Planning and Development Committee Post-Meeting Agenda
Date: November 16, 2020 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) | Members of the Public (MS Teams)
Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Lindsey Patenaude, Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at [email protected].
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Audio/Video Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and/or video record of General Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a General Government Committee meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording public by on the Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/calendar
Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or placed on non-audible mode during the meeting.
Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net/archive *Late Item added after the Agenda was published.
Pages
1. Call to Order
2. Land Acknowledgment Statement
3. New Business – Introduction Members of Committee are encouraged to provide the Clerk’s Department, in advance of the meeting, a copy of any motion the Member is intending to introduce, (preferably electronic) such that staff could have sufficient time to share the motion with all Members prior to the meeting.
4. Adopt the Agenda
5. Declaration of Interest
6. Announcements
7. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
7.1. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of October 26, 2020 6
8. Public Meetings No Public Meetings.
9. Delegations
9.1. David Astill, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
*9.2. Bill Calder, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
*9.3. Joanna Longworth, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
*9.4. Kirsty Mason, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
Page 2 *9.5. Mark Jacobs, The Biglieri Group Ltd., Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit a 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
*9.6. Bernice Norton, Architectural Conservancy Ontario, Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan
*9.7. Marilyn Morawetz, Jury Lands Foundation, Regarding Report PSD-051- 20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan
*9.8. Devon Daniell, Kaitlin Corporation, Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan
*9.9. Marcus R. Letourneau, Letourneau Heritage Consulting Inc., Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan
10. Communications – Receive for Information
10.1. Memo from Amy Burke, Acting Manager of Special Projects, Regarding 21 PM2.5 Monitoring at St. Marys Cement – Bowmanville Site
*10.2. Correspondence from Ravi Mahabir, Partner, Dillon Consulting Limited 40 Responding to Wendy Bracken's Concerns Regarding a Discrepancy in Dioxin Furan Between Dillon Consulting's Presentation and Posted DYEC Reports
11. Communications – Direction
11.1. Hugh Allin, Regarding Item 15.1, Report PSD-039-20 Responding to the 43 Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding the North Village Secondary Plan (Motion to refer to the Consideration of Item 15.1, Report PSD-039-20 Responding to the Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding the North Village Secondary Plan)
*11.2. Francis Kiemicki, Regarding Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of 44 Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice (Motion to refer to the consideration or Report PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to Permit 25 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice)
Page 3 *11.3. David Winkle, Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands 45 (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan (Motion to refer to the consideration of Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan)
12. Presentations
*12.1. Anne Taylor-Scott, Senior Planner, Regarding Report PSD-051-20 Update to Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan Link to Presentation
13. Planning and Development Services Department Reports
13.1. PSD-047-20 Review of BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study 46
*13.2. PSD-048-20 Update to Site Plan Control By-law 156 (By-law has been Revised)
*13.3. PSD-049-20 Street Names in Foster Northwest Neighbourhood, 162 Newcastle (Sections 2.10 and 2.12 have been Revised)
13.4. PSD-050-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment 168 to permit 25 townhouse dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice
13.5. PSD-051-20 Update on Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment 199 No 121 to the Clarington Official Plan
14. New Business – Consideration
15. Unfinished Business
15.1. PSD-039-20 Responding to the Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding the North Village Secondary Plan (Referred from the October 26-27, 2020 Planning and Development Committee Meeting) Link to Report PSD-039-20 (Motion to Refer to the Planning and Development Committee Meeting dated February 22, 2021)
16. Confidential Reports
Page 4 17. Adjournment
Page 5
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 Planning and Development Committee Minutes Date: October 26-27, 2020 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) | Members of the Public (MS Teams)
Present Were: Councillor G. Anderson Present Via Electronic Mayor A. Foster, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Jones, Means: Councillor J. Neal, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor M. Zwart
Staff Present: J. Gallagher, L. Patenaude Present Via Electronic A. Allison, F. Langmaid, K. Richardson, P. Wirch Means: ______1. Call to Order Councillor Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Foster led the meeting in the Land Acknowledgement Statement. 3. New Business – Introduction 4. Adopt the Agenda Resolution # PD-151-20 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Agenda for the Planning and Development Committee meeting of October 26, 2020, be adopted as presented. Carried 5. Declaration of Interest There were no disclosures of interest stated at this meeting. 6. Announcements Members of Committee announced upcoming community events and matters of community interest.
1 Page 6 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
7. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting 7.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of October 5-6, 2020 Resolution # PD-152-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Mayor Foster That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning and Development Committee meeting held on October 5-6, 2020, be approved. Carried 8. Public Meetings 8.1 Public Meeting for a Request from Bowmanville Home Hardware for a Municipal Council Support for a Minister's Zoning Order Paul Wirch, Senior Planner, was present via electronic means. Mr. Wirch made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation. William Kelly, Halloway and Valiant Properties Ltd., was present via electronic means, in opposition to the application. Mr. Kelly stated that they have been developers in Clarington for 26 years and expressed his concerns with Council supporting the proposal, as it would create an unfair playing field for land developers in Clarington. Mr. Kelly noted that he wants to see Clarington grow and align with the Planning Act and Official Plan. Mr. Kelly asked Committee to not support the Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) as it would be detrimental to Clarington. He answered questions from Members of Committee. Richard Ginn, local resident, was present via electronic means, in opposition to the application. Mr. Ginn noted that he lives directly across from the building site and added that Paul Wirch's presentation noted concerns similar to his. Mr. Ginn explained that, over the last 20 years, he has seen traffic increase along Highway 2 and surrounding side roads. He expressed his concerns regarding children’s safety and noise pollution having Rundle Road as a main route for large vehicles and machinery. Mr. Ginn stated that he understands the need for growth, but not for this location and answered questions from Members of Committee. Recess Resolution # PD-153-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Committee recess for 5 minutes. Carried The meeting reconvened at 7:42 p.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair.
2 Page 7 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
Nathan Veley, local resident, was present via electronic means, in support of the application. Mr. Veley noted that he lives in Ward 2, works in Clarington and has shopped at the local Home Hardware because it is a locally owned Canadian company. He stated that Home Hardware will plant a tree for each one removed. Mr. Veley added that, several people will be impacted and requested Committee to support the MZO and support the local business. Libby Racansky, local resident, was present via electronic means, in opposition to the application. Ms. Racansky expressed her concerns regarding another building supply outlet outside of the urban boundary and suggested Committee to not support the zoning order. She questioned who would be paying for the extension of water/sewer as it is currently not available at this location. Ms. Racansky stated that the zoning does not comply with the Provincial Policy Statement, Durham and Clarington Official Plans and the Zoning By-law 84-63. She questioned if the Region or Province would help the affected residents/farmers living around Rundle Road as they are not currently helping residents within the urban boundary. Ms. Racansky noted her concerns regarding the groundwater flow, water table and infiltration. James King, Project Supervisor, The Deck Guys, was present via electronic means, in support of the application. Mr. King explained the struggle for local tradesman and contractors to obtain materials during the pandemic and added that Home Hardware provides everything they need. He stated that he supports Home Hardware because it is 100% Canadian and noted that this development will create more jobs and more options for builders to buy products. Mr. King concluded by stating that the store will provide tremendous growth and hopes Committee will support the request. Justin Vanderbelt, Soper Creek Wildlife Rescue, was present via electronic means, in support of the application. Mr. Vanderbelt explained that the development will bring many jobs to Clarington especially during the pandemic. He noted that it is a great opportunity for local contractors to obtain the materials they need to survive. Mr. Vanderbelt explained that Home Hardware will plant a tree for each one removed. He explained that he has noticed a rise in wildlife coming to the center when the Highway 418 was constructed and hopes Committee will support the MZO. Cyndi Bell-Abrom, Absolute Equestrian Centre, was present via electronic means, in support of the application. Ms. Bell-Abrom stated that she is a business owner in the area and expressed her concern with having no businesses in the rural zone. She noted that she agrees with Justin Vanderbelts comments regarding wildlife. Ms. Bell-Abrom explained that her dug well went dry with the construction of Highway 418. She questioned if the environmental impact assessment was completed when the 407 and 418 were built and speculated if the information is already available to Council. Ms. Bell-Abrom noted that she supports local and Canadian businesses and believes this development is a good direction for Council.
