º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍø

Premier Doug Ford’s government says municipalities will lose the power to impose requirements upon developers beyond those in the provincial building code. That has triggered confusion and conflicting opinions over what happens to so-called and emulated by several other cities.

“Clear as mud,” Whitby Mayor Elizabeth Roy said of the provision nonetheless being hailed by developers as victory in their political and legal battle to erase a provincial patchwork of requirements, such as new homes having roughed-in wiring for electric vehicles, and large sites having landscaping to reduce flooding and heat buildup, that they blame for construction costs and delays.

“The devil in the details isn’t there yet,” Roy told the Star, adding that regulations for Bill 17, when released, should help Whitby and other local governments figure out the fate of requirements, such as having trees on boulevards, that triggered early “hiccups” but now rarely generate any complaints from homebuilders.

Necessary efforts to increase housing supply, Roy said, don’t erase the “absolutely harm for our future,” if builders can erect new subdivisions without measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make homes, roads and other infrastructure more resilient.

What is Bill 17? 

Bill 17, crafted with input from municipalities and developers, aims to fast-track home, road and transit construction with more than 20 changes. They include standardizing the development fees that help municipalities pay for sewers, libraries and other services for the added residents, and ensuring that builders pay those fees when units are occupied rather than upfront during the permit process.

Toronto’s green standard was introduced in 2006 as voluntary, environmentally friendly building guidelines. Mandatory requirements were added in updates between 2010 and 2022, along with financial incentives for builders who take extra steps that later become required.

Required measures now on the block include bicycle parking at new multi-residential buildings, limits on hard surfaces to minimize stormwater runoff, highrise design that allows tenants to recycle rather than put everything in trash, and window glazing on a share of lower-floor windows to minimize strikes that kill birds.

Viewed by the city as a success essential to its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2040, the standards and incentives have been replicated, in various forms and stages of development, by other communities, including Mississauga and Caledon.

Asked about Bill 17’s impact, º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøMayor Olivia Chow told reporters that “at first blush it seems like the legislation won’t allow anything more than what is in the building code.” She added, though, that city staff are analyzing the legislation and will report their findings to her executive committee next month.

“We’re hoping that we can continue to encourage and mandate (developers to build) as energy efficient as possible so that homeowners can burn less (fuel) and pay less,” Chow said. “That’s critically important because we do have a climate crisis.”

Two independent sources familiar with city staff’s ongoing analysis, but not authorized to speak publicly about it, told the Star there is hope that, depending on the regulations and any amendments made before Bill 17 becomes law, some or even most of Toronto’s green building initiatives can survive.Ìý

The sources could offer no details but noted that º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøhas powers and obligations through other legislation, including the City of º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøAct and the Planning Act, that can be seen as separate from Ontario building code requirements.

Developers take aim at cities 

The survival of mandatory green rules, however, is not the expectation, nor the desire, of the Residential Construction Council of Ontario (RESCON), which represents developers of residential buildings.

RESCON late last year launched a challenge against the City of Toronto, arguing it doesn’t have jurisdiction to exceed Ontario’s building code, urging a court to strike down the green standard.

Association president Richard Lyall told the Star that he reads the province’s intention with Bill 17 as doing just that, and said that if the legislation forces º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøto stick to requirements on developers in the provincial code, RESCON will drop its court challenge.

“We’re not anti-green,” Lyall said. “We do have a housing crisis, it’s very real and very complicated, and outside of Vancouver we’ve got one of the greenest building jurisdictions in North America,” he said, urging municipalities to focus on proposals to strengthen provisions in the provincial building code rather than their own standards.

“Our costs are ridiculously high and supply is plummeting. º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøcan have a voluntary green standard — but not a mandatory one.”

Bill 17 was strongly praised by an association representing more than 400 Ontario municipalities as well as several individual mayors, with much of their focus on the commitment to standardize, rather than eliminate, development charges imposed on builders.

The province accepted a joint submission on development charges from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ontario Homebuilders Association that prevents the drastic reduction in municipal revenues dictated by earlier provincial housing reforms.Ìý

Some of the supportive mayors are now reckoning with Bill 17’s potential impacts on their cities’ environmental building requirements.

Mississauga Mayor Carolyn Parrish said in an email that “green development standards have value in helping municipalities meet climate change objectives but can have unintended impacts on housing supply and affordability.”

Her housing task force is investigating changes to the green standards to expedite approvals and provide incentives while city staff work through Bill 17’s implications, Parrish said. She added that, while a lack of provincewide standards can increase complexity and cost to a project, “we would not support complete removal of the (green development standard) initiatives.”

Ontario building code ‘slow’ to adopt green initiatives 

The Atmospheric Fund, a not-for-profit group focused on helping GTA-Hamilton communities reach net zero goals, rejects arguments that environmental requirements must be scrapped to build homes faster and cheaper.

Bryan Purcell, the fund’s vice-president of policy and programs, noted that º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøhas exceeded housing targets even as 96 per cent of new residential developments were subject to the green standard. Cancelling requirements increases and transfers long-term costs, such as making homes more fuel-efficient or capable of electric vehicle charging, from developers to homeowners, he said.

Some Bill 17 initiatives have merit, such as streamlining approvals for new construction materials, Purcell said, but “we are concerned that the legislation as drafted will constrain cities ability to implement green development standards and address other community priorities...”

While developers say new green requirements should be imposed provincewide through Ontario’s building code, Bill 17 includes no proposal to do that. A University of º£½ÇÉçÇø¹ÙÍøexpert on building science says that relying on the Ford government to impose green rules on new homes might not be sufficient.

“The problem is that the (Ontario) building code is very, very slow to adopt some of the climate resilience requirements that are being recommended and that have been adopted in other jurisdictions,” said Prof. Ted Kesik.Ìý

“Ontario has been quite reticent in keeping up with those, and that’s why I think the municipalities have gone ahead and done their own thing.”

With files from Mahdis Habibinia