involving other legislation, unless housekeeping changes are needed.
Comments on issues that are not the focus of the consultation will be shared with the
ministries or agencies responsible.
The government will give serious consideration to all of the comments and information
received. The comments and suggestions will be used to help inform the government on
what changes to the system may be needed.
edit: okay, they are not looking at removal of the OMB.
from: http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10254
We are interested in hearing your views on how the land use planning and appeal system
is working. Any proposed new approaches or changes should consider the following
guiding principles:
the public is able to participate, be engaged and have their input considered;
the system is led by sound policies that provide clear provincial direction/rules and is
also led by up-to-date municipal documents that reflect matters of both local and
provincial importance;
communities are the primary implementers and decision-makers;
the process should be predictable, cost-effective, simple, efficient and accessible,
with timely decisions; and
the appeal system should be transparent; decision-makers should not rule on appeals
of their own decisions.
Please note that while we are interested in hearing your views, recommendations that
would result in a complete overhaul of the land use planning and appeal system are not
being considered at this time.
More specifically, this consultation will not discuss or consider:
elimination of the OMB;
the OMB’s operations, practices and procedures;
removal of the provincial government’s approval role;
the restriction of the provincial government’s ability to intervene in matters; and
matters involving other legislation, unless housekeeping changes are needed.
Comments on issues that are not the focus of the consultation will be shared with the
ministries or agencies responsible.
The government will give serious consideration to all of the comments and information
received. The comments and suggestions will be used to help inform the government on
what changes to the system may be needed.
Last edited:
Mr.Tang
Active Member
I like this response. My only uncertainty is that I recently went to a planning meeting for a development next to my building. Our building is 6 floors with a roof deck/garden and the proposed building is 13 stories. The city plan for the building is 7 stories. At the meeting, Counselor Vaughn basically said to the owners from our building that we should negotiate something b/w 7 and the 13 to get something out of the situation because the OMB will always side with the developer. Counselor Vaughn also said that he did not support the development as proposed - but was essentially helpless beyond assisting in the stakeholder consultations. Did I misinterpret something?
DtTO
Active Member
^ It's funny how the city hates setting precedents when it comes to the OMB, and yet their entire planning framework is based on precedents...set decades ago 
Adam Vaughn is generally pro-NIMBY and is only in it to get votes. Your building having a roof deck on the 6th floor should be a factor, but not a point to completely preclude any future developments that don't conform to that scale. The fact that both of you think that should be the case is ignorant and selfish, and I'm glad we have the OMB to fix that level of complacency. If you wanted a private outdoor area that no one from the outside could see, you should've considered living in the 99.9% of Toronto's land area covered by low density houses.
Adam Vaughn is generally pro-NIMBY and is only in it to get votes. Your building having a roof deck on the 6th floor should be a factor, but not a point to completely preclude any future developments that don't conform to that scale. The fact that both of you think that should be the case is ignorant and selfish, and I'm glad we have the OMB to fix that level of complacency. If you wanted a private outdoor area that no one from the outside could see, you should've considered living in the 99.9% of Toronto's land area covered by low density houses.
Last edited:
Mr.Tang
Active Member
DtTO - my post was not so much about my personal feelings on density or my real estate situation in particular. My question is why would a local counselor claim that the OMB would not respect the cities own plan (and we should anticipate the building being above the per plan 7 stories). The earlier post suggested the OMB was designed to do the opposite - to make sure the developer was allowed to build up to 7 stories (but not higher). I am just trying to understand if the OMB is there to restrict both parties to the plan or not.
DtTO
Active Member
^ The OMB ensures that the city conforms to a fair, standardized, and legal framework that is applied to all developments. That's all! The most common reason for projects going to the OMB is because the city doesn't reach a decision within the legally mandated timeframe, and that obviously has nothing to do with the OMB "forcing the city" to do anything; blame the incompetent councillors who are caught up in their preschool childish games (Rob Ford, etc.). Aside from timing, the city is often guilty of reaching arbitrary rulings that are borderline extortionist. For example, they often seek +Sec. 37 funds to build nearly anything, as most projects nowadays, and indeed the built form of the city itself, don't align with the planning policy which has been in place for decades. This is instead of the alternative; having a sustainable income model, which shouldn't require either the section 37 funds, nor sky high taxation.
Palma
Senior Member
So what is the latest on removing the OMB from Toronto? After all, no other province has an equivalent. If the OMB cannot be removed when the Liberals have had a minority government shows that the City or councillors are not really interested in having the OMB removed from Toronto.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
In fact, it's the province being forced to do the city's job for them.
You've got Ford taking credit for all the cranes in the sky, yet is actually responsible for slashing department budgets that delay and hinder development.
Toronto....electing Ford as your mayor is just one of the more glaring reasons you cannot conduct your affairs without the province there to oversee it.
js97
Senior Member
It's just political grandstanding and getting their name in the minds of NIMBY residents. It's easy to tap into selfish residents and appear to be helping and sympathizing with the 'plight' of the individual but knowing fully well (or maybe not) that actual results would never be what they are championing for.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
There are consultations going on right now in Toronto for a Local Appeal Body, which would replace the OMB for minor variances and consents
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=de68204d1f5c3410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2014/02/local-appeal-body-proposed-committee-adjustment-decisions
The province is also reviewing planning legislation but has already said they won't fundamentally overhaul the OMB
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page10355.aspx
Palma
Senior Member
Well than how can Toronto remove itself from the OMB if the province is saying that will not fundamentally overhaul the OMB? This is a minority government - should this not be the perfect time for this stuff to make the news and force the Liberals to do it?