3 Page 8 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
Scott Nancekievill, Steve's Sheds, was present via electronic means, in support of the application. Mr. Nancekievill stated that they prefer to support local Canadian companies and have been a partner with Home Hardware for the past five years. He explained that Home Hardware has outgrown their current location and a new site will allow them to better serve their customers. Mr. Nancekievill noted that they shop at Home Hardware because of their customer service, product and availability, and that he hopes the Committee will support the MZO to allow Home Hardware to expand their business. Adam Yahn, local resident, was present via electronic means, in support of the application. Mr. Yahn explained that he supports the MZO because it will create over 50 new positions that are desperately needed during the pandemic. He stated that there is an immediate need for positions in the Clarington community as local businesses have been hit the hardest during the pandemic. Mr. Yahn noted that this is the time to support local and keep businesses open. Gord Schofield, local resident, was present via electronic means, in support of the application. Mr. Schofield stated that he is the real estate agent for the purchasers of 2423 Rundle Road. Mr. Schofield explained the background of the property search that he performed for the Home Hardware owners. He noted that he supports locally owned businesses and supports the request for an MZO. Mr. Schofield read a letter of support from a direct neighbor to 2423 Rundle Road and answered questions from Members of Committee. Frank Barker, General Manager, Bowmanville Home Hardware, was present via electronic means, in support of the application. Mr. Barker explained that Home Hardware is wanting to expand as the current site doesn't have enough space to satisfy the growth in the community. He noted that they support local businesses and will create several new job positions, which will benefit the economy during the pandemic. Mr. Barker stated that 80% of their business is contractors and asked for Committee’s support. Jon Wilcox, Bowmanville Home Hardware, was present via electronic means, in support of the application. Mr. Wilcox explained that they created video, which is a compilation of local business and residents, living within 1 kilometer radius, in support of the application. He is explained that they have successfully installed a well, septic bed, and a fire protection system at their store in Alliston. Suspend the Rules Resolution # PD-154-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Mayor Foster That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the delegation for an additional 5 minutes. Carried
4 Page 9 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
Mr. Wilcox presented a video and answered questions from Members of Committee. Dan Moulton, Owner, Bowmanville Hardware, was present via electronic means regarding the application. Mr. Moulton noted that they had 50 delegations pre- registered to speak which they shortened to ten, in the interest of time. He explained that they received over 3500 signatures in 12 days to support a new local Home Hardware, and verbal support from MP's, Lindsey Park and David Piccini. Mr. Moulton stated that they went door knocking to every house between Nash Road and Bloor Street and received 150 signatures in support of job creation and success for a locally owned business. He noted that they will replant the trees that have been cut down and will create a tree wall on Rundle Road. Mr. Moulton explained why he went through the MZO process. He stated that the new location will address the local economic demand, have an impact on agricultural businesses, and create several new jobs. Mr. Moulton explained that not supporting the MZO will put pressure on a local business to stop operation in Bowmanville and added that several residents, businesses and farmers will be impacted. Mr. Moulton noted that, since the February meeting, they didn't come forward because they were trying to keep up business during the pandemic. He stated that Hydro Geological Study will be completed in December. Mr. Moulton concluded by requesting Committee's support for job creation and supporting a locally owned business. 9. Delegations 9.1 Hugh Allin, Regarding Item 15.2, Report PSD-039-20 Responding to the Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding North Village Secondary Plan Mr. Allin had notified the Clerk's Division of his intention to withdraw his delegation. 9.2 Corinne Turansky, Regarding Item 15.2, Report PSD-039-20 Responding to the Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding North Village Secondary Plan Ms. Turanksy notified the Clerk's Division of his intention to withdraw his delegation. 9.3 Scott Collocutt, Regarding Item 13.5, Report PSD-046-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning for 29 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Newcastle Scott Collocutt, was present via electronic means regarding Item 13.5, Report PSD-046-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning for 29 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Newcastle. Mr. Collocutt stated that they have owned their property, to the south of the development, for 30 years. He explained that proper signage for the proposed development was never installed, and the grass hasn't been cut or maintained for the last two years. Mr. Collocutt cited the Clarington Official Plan and addressed his concerns about the proposal negatively impacting the community, his privacy, and parking.
5 Page 10 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
He explained that the proposed retaining wall and ground water swale will not be compatible with the existing 20 mature spruce trees on his property. Mr. Collocutt expressed his concerns regarding accessibility issues due to the Canadian Pacific Railway line, setbacks, and density levels. He concluded by stating that no one is in support of the large building proposal and that he hopes something can be done to reflect the requirements of the Clarington Official Plan. Mr. Collocutt answered questions from Members of Committee. Recess Resolution # PD-155-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Committee recess for 10 minutes. Carried The meeting reconvened at 10:04 p.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair. 9.4 Paul Demczak, Batory Management, Regarding Item 13.5, Report PSD-046- 20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning for 29 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Newcastle Paul Demczak, Batory Management was present, representing the applicant, via electronic means regarding Item 13.5, Report PSD-046-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning for 29 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Newcastle. Mr. Demczak made a verbal and electronic presentation. He provided the background of the proposed location, noting that they comply with the Clarington Official Plan. He explained that the application is requesting a zoning by-law amendment to change from an R1 zone to R3. Mr. Demczak provided the history of the application stating the original application was filed October 4, 2017. He explained the changes to the application including an updated traffic assessment and implementation of warning signs, improved amenity features, storm water retention and servicing connections, noise fencing, building façade improvements and noise warning clauses, improving rear yard setbacks on the south side and improved tree planting. Mr. Demczak explained the proposal plans including the changes to the height and noted they still must go through the site plan process to ensure they comply. He concluded by stating they support Staff recommendations and noted that they comply with the Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan, Durham Official Plan and Clarington's Official Plan and that the proposal represents good planning.
6 Page 11 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
9.5 Wendy Bracken, Regarding Item 10.1, St. Mary's Cement, Alternative Low Carbon Fuel Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment - Comments from Dillon Consulting Limited, Air Quality Advisor Wendy Bracken, was present via electronic means regarding St. Mary's Cement, Alternative Low Carbon Fuel Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment - Comments from Dillon Consulting Limited, Air Quality Advisor. Ms. Bracken made a verbal presentation to accompany a PowerPoint presentation. She explained that St. Mary's is a large polluter and are seeking an operational change to burn 400 tonnes of garbage per day. Ms. Bracken explained that the consultant’s scope was to review currently available relevant air quality technical documents and studies and they did not confirm the key technical aspects which have an impact on the conclusions. She added that Dillon Consulting reviewed select documents from St. Mays and did not perform a peer review of the studies, which would have involved independently confirming key technical aspects. Ms. Bracken stated that the Dillon report stated the studies comply with the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks but don't mention the O.Reg 419/05 change. She outlined the air pollution for local air quality and noted that the amount of So2 emissions was the highest when the Alternative Low Carbon Fuel was used. Ms. Bracken noted that the predicted nitrogen oxide concentration exceeds the relevant Canadian Ambient Air Quality and stated that Clarington must comment to the MECP. She explained that the particulate and fine particulate concentrations were higher when ALCF burned and noted her concerns regarding dioxins and furans when burning plastics and increased respiratory and toxic load. Suspend the Rules Resolution # PD-156-20 Moved by Councillor Jones Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the delegation for an additional 2 minutes. Carried Ms. Bracken explained that St. Marys must focus on reducing Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate emissions first before burning garbage and to investigate best cement kiln emission control practices. She concluded by stated that Clarington residents should be provided: an analysis that includes relevant technical information; further analysis on Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate and fine particulate matter, dioxins/furans and other toxins of burning ALCF; remarks on emerging science on ultrafine particulates;
7 Page 12 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
an answer with appropriate follow-up to the question: Did St. Marys fail to pro- rate emissions for certain pollutants?; clear comments expressing concern regarding the limited scope/small number of data points of the St. Marys study; more detailed comments regarding more ambient monitoring needed and for a range of pollutants of concern; and a review of best practices for cement kilns burning alt fuel. 10. Communications – Receive for Information 10.1 Memo from Planning and Development Services, Regarding St. Mary's Cement, Alternative Low Carbon Fuels Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment - Comments from Dillon Consulting Limited, Air Quality Advisor Resolution # PD-157-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That Item 10.1 regarding St. Marys Cement, Alternative Low Carbon Fuels Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment - Comments from Dillon Consulting Limited, Air Quality Advisory and delegation 9.5, be referred back to staff, along with the concerns expressed in Wendy Bracken’s delegation, to report back at the next Planning and Development Committee meeting dated November 16, 2020. Motion Withdrawn, See Following Motion Suspend the Rules Resolution # PD-158-20 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Mayor Foster That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting for an additional 1 hour until 12:00 a.m. Carried
8 Page 13 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
Resolution # PD-159-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That the matter of St. Mary's Cement, Alternative Low Carbon Fuels Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment - Comments from Dillon Consulting Limited, Air Quality Advisor, be referred to the November 2, 2020 Council Meeting; That Dillon Consulting and St. Marys Cement be invited attend to address the delegation of Wendy Bracken's concerns. Carried 11. Communications – Direction 11.1 Correspondence Regarding Item 13.1, Report PSD-042-20 Request for Minister's Zoning Order at 2423 Rundle Road Resolution # PD-160-20 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Hooper That Correspondence Item 11.1, Regarding Item 13.1, Report PSD-042-20 Request for Minister's Zoning Order at 2423 Rundle Road, be referred to the consideration of Report PSD-042-20 Request for Minister's Zoning Order at 2423 Rundle Road). Carried 12. Presentations There were no Presentations. 13. Planning Services Department Reports 13.1 PSD-042-20 Request for Minister’s Zoning Order at 2423 Rundle Road Resolution # PD-161-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones Now Therefore Be It Resolved That: 1. The C4-6 zoning designation for 2423 Rundle Road in Zoning By-Law 84-63 be amended to include as permitted uses the following: A Garden Centre as defined in Section 22.A.1(1)(vi) of By-Law 84-63; and A Building Supply Outlet. 2. The location of the buildings shall be subject to an Environmental Impact Study, and a hydrogeological study; and
