OMB reforms departure from patronizing past

In creating a weekly column on local municipal issues, I do my best not to repeat subject matter, novelty being the lifeblood of the craft. However, I make an exception this week in the case of the Ontario Municipal Board, (OMB) about which I have written twice and about which major reforms have just been announced.

The OMB is an independent provincial tribunal that hears and makes rulings on matters that have been appealed to it, the majority of which have to do with local government decisions affecting land use. It has endured for 111 years because of an unspoken provincial skepticism of the competencies of local governments as well as the perceived need to prevent potentially arbitrary actions and particularly those that negatively affect land owners and developers.

Last November, I wrote about the growing number of local politicians in Ontario who were unhappy with the OMB. They opposed a provincial body that is unelected, unaccountable and authorized to second guess and overrule decisions made by locally elected municipal councils. Because it allows for developers to make an end run around council decisions, for example, it is seen to weaken council authority and undermine local democracy. It is also seen to favour those who can afford the professional expertise necessary to argue a case before it.

To its credit, the province had invited comment last year on a discussion paper on new directions for the OMB, to which the City of Peterborough did not respond. My prescription was to compel the OMB to legally place a primary weight on the council decision and restrict its authority to a limited number of defined circumstances. Two weeks ago, the province announced a series of decisions that will do exactly that. There are four key areas of proposed change that should be roundly endorsed.

First, a new Local Planning Appeal Tribunal would replace the OMB and be required to give greater weight to municipal decisions. It would lose the current right to overturn a municipal decision whenever it finds that the municipality did not reach what it considers to be the best planning decision. It would be able to overturn a municipal decision only if that decision did not follow provincial policies or municipal official plans. In such cases, it would return the matter to the municipality which would have 90 days for reconsideration.

Second, more municipal decisions would be removed from OMB oversight. Queen’s Park approval of official plans and minister’s zoning orders would no longer be eligible for appeal. So too would interim control bylaws for a period of one year, amendments to secondary official plans for a period of two years, and developments near protected major transit hubs. As a bonus, the local Committee of Adjustment would be given the authority to hear appeals on site plans in addition to its current responsibilities for minor variances and consents.

Third, mandatory case management conferences designed to narrow the issues under dispute and encourage settlements would be favoured over formal hearings. There would be new and welcome rules regarding the conduct of hearings, including timelines and limiting evidence to written materials.

Finally, a new Local Planning Appeal Support Centre would provide free and independent information on land use appeals, including legal and planning advice and representation.

These changes represent a welcome and genuine break from a patronizing past. They recognize the maturity of local governments, compel local politicians to be fully responsible for their decisions, increase the significance of local planning documents, reduce adversarial behaviour, speed the process and help level the playing field for citizens.