Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act has removed my right to appeal the Zoning By-law Amendment.
I do, however, still have a complaint registered with the Ontario Ombudsman for not informing the public of a Community Consultation Meeting to discuss the development's 15 to 35-story height change.
Ontario Land Tribunal Erosion of Justice
From Toronto City Planning:
Bill 185, known as the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, was passed by the Provincial Government in the summer, earlier this year. This legislation made a number of changes including to the scope of appeal rights under the Planning Act. Limits on third-party appeals for official plans, official plan amendments, zoning by-laws, and zoning by-law amendments were introduced for the stated purpose of “helping communities get quicker planning approvals for housing projects, reducing building costs, and in some cases reducing project delays by up to 18 months.”
As the notice you quoted in your email states, appeal rights are now limited to the 1) applicant, 2) specified persons and 3) public bodies, where prior representations had been made. Specified persons are further defined in the legislation as follows:
(a) a corporation operating an electric utility in the local municipality or planning area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,
(b) Ontario Power Generation Inc.,
(c) Hydro One Inc.,
(d) a company operating a natural gas utility in the local municipality or planning area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,
(e) a company operating an oil or natural gas pipeline in the local municipality or planning area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,
(f) a person required to prepare a risk and safety management plan in respect of an operation under Ontario Regulation 211/01 (Propane Storage and Handling) made under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, if any part of the distance established as the hazard distance applicable to the operation and referenced in the risk and safety management plan is within the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,
(g) a company operating a railway line any part of which is located within 300 metres of any part of the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,
(h) a company operating as a telecommunication infrastructure provider in the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply; (“personne précisée”)
(i) NAV Canada,
(j) the owner or operator of an airport as defined in subsection 3 (1) of the Aeronautics Act (Canada) if a zoning regulation under section 5.4 of that Act has been made with respect to lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the airport and if any part of those lands is within the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,
(k) a licensee or permittee in respect of a site, as those terms are defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Aggregate Resources Act, if any part of the site is within 300 metres of any part of the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply,
(l) the holder of an environmental compliance approval to engage in an activity mentioned in subsection 9 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act if any of the lands on which the activity is undertaken are within an area of employment and are within 300 metres of any part of the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, but only if the holder of the approval intends to appeal the relevant decision or conditions, as the case may be, on the basis of inconsistency with land use compatibility policies in any policy statements issued under section 3 of this Act,
(m) a person who has registered an activity on the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry that would, but for being prescribed for the purposes of subsection 20.21 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act, require an environmental compliance approval in accordance with subsection 9 (1) of that Act if any of the lands on which the activity is undertaken are within an area of employment and are within 300 metres of any part of the area to which the relevant planning matter would apply, but only if the person intends to appeal the relevant decision or conditions, as the case may be, on the basis of inconsistency with land use compatibility policies in any policy statements issued under section 3 of this Act, or
(n) the owner of any land described in clause (k), (l) or (m);
While you are encouraged to review the legislation yourself to confirm your own understanding, I would suggest that opportunity for appeal is restricted to only those entities iterated above. You may find the Planning Act at the following link: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13#BK54 and a description of the effects of Bill 185, specifically, can be found here: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-8369