9 Page 14 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
3. There shall be a minimum vegetation zone of 10 metres on any property lines abutting public streets. Motion Withdrawn Resolution # PD-162-20 Moved by Councillor Traill Seconded by Councillor Jones The Municipality of Clarington supports a Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) to be issued by the Province of Ontario, changing the zoning of 2423 Rundle Road Bowmanville from a C4-6 to a C4 designation, allowing Bowmanville Home Hardware to expand their business in the Municipality of Clarington. Carried, as amended, on a Recorded Vote (See following Motions) Resolution # PD-163-20 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the foregoing Resolution #PD-162-20 be amended by adding the following at the end: That the applicant carrying out the necessary studies and implementing the recommended works from: Traffic Study; Hydrological/Hydrogeological study; Environmental Impact Study; Servicing Study; and Storm water management plan Carried Resolution # PD-164-20 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the foregoing Resolution #PD-162-20 be amended by adding the following at the end: That the Province commit to reviewing the lands south of Highway 2 between Hwy 418 and Maple Grove Road for inclusion in the Greenbelt based on their contributions to the systems of agriculture, natural heritage and water resources. Carried on a Recorded Vote (See following Motions)
10 Page 15 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
Councillor Traill stated a Point of Privilege regarding other Members of Council referring to Member’s comments as rude and aggressive. Mayor Foster stated a Point of Privilege by stating that his comments were his opinion. Resolution # PD-165-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to speak to the foregoing Resolution #PD-164-20 for a second time. Carried That the foregoing Resolution #PD-164-20 was put to a recorded vote and carried as indicated below: Yes (4): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, and Councillor Zwart No (3): Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill Carried (4 to 3) Resolution # PD-166-20 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Traill That the foregoing Resolution #PD-162-20 be amended by adding the following at the end: That, should the Bowmanville site be redeveloped, the applicant commit that 25% of the units be developed as affordable housing units (for low income families). Carried Suspend the Rules Resolution # PD-167-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting for an additional 30 minutes until 12:30 a.m. Carried
11 Page 16 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
That the foregoing amended Resolution #PD-162-20 was put to a recorded vote and carried as indicated below: Yes (5): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones, and Councillor Traill No (2): Councillor Neal, and Councillor Zwart Carried (5 to 2) 13.2 PSD-043-20 Electric Vehicle Charge Station Policy and Amendment to Fees By-law for Charge Station Use Resolution # PD-168-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That Report PSD-043-20 be received; That the draft By-law, included in Report PSD-043-20 as Attachment 2, amending By-law 2010-142 by adding Schedule “G” Public Works Department Fees to include fees for municipally-owned electric vehicle charge station use, be approved. Carried 13.3 PSD-044-20 Heritage Permit Application for 302 Given Road (Belmont House), Newcastle; Applicant: Sedgewick Marshall Heritage Homes Ltd. Resolution # PD-169-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Mayor Foster That Report PSD-044-20 be received; That Council approves the proposed alterations to the designated heritage property at 302 Given Road, Newcastle (Heritage Permit Application File No. HPA2020-004) in accordance with the applicable Designation By-law 2018-099, and Section 33(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 0.18 to facilitate the rehabilitation of the exterior and interior of the dwelling, repair of the porch and veranda, and addition of a one-storey three-car garage substantially in accordance with the Heritage Conservation Plan for 302 Given Road, dated September 10, 2020, prepared by Golder Associates Ltd., and the plans and drawings dated September 4, 2020, prepared by Pamela Farrow, subject to the following conditions: That the subject lands be placed under Site Plan Control to: i. ensure the designated heritage property is protected during the construction of the proposed new addition, and ii. ensure proper servicing, drainage, and landscaping.
12 Page 17 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
That prior to the issuance of a building permit for any works: iii. the applicant work with Planning and Development Services staff to address any outstanding comments of the Clarington Heritage Committee on the application, and iv. the owner enters into a Site Plan Agreement with the Municipality of Clarington to ensure the proposed alteration of the Belmont House is undertaken in accordance with the approved Heritage Conservation Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services; That the source of the interior cellar spring be identified prior to development of the surrounding lands including servicing, to ensure the proposed development does not adversely impact the cellar spring and artesian well; and That the location and installation of any future municipal servicing infrastructure takes place on the east side of the property to avoid potential interference with the artesian well; and That the Ontario Heritage Trust, the Clarington Heritage Committee, the property owners, and all interested parties listed in Report PSD-044-20 be advised of Council's decision. Carried 13.4 PSD-045-20 Removal of Holding (H) for Three Commercial Properties Located at 1556, 1560 and 1564 Highway 2, Courtice Resolution # PD-170-20 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Zwart That Report PSD-045-20 be received; That the By-law, attached to Report PSD-045-20 as Attachment 1, be approved, as it meets the policies of the Official Plan; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-045-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Carried
13 Page 18 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
13.5 PSD-046-20 Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning for 29 Townhouse Dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Newcastle Resolution # PD-171-20 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Mayor Foster That Report PSD-046-20 be received; That the application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Tomba Enterprises Limited to permit 29 townhouse dwellings, be supported subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD-046-20; That the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved and that the Zoning By-law Amendment, in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-046-20, be passed; That, once all conditions contained in the Official Plan with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol, be approved; That no further Public Meeting be required for the future Common Elements Condominium; That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of report PSD-046-20 and Council’s decision; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-046-20 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 14. New Business – Consideration 15. Unfinished Business 15.1 Dan Moulton, Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre, Regarding 2423 Rundle Road Rezoning (Referred from the October 5, 2020 Planning and Development Committee Meeting) This matter was considered earlier in the meeting, on Item 13.1, Report PSD-042-20 Request for Minister's Zoning Order at 2423 Rundle Road.
14 Page 19 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of October 26-27, 2020
15.2 PSD-039-20 Responding to the Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding the North Village Secondary Plan (Referred from the October 5, 2020 Planning and Development Committee Meeting) Resolution # PD-172-20 Moved by Councillor Traill Seconded by Councillor Zwart That Report PSD-039-20 be referred to the next Planning and Development Committee meeting dated November 16, 2020. Carried 16. Confidential Reports 17. Adjournment Resolution # PD-173-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That the meeting adjourn at 12:14 a.m. Carried
Chair Deputy Clerk
15 Page 20 MEMO
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Amy Burke, Acting Manager – Special Projects, Planning & Development Services
Date: November 9, 2020
File No: PLN 21.2.7
Re: PM2.5 Monitoring at St. Marys Cement – Bowmanville Site
At the November 2, 2020 Council meeting, Councillor Neal raised questions respecting the monitoring of fine particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) at the St. Marys Cement (SMC) – Bowmanville site (the Site). I was asked to confirm my understanding, based on my involvement as Staff Liaison to SMC’s Community Relations Committee, of past discussions regarding the presence or absence of PM2.5 monitoring at the Site.
The SMC Community Relations Committee generally meets on a quarterly basis. Each meeting, SMC shares with the Committee available ambient air quality monitoring data for the current year. This includes monitoring for PM10. It does not include monitoring for PM2.5.
On December 4, 2018, Rotek Environmental Inc. presented to the Committee on the Site’s ambient air quality monitoring program for particulate matter. The presentation was arranged by SMC in response to questions raised about the feasibility of PM2.5 monitoring at the site. Ruben Plaza from SMC, accompanied by Denis Corr from Rotek, provided the same presentation to Council on September 16, 2019. A copy of the presentation is attached.
At the Community Relations Committee meeting, Rotek informed the Committee that SMC’s operations are a negligible contributor to PM2.5 and that discussion with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks has confirmed that ambient air monitoring for PM10, rather than PM2.5, is adequate for the Site. While PM2.5 is not part of the ambient air quality monitoring program, the Committee was informed that PM2.5 is monitored as part of the annual stack testing program. This is reflected in the minutes from this Community Relations Committee meeting, as read out by Councillor Neal at the November 2, 2020 Council meeting.
Page | 1
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | [email protected] | www.clarington.net Page 21
However, email correspondence from Ruben Plaza, dated November 5, 2020, includes a correction with respect to stack testing at the Site as it relates to particulate matter. SMC’s annual stack testing program measures Total Particulate Matter; it does not include measurement of PM2.5. A copy of the email is attached.
To support their proposal for the expanded use of Alternative Low Carbon Fuel (ALCF) at the Site, SMC undertook a demonstration project. The demonstration trials occured between September 25 and December 10, 2018. Bridget Mills from BCX Environmental presented a summary of the results of the demonstration project to the Community Relations Committee on June 11, 2019. The demonstration project included stack testing and ambient air quality monitoring. The demonstration project stack testing program included monitoring for PM2.5, while the demonstration project ambient air quality monitoring requirements did not include PM2.5.
Based on the above, my understanding of PM2.5 monitoring at the Site is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Program Inclusion of PM2.5 (Yes / No)
Regular Ambient Air Monitoring No
ALCF Demonstration Project Ambient Air Monitoring Program No
Annual Stack Testing No
ALCF Demonstration Project Stack Testing Yes
I will be available at the November 16, 2020 Planning and Development Committee meeting to answer any questions that Committee may have regarding my understanding of PM2.5 monitoring at the Site.
Sincerely,
______Amy Burke Acting Manager – Special Projects Branch Planning and Development Services Department
Page | 2 cc: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services Andrew Allison, CAO The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1 -800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | [email protected] | www.clarington.net Page 22 Attachment 1 Page 1
St. Marys - Bowmanville Cement Plant PM Monitoring Program
Rotek Environmental Inc.
Page 23 Attachment 1 Page 2
What is Particulate Matter
• Particulate matter (PM) consists of airborne solid particles and liquid droplets suspended in air.
• Particulate matter includes aerosols, smoke, fumes, dust, fly ash and pollen.
• Particulate matter is classified according to its size, since different health effects are associated with particles of different diameters.
• The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) identifies the following different sizes of PM:
o Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) - airborne particulate matter with an upper size limit of approximately 44 micro metre (µm).
o Particulate Matter < 10 microns (PM10) - airborne particulate matter with a diameter less than 10 µm.
o Particulate Matter < 2.5 microns (PM2.5) - airborne particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 µm.
Page 24 Attachment 1 Page 3
Particulate Matter Size
Cross Section of a Inhalable Particulate Human Hair (~ 75 µm)
PM10
Respirable Particulate
PM2.5
PM10 particles can stay suspended in the air for minutes or hours while PM2.5 particles can stay suspended for days or weeks.
PM10 - Inhalable Particulate - deposited in the upper respiratory tract.
PM2.5 - Respirable Particulate - capable of penetrating the alveolar region of the lung.
Page 25 Attachment 1 Page 4
SMC PM Monitoring Network Overview
Lake Ontario
Continuous PM10 Non-Continuous PM10 Total Dustfall Meteorological Station
St. Marys Cement By : BB Figure 1 PM Monitoring Network True North Approx. Scale : 1:22000 ROTEK St. Marys Cement - Bowmanville Cement Plant Date Revised : 26 Nov, 2018
Page 26 Attachment 1 Page 5
SMC PM Monitoring Network Overview
Lake Ontario
Continuous PM10 Non-Continuous PM10 Total Dustfall Meteorological Station
St. Marys Cement By : BB Figure 1 PM Monitoring Network True North Approx. Scale : 1:22000 ROTEK St. Marys Cement - Bowmanville Cement Plant Date Revised : 26 Nov, 2018
Page 27 Attachment 1 Page 6
SMC Continuous PM10 Monitoring Program
• SMC’s air quality program monitors and reports accurate real-time
continuous measurement of ambient PM10 at various sites located around the St. Marys Bowmanville Cement Plant facility. The data generated are used to measure compliance with provincial standards.
• PM10 is continuously monitored utilizing Met One BAM 1020 continuous particulate monitors.
• The BAM 1020 automatically measures and records airborne particulate concentration levels in micrograms per cubic meter using the industry-proven principle of beta ray attenuation.
• The Met One BAM 1020 has longstanding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designation as a Federal Equivalent Method
(FEM) for continuous PM10 particulate monitoring.
Page 28 Attachment 1 Page 7
Met One BAM 1020 Continuous PM10 Monitor
PM10 Size Selective Sample Inlet Filter Tape Mechanism
Exposed Tape
The MECP AAQC is 50 µg/m3 for a 24 Hr running average. Page 29 Attachment 1 Page 8
Non-Continuous PM10 High Volume Air Sampler
PM10 Size Selective Sample Inlet An air sampler draws ambient air at a constant flow rate into a specially shaped inlet where the suspended particulate matter is separated by inertia into one or more size fractions within the PM10 size range.
ROTEK
HiVol PM10 Sampler Runs on a ‘6 day’ schedule (midnight to midnight)
The MECP AAQC is 50 µg/m3 for a 24 Hr clock average (midnight to midnight). Page 30 Attachment 1 Page 9 Non-Continuous Total Dustfall Sampler
Settleable Particulate
Dustfall collection is a passive sampling method that provides a measure of particulate deposition.
Containers (Dustfall Jars) of a standard size and shape are prepared and sealed in a laboratory and then opened and set up at appropriately chosen sites so that particulate matter can settle into them for periods of about 30 days.
The masses of the water-soluble and insoluble components of the material collected are determined. The result totals are reported as grams per square metre per 30 days (g/m2/30).
The MECP AAQC is 7 g/cm2/30 days.
Page 31 Attachment 1 Page 10
Respirable Particulate - PM2.5
• Fine particulate matter, a regional pollutant denoted as PM2.5, is approximately 30 times smaller than the average diameter of a human hair.
• Fine particulate matter is one of the major components of smog.
• Fine particulate matter can have various negative health effects especially on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems.
• Major components of PM2.5 in Ontario are typically nitrates, sulphates, organic matter and particulate bound water.
• Fine particulate matter may be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a by-product of fuel combustion or it may be formed indirectly in the atmosphere through a series of complex chemical reactions.
Page 32 Attachment 1 Page 11
Respirable Particulate - PM2.5
• The estimates for Ontario PM2.5 emissions from point, area and transportation sources (excluding emissions from open and natural sources) indicate that residential fuel combustion accounted for 56% of
PM2.5 emissions.
• The Cement and concrete industry accounts for approximately 4% of
Ontario PM2.5 emissions.
Source: Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Air Quality in Ontario, 2016 Report.
Page 33 Attachment 1 Page 12
Point Source Contribution PM2.5
Below are examples of PM2.5 point source contributions from 2 industrial sources, one being St. Marys PM10 monitoring station SMC1 and the second an open pit mining operation in Labrador.
Page 34 Attachment 1 Page 13
Regional PM2.5 Events
PM2.5 events are not typically primary or point source related but tend to be regional in nature as illustrated below.
Primary PM is emitted directly into the atmosphere from a source, such as a smokestack or exhaust pipe, or from wind-blown soils or vehicle traffic on a dirt road.
The secondary PM below is formed indirectly in the atmosphere through a series of complex chemical and physical reactions involving gases such as Sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
November, 2018
Page 35 Attachment 1 Page 14
PM10 Exceedance Event SMC1 and SMC2 th th June 30 - July 4 records PM10 2013 exceedances June / July, 2013.
Winds out of the NE, ‘upwind’ of SMC plant operations.
News reports of northern Quebec forest fires impacting Ontario air quality.
PM10 data from a Napanee monitor confirms Provincial wide impact on air quality
PM2.5 data from the Oshawa AQHI station indicates a dominant size
fraction in the PM2.5 range.
Page 36 Attachment 1 Page 15
MECP PM2.5 Standards A value of 28 µg/m3 (24 Hr calendar day) is the Canadian Ambient Air Quality
Standard (CAAQS) for PM2.5, developed jointly by the Federal government and the Provinces, including Ontario, as a step towards the long-term goal of minimizing the risk that fine particles impose on human health and the environment.
Achievement of the PM2.5 CAAQS in various airsheds is to be based on the 24 hour 98th percentile ambient measurement annually, averaged over three consecutive years.
3 The annual PM2.5 AAQC is 10 µg/m based on the 3 year average of the annual average concentrations. An annual standard helps protect human health from long term or chronic exposure to fine particulate.
Standards Averaging Pollutant Metric Time 2015 2020
The 3-year average of the annual 24 Hr PM 3 3 98th percentile of the daily 2.5 (Calendar Day) 28 µg/m 27 µg/m 24-hour average concentrations.
The 3-year average of the annual Annual PM 3 3 average concentrations. 2.5 (Calendar Year) 10.0 µg/m 8.8 µg/m
Page 37 Attachment 1 Page 16
Ministry Audit Program
• The MECP audits the St. Marys PM monitoring network quarterly.
• The audit program provides an indication of the effectiveness of quality control activities used by station operators and data management staff.
• Performance audits are independent evaluations of data quality produced by the PM monitors.
• Ministry staff document their findings in audit reports.
• Rotek has been involved in the service and maintenance of the SMC PM monitoring network since 2011 and have a 100% audit success rate.
Page 38 Attachment 2 Page 1
From: Ruben Plaza To: Burke, Amy Subject: PM Monitoring Date: November 5, 2020 2:50:15 PM
EXTERNAL
Hi Amy, During the trial of Alternative Low Carbon Fuels (Wood and Plastics) we tested at the stack Total Particulate Matter (PM), Particulate Mater 10 microns and smaller (PM 10) and Particulate Matter 2.5 microns and smaller (PM 2.5). Total Particulate Matter includes the portions of PM10 and PM2.5 During the testing we were not required to measure ambient Total Particulate Matter, PM10 or PM 2.5. We modeled stack testing results of particulate matter to evaluate POI. Annual Stack Testing: The annual stack testing requires only to measure Total PM at the stack. Our permit requires us to measure opacity continuously at the stack. Our regular ambient air program monitors PM 10 with high vol samplers and BAM (4 stations) and total particulate with fall jars (5 stations).
Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Regards Ruben
"Esta mensagem e seus anexos podem conter informação confidencial ou privilegiada. Caso não seja o destinatário, solicitamos a imediata notificação ao remetente e exclusão da mensagem."
"This message and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee, please, advise the sender immediately by replying to the e-mail and delete this message."
"Este mensaje y sus anexos pueden contener información confidencial o privilegiada. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor bórrelo y envíe un mensaje al remitente."
“Bu mesaj ve ekleri gizli ve / veya ayrıcalıklı bilgiler içerebilir. İşbu iletinin muhatabı siz değilseniz, lütfen e-postayı yanıtlayarak göndereni derhal bilgilendirin ve bu mesajı silin.”
"Ce message et ses pièces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles et/ou privilégiées. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire, veuillez en informer immédiatement l'expéditeur en répondant à l'e-mail et supprimer ce message."
قد تحتوي هذه الرسالة ومرفقاتها على معلومات سرية و / أو مميزة. إذا لم تكن المرسل إليه ، فالرجاء إباغ المرسل ًفورا" " بالرد على البريد اإلكتروني وحذف هذه الرسالة
Page 39 From: Patenaude, Lindsey To: Patenaude, Lindsey Subject: FW: FW: Major Discrepancy in Dioxin Furan Emissions between Consultant Presentation and Posted DYEC Reports Date: Friday, November 13, 2020 3:33:40 PM Attachments: Letter Regarding Dioxin and Furan Emission Discrepancies.pdf Importance: High
From: Mahabir, Ravi
EXTERNAL
Hi Amy, We have reviewed the letter and offer up the following comments:
The data shown for SMC and DYEC in the Dillon presentation both represent reasonable worst-case scenarios from ESDM reports for each site. These scenarios represent the potential for emissions releases and the associated predicted impact. They act as bounding emissions scenarios for the sites. When applying for an air permit a facility is required to document the worst-case scenario, such that the Ministry can approve an operation based on it's predictable worst-case impact. The numbers from the DYEC source test report quoted in the community member's letter are actual operating conditions for DYEC - not the worst-case emissions, and therefore not the worst-case potential impact. As noted in the Dillon presentation, the SMC and DYEC data for worst-case operations show that there is a significant difference in potential emissions from both operations. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions on the above. Regards, Ravi Ravi Mahabir, P.Eng., C.R.M.
Partner Dillon Consulting Limited 111 Farquhar Street Suite 301 Guelph, Ontario, N1H 3N4 T - 519.571.9833 ext. 3168 F - 519.571.7424 M - 416.970.3264 [email protected] www.dillon.ca Please consider the environment before printing this email
Page 40 November 12th, 2020
Dear Amy, Faye and Members of Clarington Council,
I am writing with regards to the presentation made by Dillon regarding the St Marys Cement Application. Slide 13 of the Dillon presentation was a table titled Dioxins and Furans. The emission rates of dioxins and furans were stated as follows:
품 품 SMC: ퟑ × ퟏퟎ−ퟗ ; DYEC incinerator: ퟑ × ퟏퟎ−ퟑ 풔 풔
The reference Dillon gave for the DYEC emission rate was the 2019 ESDM Report. The November 2019 Compliance Emission Testing report is posted at https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/environmental- monitoring/resources/Documents/AirEmissions/20191211_DYEC%20_2019_Fall_Compliance_Source_ Test.pdf That report contains the Golder Report ESDM report. Appendix A gives the Site-Wide Emission Inventory for the DYEC incinerator and Appendix B gives the Emission Summary Table. 품 Both tables in the Appendices state the DYEC emission rate for dioxin/furans as ퟏ. ퟎퟔ × ퟏퟎ−ퟏퟎ . 풔 You can see the great discrepancy between the two emission rates for the incinerator that are bolded in red above. The emission rate in the Dillon presentation is 28.3 Million times the emission rate stated in the 2019 ESDM emission tables. Furthermore, Dillon gave the maximum POI concentration for the DYEC incinerator as approximately 풖품 ퟐ. ퟑ × ퟏퟎ−ퟑ , however the posted tables from the 2019 Compliance testing report state the DYEC 풎ퟑ 푝푔 흁품 incinerator maximum POI concentration is predicted to be 0.00011 푇퐸푄 = ퟏ. ퟏ × ퟏퟎ−ퟏퟎ 푻푬푸. 푚3 풎ퟑ Again, there is a great discrepancy (seven orders of magnitude). These major discrepancies must be addressed as these comparisons affect analysis, report conclusions, and the information that has been provided to the public, to Council and to the MECP regarding the St Marys application. These figures informed decisions about the dioxin and furan impact of the application as well as Council’s ambient monitoring request(s). It also affected action taken by Council to send the Dillon report to the MECP. In their slide and in their presentation, Dillon informed Council and the public that the incinerator dioxin/furan emission rates and concentrations were about a million times more than the St Marys dioxin and furan emission rates and concentrations, making it seem like the dioxin and furan emissions from St Marys dioxin paled in comparison to the incinerator.
Page 41 However, if the emission rate posted in the 2019 DYEC Compliance Emission Testing tables are correct, the overall picture is completely different. When compared against the emission rate posted in that Testing report, the St Marys’ dioxin and furan emission rate is higher by a factor of 28.3. The Dillon consultants must be asked to explain how and why their emission rate differs so dramatically from the emission rates published in the DYEC 2019 Compliance Testing report tables. If Dillon has made an error in representing the relative dioxin and furan contribution of St Marys to the DYEC incinerator, the correction must be made in writing to the Council and provided to the public. This needs to be done as soon as possible as the application is currently under review and could be approved at any time. Further, if an error has been made, that error would have impacted the analysis and the level of scrutiny of the St Marys dioxin/furan emissions in the memorandum, which in turn would potentially affect what was recommended to the Council, as well as what Council members would have asked the reviewer and what actions Council would have taken in their comments to the MECP. In short, if an error has been made, then Clarington should contact the MECP immediately to request to them to wait until this has been discussed and resolved at Council. Finally, it must be said that comparing the dioxin and furan emissions for only one year for only one stack test result, especially since a compliance stack test is just a 12-hour snapshot taken once a year, is not adequate to represent the dioxin and furan emission concern. The dioxin and furan emissions can vary widely, depending on the feedstock, the stack conditions, the control process parameters and monitoring in place. Furthermore, the formation of dioxins and furans involves complex chemical reactions and emissions of other pollutants. An in depth analysis is needed for these extremely toxic pollutants. While the reviewer did look at a study that involved other cement kilns, more analysis of the control parameters and emission control technologies for those kilns and others is needed to determine whether St Marys is employing the best control technologies and monitoring the Clarington community needs and deserves. Thank you for your consideration. Wendy Bracken
Page 42 From: Patenaude, Lindsey To: Patenaude, Lindsey Subject: FW: Planning & Development Meeting November 16, 2020 Date: November 9, 2020 11:49:46 AM
From: Hugh Allin
EXTERNAL
Attention: Planning and Development Committee
Meeting Date: November 16, 2020
Re: Report PSD-039-20
File# PLN 41.14
Subject: Responding to the delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin regarding the North Village Secondary Plan
Due to personal matters, I respectfully request that the above noted matter be referred to the Planning and Development meeting scheduled for February 22, 2021.
I thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Hugh Allin
Page 43 From: Patenaude, Lindsey To: Patenaude, Lindsey Subject: FW: Lawson & Townline Road Townhouse Dvelopment Date: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:08:11 AM
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected]
EXTERNAL
Hello Mayor Adrian, I trust this email finds you well. I am emailing to voice my concern with the proposed development on the south-east corner of Lawson & Townline. You may or not be aware there is a plan to build 26 3-storey town homes on this very small parcel of land. The composition of the neighbourhood is 100% 2-storey single family homes. This area has a 'community feel' and adding 3-storey buildings and overdoing the density is a wrong move. I recognize you cannot stop progress and something will go into this lot eventually however I request the overall height be reduced as well as the number of units to reflect this community. Please review at voice our concerns at the next Council Meeting. Thanking you in advance. All the best, Francis Kiernicki As per Redaction Process
------Origin: https://www.clarington net/en/town-hall/mayor-and-council.asp?_mid_=94683 ------
This email was sent to you by Francis Kiernicki
Page 44 From: Patenaude, Lindsey To: Patenaude, Lindsey Subject: FW: Update on Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No. 121 to the Clarington Official Plan Date: Monday, November 16, 2020 9:03:13 AM
From: Dave
EXTERNAL
Please have the following read into the record at the meeting on Monday:
In Past meetings I have heard Kaitlin Corporation state unless they were allowed to build a certain amount of units the site was not feasible.
I purpose that Kaitlin turn the entire property over to CLOCA and a conservation area be formed with their name attached to it.
This would be quite a lasting legacy for them!!!
This could be a gift or gift and money raised by the business community and individuals as well.I am sure local developers would be more than happy
to contribute to this as well as local businesses such as Home Hardware.
There is a lot of community support for more much needed conservation area in Clarington.
Dave Winkle
Page 45
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: November 16, 2020 Report Number: PSD-047-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: PLN 9.7 Resolution#:
Report Subject: Review of BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study Recommendation:
1. That Report PSD-047-20 be received for information.
Page 46 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PSD-047-20
Report Overview This report summarizes the key findings of the BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study that was released in September 2020. The report identifies municipal timelines and fees involved in the development process. The report reviewed 18 Greater Toronto Area municipalities, including four in Durham Region (Clarington, Whitby, Oshawa and Pickering). The BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study used similar criteria and methodology to the Canadian Home Builders’ Association national study also undertaken by Altus Group. The purpose is to determine the factors affecting affordability of homes. The overall ranking was carried out using three categories: planning features, municipal charges, and approval times. Clarington was ranked 4th best overall and 1st among the Durham Region municipalities rated.
1. Background
1.1 The Municipal Benchmarking Study (Attachment 1) was commissioned by BILD (the Building Industry and Land Development Association) to look at specific factors that may contribute to housing affordability issues in the Greater Toronto Area. BILD is the voice of the home building, residential and non-residential land development and professional renovation industries in the Greater Toronto Area. BILD advocates on behalf of the building industry and works with government partners on key policies and issues that affect development, building and home ownership in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
1.2 The purpose of the Municipal Benchmarking Study is to compare approaches that different municipalities have in place for the approval of new housing development. The report also evaluates the cost implications of the municipal processes and policies. The report was based on research conducted on 18 municipalities in the GTA by the Altus Group.
1.3 It is important to identify that the report looks at specific municipal approaches and policies that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in the GTA. The report is not an exhaustive list of all the factors or inputs that contribute to the development process and housing affordability in the GTA.
1.4 By using similar methodology and criteria to the Canadian Home Builders’ Association (CHBA) national study there is the ability to compare and contrast the different approaches to planning on a provincial basis and its implications on housing affordability (Attachment 2). There is a lack of purpose-built rental housing being built in Ontario compared to the rest of Canada. It was also noted that delegating approval of applications that meet defined criteria to staff, as occurs in Saskatchewan and Alberta, had a significant impact in reducing timelines and having overall costs for the development; however, it cannot be shown that these savings are passed onto the homebuyer.
Page 47 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-047-20 Limitations of the Report
1.5 The report identifies that the information presented is the author’s (Altus Group) interpretation of municipal policies, by-laws, rate schedules, etc. Other assumptions made in the report for measuring the impacts of the municipal processes on housing affordability include land values and development unit yields from hypothetical development sites.
1.6 The municipalities studied in the report were not consulted to verify if the interpretations made were correct or to ascertain if additional information was available that could have assisted in the preparation of this report. Staff participated in the October 29 briefing by BILD and Altus Group for Durham. It was explained by the consultant that they used Council and Committee reports so as not to bias the datasets, it was also noted that the tracking is of public/government process, there is no accounting for delays caused by the developer or their consultants. Typical files were selected, those with significant public resistance and those appealed to LPAT were not included. 2. Discussion
2.1 The report focuses on three categories or processes specific to municipalities. The three categories include planning features, municipal charges, and approval times. The report also identifies additional demographic background information based on the census data and information related to the trends in the types and tenure of housing being constructed in the selected municipalities.
Planning Features
2.2 This refers to the number of municipal tools and processes that municipalities have implemented to assist the development community. The tools identified in the review and the percentage of municipalities that utilized each tool is provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Planning features reviewed and percentage of Municipalities that implement each tool
Feature % of Municipalities with Feature
Development Guide 67%
Terms of Reference 47%
Development Application Tracking 75% System – Active Applications
Page 48 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PSD-047-20
Feature % of Municipalities with Feature
Development Application Tracking 42% Database – Historic Applications (see 2.4 below)
Application Tracking – Map (see 2.4 64% below)
Application Tracking – Supporting Files 56% and Studies
Zoning – GIS file available (see 2.4 below) 22%
Zoning – GIS Portal / Mapping 72%
2.3 Clarington was identified as utilizing 5 of the 8 tools listed in the chart above. Clarington does not currently have zoning GIS files, historic application tracking or an application tracking map publicly available. Currently, these tools are not being utilized due to limitations of the existing software available to staff. It is expected that the new Municipal Business Solution software will provide an opportunity to implement more options for communicating application information to the general public and development community.
2.4 Clarington has zoning GIS files, historic application tracking and an application tracking map; however, they are available to staff only and require a geospatial data license to access. Staff are currently building a public development application tracking application to show current and historic applications. Staff have created an open data working group that when fully implemented will make data such as zoning available to the public.
Municipal Charges
2.5 Municipal charges looked at development charges, planning application fees and building permit fees imposed by municipalities. The fees were reviewed in hypothetical scenarios to measure their impact on the cost per unit for different forms of development.
Development Charges
2.6 The report reviewed the increase in development charges from 2009 to 2020 in each municipality. The report identified the increases to the local and upper tier portions of the development charges. The average increase among the 18 municipalities surveyed was 137 percent between 2009 and 2020. Clarington ranked 4th lowest in the amount
Page 49 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PSD-047-20 of increase at 54 percent. Clarington had the lowest increase among the 4 Durham Region municipalities reviewed.
Development Scenarios
2.7 The report created a low-rise and high-rise scenario to apply against each municipality’s total fees to determine the municipal fees for cost per unit. The report does not identify the additional costs of development and does not provide an expected rate on return on investment that would represent the developers profit.
2.8 The average cost identified for the low-rise scenario for all municipalities was $93,700 per unit. Clarington had the lowest cost at $54,258 per unit. Clarington’s fees represented 7.1 percent of the cost of developing a low-rise unit.
2.9 The average cost identified for the high-rise scenario for all municipalities was $57,800 per unit. Clarington had the lowest cost at $30,497 per unit. Clarington’s fees represented 6.9 percent of the cost of developing a high-rise unit.
2.10 Overall Clarington ranked as one of the best for the municipal charges’ category. In both scenarios Clarington had the lowest government charges per unit.
Approval Times
2.11 There are several limitations identified in the report related to the analysis of the average timelines. In order to have significant data samples the authors reviewed and included applications dating back to 2015 where required. This may lead to the data not reflecting recent changes to municipal processes or the most recent timelines associated with each application type.
2.12 The report does not review or account for the possible reasons for delays in application timelines including the number of submissions required, elapsed time between submissions, the scale of the development or encumbrances on the lands to be developed.
Page 50 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PSD-047-20 Table 2: Average timelines for Development Application Approvals
Municipality Official Plan Zoning By- Plan of Plan of Site Plan Average Amendment Law Subdivision Condominium Amendment
Overall 8-37 months 9-25 months 7-25 months 8-14 months 12-30 months 9-24 months Range
Overall 16 months 15 months 15 months 9 months 18 months 15 months Average
Clarington ** 12 months 13 months ** ** 13 months (n=31)
** the consultants indicated there was not sufficient information in the Council reports reviewed to determine the timing. Clarington has between 20 and 40 Site Plans per year, approval is delegated to the Directors of Planning and Engineering and thus would not appear in Committee or Council reports. Typically, Clarington has between 3 and 6 Condominium and Official Plan applications per year. This may not have met the sample size necessary for the consultant to consider them.
2.13 Clarington was near the lowest of the identified timeframes and below the average for both Zoning By-law Amendments and Plan of Subdivision applications.
2.14 The report also indicated the estimated amount of staff allocated to the implementation of 1,000 housing starts. The average across all municipalities was 75.1 employees per 1000 housing starts. Clarington was below the average, tied for 5th lowest overall and the lowest in Durham Region, with 57 employees per 1,000 housing starts. Of the municipalities that had lower employees per 1,000 housing starts, three had approval timeframes that were almost twice as long as Clarington’s.
2.15 The report further concluded that applications appealed to the Local Planning Act Tribunal (LPAT) were approximately double the average timeframes identified, significantly delaying projects.
2.16 Overall, Clarington was identified as having some of the fastest approval timelines and has one of the lowest staff rates identified in the study.
Page 51 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PSD-047-20 Takeaways from the BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study
2.17 The report identifies several demographic changes and housing trends across the 18 Greater Toronto Area municipalities using 2006 and 2016 Census Data. This information is useful to identify how Clarington compares to other municipalities in the GTA regarding these indicators. Clarington staff completes a Growth Trends Review each year to help identify many of the same topics identified in this report to Council and the local development industry. In addition, early in the new year Council receives an annual application report from both Planning and Building.
2.18 The report identifies several initiatives that municipalities are undertaking to help reduce their development review processes and timelines. It is important that municipalities review and evaluate their development review and service review processes from time to time to ensure their services are meeting the needs of residents and the development community. This can help identify where efficiencies can be found and help streamline the review process. Identifying what different processes and process reviews other municipalities are undertaking can provide examples. Staff can monitor the outcomes of those projects to understand if they could be beneficial to utilize or implement in Clarington. In 2018 Clarington undertook a deep dive into specific development processes as part of the Process Enhancement Program (PEP) with the local development community. Since that time the learnings have been applied across all the processes including updates to all our procedure manuals.
2.19 The BILD report highlighted emerging themes from process reviews. The themes included the need for continuous improvement, effective communication, delegating authority to senior staff, pre-zoning lands and using technology to its fullest potential.
2.20 Clarington continues to streamline by implementing and reviewing several of the themes identified in the following ways:
The recently finalized organizational review looked at how all staff involved in the development process interact. Significant changes have already been made as Building Services has joined Planning in the newly formed Planning and Development Services Department and Engineering and Operations have formed the new Public Works Department. Clarington is in the process of implementing a new Municipal Business Solution software. This software should allow staff to implement better application tracking and relay better information to Council, the development industry and the public. Council has delegated Draft Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan applications to the Directors of Planning and Engineering. This delegation needs to be updated to reflect the organizational review (another report on the agenda addresses this). Clarington is currently in the process of updating the Zoning By-laws through the Zone Clarington project. Each Secondary Plan process includes the drafting of
Page 52 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PSD-047-20 zoning by-laws to be implemented and thus reduce the number of applications required to implement development within those planning areas. Clarington staff currently engage the public and the development community with up to date information on projects within Clarington using the E-update, website and Growth Trends Review. 3. Conclusion
3.1 The key findings of the BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study will assist in knowing where we can improve processes. Clarington ranked 4th overall out of 18 GTA municipalities reviewed. Clarington ranked 1st out of the 4 Durham Region municipalities reviewed. The report is focused on the municipal development review process and is based on several interpretations and assumptions which limits the effectiveness of the takeaways.
3.2 Clarington has some of the lowest fees in the GTA and is one of the best municipalities at minimizing timelines, especially when looking at staff committed to achieving those approvals. Staff continue to review ways to improve our existing processes and policies and have a number of projects underway that should help Clarington excel in many of the areas identified in the report in the future.
Staff Contact: Brandon Weiler, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 x2424 or [email protected].
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – BILD Municipal Benchmark Study
Attachment 2 - Altus Group presentation on national review
Interested Parties:
BILD and DRHBA
Page 53 Attachment 1 to Report PSD-047-20
BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study
September 2020
Page 54
BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study
Prepared for: Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)
Prepared by: Altus Group Economic Consulting 33 Yonge Street Toronto Ontario M5E 1G4 Phone: (416) 641-9500 Fax: (416) 641-9501 [email protected] altusgroup.com
September 2020
Page 55 September 2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Altus Group Economic Consulting was retained by BILD to undertake a study of several factors that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in major housing markets across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), such as municipal approval processes, resulting timelines for approvals, and government charges levied by municipalities.
The study compares approaches that municipalities have in place to deal with the approval and ultimate development of new housing and highlights key features (and associated benefits of those features) in bringing new housing to approval and ultimate construction, as well as the cost implications of the municipal processes and policies. The analysis presented in the study was based on research done on 18 municipalities across the GTA.
Statistical and Demographic Overview
A review of statistical and demographic data in the municipalities under study reveals several trends that are causes of, or effects of, housing affordability issues throughout the GTA:
Population is increasing in each municipality studied, and in most cases, this trend is accompanied by falling average household sizes. This phenomenon increases housing demand in two ways. The first effect is through the straightforward addition of net new persons moving into a municipality as part of an expanding population and the second effect of household sizes falling results in needing more residential units at a minimum just to house the existing population; There has been a significant increase in net international immigration and net non-permanent residents (e.g. temporary workers, students, etc.) in recent years, adding to demand for new housing; In some areas of the GTA (Toronto, Peel, York), there has been a large amount of net out-migration of residents from these areas to other parts of the province (i.e. intraprovincial migration), particularly by adults between ages 25 to 44 (as well as children aged 0 to 14), suggesting that persons forming households, particularly young families, are searching for locations with more affordable and/or suitable housing. The problem is most evident in higher-priced markets that have fewer ground-related family housing options being built; There has been a shift in the types of housing being built, with an increased emphasis on apartment housing units in most municipalities studied across the GTA. However, these housing units provide less capacity for persons on a per-unit basis due to generally smaller unit sizes, fewer bedrooms, etc. than most ground-related housing units;
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page i Page 56 September 2020
While there has been a shift in household tenure towards renting in all municipalities studied, the construction of purpose-built rental units continue to be less than 10% of the housing starts in most municipalities in the GTA (except in Toronto and Oshawa); Housing prices in the GTA municipalities studied have increased significantly. Over the 2006-2018 period, average prices of absorbed single detached homes have increased by an average of 158%, which equates to average annual increase of 7.6%, compounded annually.
Analysis of Municipal Processes
To understand whether municipal processes could be improved to expedite the review of new housing applications, or improve the quality of submissions from applicants, we have reviewed the presence and nature of several planning tools made available, or other features that may assist in making the development application and approval more efficient:
The method of implementation, level of transparency, and processes regarding decision making can differ significantly from one municipality to the next. There are large variations, such as the degree of authority delegated to municipal staff, composition of planning approval committees, structure of planning department, etc. Some features, which could potentially help reduce development approval timelines, are not used extensively by all municipalities. Examples include development tracking portals that provide both an applicant and other relevant parties insight into the status of applications under review, easy to find resources that are frequently used or requested like terms of reference for required studies, zoning maps and other parcel level data, online submission portals to facilitate easy submissions, etc. The number of studies that may be required by municipalities was found to be onerous, with the requirements for an application in many municipalities ranging from 17 to 28 different studies for a single project, depending on the municipality, application type, and location of development. The required quantity and variety of technical studies, even if valid to ensure that developments are in the public interest, results in significant costs to the applicant both directly in terms of time and expense in retaining necessary experts to complete the required reports and studies, but also the time to allow municipal staff to review and comment on the findings of the various studies.
Analysis of Municipal Approval Timelines
After building a robust database of recently approved development applications for the municipalities under study, it has been found that
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page ii Page 57 September 2020
timelines for approvals from municipalities can, in some cases, take an average of up to 2 years to obtain.
Applications requiring multiple application types took on average just 20% to 30% longer than applications that required one type of application, suggesting that generally it is more efficient to bundle applications together for concurrent review rather than to require them be submitted and approved sequentially.
Applications requiring a ruling by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”), either initiated by the applicant or another party, extended timelines by nearly double compared to a municipal council approval. Seeking an approval from the LPAT is very costly, time-consuming, and risky for the applicant.
Additional time associated with getting overarching land use designations approved, the pre-submission stage, and the construction approvals stages were not part of the study, however, based on feedback from development industry members, it is clear that the “pre-application” period represents significant additional time over and above the timelines estimated for development application approval.
Quantifying Municipal Charges on New Housing Development
The modelling of municipal charges on new housing development was based on two hypothetical development scenarios – one low-rise, and the other high-rise. The analysis found that in many municipalities there are significant charges imposed by municipalities on new development, and that these charges can vary significantly from one municipality to the next.
Figure ES- 1 Development Scenario Average Government Average Government Charge per Unit Charges as % of Housing Prices
Low-Rise Development $93,700 9.7%
High-Rise Development $57,800 10.7%
For example, municipal charges on new housing developments are generally the highest in municipalities located in York Region, Peel Region and the City of Toronto.
The most significant charge in all of the studied municipalities is the development charge (DCs), which are levied by each lower-tier, upper-tier and single-tier municipality studied. Typically, DCs amount from 75% to 85% of the total municipal charges payable for a new low-rise development, and from 68% to 90% for high-rise.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page iii Page 58 September 2020
The second most substantial charge was usually parkland dedication requirement or cash-in-lieu payment, averaging to 17% of the total municipal charges payable for low-rise development and 26% for high-rise.
Indirect Costs of Time Spent Gaining Approval
This report also quantifies the financial benefits of moving towards a more efficient, responsive and/or streamlined municipal approvals, by quantifying some of the “indirect” costs of time spent gaining municipal approvals. The results of the modelling are expressed on the basis of ‘costs per month’, which puts all of the various elements of this analysis onto one equal basis and allows for the calculation of impacts of time saved in the approvals process to be quantified. The costs modelled include:
Additional taxes payable on vacant land; Increases to municipal charges and fees; Carrying costs of loans; Construction cost and wage inflation The costs stemming from each additional month a project spends in the approvals process can add significantly to total project costs, and ultimately those costs will be passed onto home buyers.
Figure ES- 2 Development Scenario Average Additional Costs
Low-Rise Development $1.46 per square foot / month
High-Rise Development $2.21 per square foot / month
Best Practices
The recently adopted Bill 108 has shortened timelines for municipal decisions on development applications. Municipalities will have to render decisions significantly more quickly in some cases. The benefit of these shortened timelines should result in not only better timelines for developers, but it could also create significant incentive for municipalities to re-examine their processes, workflow, technology, and organizational structures to find efficiencies and more effective ways of reviewing applications within the allotted time.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page iv Page 59 September 2020
Figure ES- 3 Planning Application Type Timelines Prior to Bill Timelines after Bill 108 108
Official Plan Amendment 210 Days 120 Days
Zoning By-law Amendment 150 Days 90 Days
Plan of Subdivision 180 Days 120 Days
Site Plan 30 Days 30 Days
Based on a scan of programs initiated by municipalities to improve their development review processes, there are several key areas routinely identified as being areas for improvement, including:
Reducing miscommunication which can creates conflicts that lead to delays; Pay close attention to workflows and team composition; Empower staff with more delegated powers; Reduce required statutory processes where possible; and Improvements are limited without technology.
Many of the best practices of the municipalities reviewed are highly transferable, however, ultimately each municipality will have its own set of unique circumstances that must be taken into account.
Conclusion
The overall findings in the report incorporate the rankings from the three major elements studied that feed into housing affordability – providing tools and features to improve quality of submissions, ensuring approvals are done in an expedient manner, and housing costs stemming from government charges that get borne by buyers/renters.
Overall, the municipalities of Barrie, Burlington and Oakville rank atop the list, all three with top-half ranks in each of the categories. The largest municipalities by population among those studied (Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Markham, Vaughan) all rank on an overall basis no higher than 10th.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page v Page 60 September 2020
Overall Scorecard - Planning Features, Government Charges, Approvals Timelines Figure ES- 4
Score Planning Government Approvals (Average Features Charges Timelines Rank) Rank rank (1=best) rank (1=lowest) rank (1=best) lower=better Barrie 2 3 5 3.3 1 Burlington 2 6 3 3.7 2 Oakville 2 9 4 5.0 3 Clarington 7 1 9 5.7 4 Oshaw a 16 5 1 7.3 5 Pickering 11 2 10 7.7 6 Innisfil 15 7 2 8.0 7 Milton 7 10 n.a 8.5 8 Whitby 16 4 7 9.0 9 Toronto 1 14 15 10.0 10 Vaughan 6 17 8 10.3 11 Mississauga 9 11 13 11.0 12 Brampton 5 15 14 11.3 13 Richmond Hill 11 13 11 11.7 14 Caledon 9 12 16 12.3 15 Aurora 11 16 12 13.0 16 BWG 14 8 17 13.0 16 Markham 18 18 6 14.0 18
Note: Government Charges based on average of low -rise and high-rise scenarios, as measured by government charges as % of housing prices Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page vi Page 61 September 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background & Scope of Study ...... 1 1.2 Approach ...... 1 1.3 Caveats ...... 3
2 MUNICIPAL DATA ...... 5 2.1 Census Data ...... 5 2.2 Housing Tenure ...... 10 2.3 Housing Starts & Completions ...... 11 2.4 Other Municipal Data ...... 13 2.5 Municipal Staff per Capita ...... 14 2.6 Summary of Findings ...... 15
3 MUNICIPAL UTILIZATION OF TOOLS AND PROCESSES ...... 17 3.1 Listing of Municipal Tools and Processes ...... 17 3.2 Scorecard on Planning System Features ...... 17 3.3 Study Requirements ...... 19 3.4 Conclusions ...... 19
4 ESTIMATES OF MUNICIPAL APPROVAL AND PERMIT TIMELINES ...... 21 4.1 Approach ...... 21 4.2 Findings – Development Approval timelines ...... 22 4.3 Additional insights ...... 25 4.4 Conclusions ...... 28
5 MUNICIPAL CHARGES ON NEW HOUSING ...... 30 5.1 Development Charges ...... 30 5.2 Education Development Charges...... 32 5.3 Planning & Approval Fees ...... 33 5.4 Parkland Dedication / Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland ...... 34 5.5 Section 37 ...... 35 5.6 Land Transfer Taxes ...... 37 5.7 Other Government Charges Not Included in this Report ...... 37 5.8 Emerging Trends ...... 37 5.9 Quantification of Municipal Charges and Fees ...... 38
6 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE MUNICIPAL PROCESSES ...... 44 6.1 Taxes Payable on Vacant Land ...... 44 6.2 Increases to Municipal Charges and Fees ...... 44
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page vii Page 62 September 2020
6.3 Carrying Costs of Loans ...... 45 6.4 Cost Inflation ...... 46 6.5 Conclusions ...... 47
7 BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING MUNICIPAL PROCESSES 49 7.1 Overview of Current Initiatives ...... 49 7.2 Themes Emerging from Process Reviews ...... 54
8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 57 8.1 Summary of Findings ...... 57 8.2 Recommendations ...... 58
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page viii Page 63 September 2020
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND & SCOPE OF STUDY
Altus Group Economic Consulting was retained by BILD to undertake a study of several factors that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
The study looks at several factors such as municipal approval processes, timelines for approvals, and government charges, and compares approaches that studied municipalities have in place to deal with the approval and ultimate development of new housing and makes an effort to highlight key features and associated benefits in bringing new housing to approval and ultimate construction.
In addition to reviewing the direct costs municipalities place on new housing developments, the study also looks at the potential implications of approval processes and the typical approval timelines by estimating the indirect costs associated with time that applications may spend in the review and approval process.
1.2 APPROACH
1.2.1 Topics Covered
This report looks at several areas that have direct links to issues related to housing supply and/or housing affordability, including factors that impact the timeliness in which developers and landowners are able to bring new housing supply onto the market, and the costs of developing new housing.
Figure 1 Subject Area Approach
Demographic and Statistical Provide overview of trends in housing construction Overview (tenure, form, prices), and shifts in population.
Analysis of Municipal Planning Review of the features and tools utilized by Approval Processes municipalities to facilitate more efficient and transparent development processes.
Review of Municipal Charges Using two hypothetical development scenarios, Imposed on New Development estimate the direct costs that municipalities levy on new housing developments, costs which are ultimately passed on to new home buyers (or renters) through higher prices (or rents).
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 1 Page 64 September 2020
Sampling of Municipal Approvals Estimating the amount of time that typical Timelines development applications spend in the municipal approvals process.
Quantification of Indirect Costs of Estimating the indirect costs associated with each Time Associated with Approval additional month a development application is in the Processes approvals process.
Analysis and Review of Best A high-level review of recent and ongoing initiatives Practices that municipalities or Provincial governments are taking to streamline approvals processes, reduce costs of development, etc.
The various sections of the report flow so as to create a picture of the potential causes, effects, and impacts of housing affordability.
Figure 2 How Components of Report Relate to Each Other and Affect Housing Affordability
Indirect Municipal Approvals Costs of Processes Timelines Approvals Timelines Housing Affordability
Government Charges
The section on municipal processes attempts to show how features present in the provincial and municipal planning systems can and do impact approvals timelines. The analysis of municipal timelines analyses a robust sample of recent development approvals in municipalities across the GTA to
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 2 Page 65 September 2020
understand what typical timelines are. The analysis of indirect costs associated with approval timelines expresses the costs that each month spent gaining approval can add to the development of residential projects.
Both the indirect costs associated with approvals timelines and the government charges quantified in a separate section, which are directly charged to developers and landowners, impact housing affordability as developers and home builders seek to recover development costs through home prices.
1.2.2 Geographic Scope
The study looks at the planning processes in a total of 18 municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area:
Figure 3 Region Area Municipality
Toronto City of Toronto
York Region Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, and Aurora
Peel Region Brampton, Mississauga, and Caledon
Halton Region Oakville, Burlington, and Milton
Durham Region Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, and Clarington
Simcoe County Barrie, Innisfil, and Bradford West Gwillimbury (or “BWG”)
1.3 CAVEATS
The report looks at factors that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in the Greater Toronto Area, such as planning processes, demographic factors, government charges, timelines for gaining approvals for new housing, etc. However, these factors are not meant to represent an exhaustive list of factors that contribute towards housing affordability issues.
The information presented in this report is based on interpretation of various municipal policies, by-laws, rate schedules, etc. While every effort has been made to interpret these materials accurately, there can be no certainty that municipal stakeholders will apply their policies and rates in the same manner as interpreted here.
The models at the core of this report frequently rely upon inputs and assumptions, such as assumed land values, estimated housing prices, and development yields from hypothetical development sites. These inputs and
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 3 Page 66 September 2020
assumptions are intended for the purposes contained herein, and should not be used for any other purposes, or relied upon in any manner other than how they are used within this report.
The data presented in this report is based on the latest data available as of the writing of the report, but given the types of data used, the most recent iteration of data may vary from one chart, table, or figure to the next. For example, as of the time of writing of this report, CMHC data on housing starts is available to the end of 2019, while Statistics Canada Census data is only current as of mid-2016.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 4 Page 67 September 2020
2 MUNICIPAL DATA
This section provides a high-level overview of key demographic characteristics in the studied municipalities, and presents some key statistics related to housing development and affordability in these markets.
2.1 CENSUS DATA
2.1.1 Population Change
Figure 4 shows the population in each of the municipalities being studied in this report, and the average annual change over the past two five-year Census periods. The average annual change in these municipalities has been 1.68% per year for the 2006-2011 period, and 1.16% for the 2011-2016 period.
Figure 4 Population and Average Annual Population Change, Selected Municipalities, 2006- 2016 Average Annual Population Population Change 2006 2011 2016 2006-2011 2011-2016 Municipality Persons Percent Change Burlington 164,415 175,779 183,314 1.35% 0.84% Oakville 165,613 182,520 193,832 1.96% 1.21% Milton 53,939 84,362 110,128 9.36% 5.48% Mississauga 668,549 713,443 721,599 1.31% 0.23% Brampton 433,806 523,906 593,638 3.85% 2.53% Caledon 57,050 59,460 66,502 0.83% 2.26% Toronto 2,503,281 2,615,060 2,731,571 0.88% 0.88% Vaughan 238,866 288,301 306,233 3.83% 1.21% Richmond Hill 162,704 185,541 195,022 2.66% 1.00% Markham 261,573 301,709 328,966 2.90% 1.74% Aurora 47,629 53,203 55,445 2.24% 0.83% Pickering 87,838 88,721 91,771 0.20% 0.68% Whitby 111,184 122,022 128,377 1.88% 1.02% Oshawa 141,590 149,607 159,458 1.11% 1.28% Clarington 77,820 84,548 92,013 1.67% 1.71% Bradford West Gwillimbury 24,039 28,077 35,325 3.15% 4.70% Innisfil 31,175 32,727 36,566 0.98% 2.24% Barrie 128,430 136,063 141,434 1.16% 0.78% Total 5,359,501 5,825,049 6,171,194 1.68% 1.16%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2006, 2011 and 2016 Census Data
2.1.2 Average Household Size
Figure 5 shows the number of private occupied dwellings in each municipality, and the average household size, as well as how the average household sizes have changed between 2006 and 2016.
In most studied municipalities, the average household size has declined over the 10-year 2006-2016 period, significantly so in some cases. A decline in average household size in a municipality can be driven by many
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 5 Page 68 September 2020
demographic factors, including declining fertility rates, an increase in the number of persons living alone, etc. However, declining average household sizes means that there is a demand for new housing even if the overall population was unchanged.
Figure 5 Private Occupied Dwellings, Average Household Size, and Change in Average Household Size, Selected Municipalities, 2006-2016
Private Occupied Dw ellings Average Household Size 2006 2016 2006 2016 Change Municipality Households Persons per Unit Burlington 63,255 71,373 2.60 2.57 (0.03) Oakville 56,575 66,269 2.93 2.92 (0.00) Milton 18,465 34,257 2.92 3.21 0.29 Mississauga 214,925 240,913 3.11 3.00 (0.12) Brampton 125,930 168,011 3.44 3.53 0.09 Caledon 18,210 21,256 3.13 3.13 (0.00) Toronto 979,440 1,112,929 2.56 2.45 (0.10) Vaughan 69,535 94,253 3.44 3.25 (0.19) Richmond Hill 51,000 64,116 3.19 3.04 (0.15) Markham 77,195 102,676 3.39 3.20 (0.18) Aurora 15,655 18,851 3.04 2.94 (0.10) Pickering 28,220 30,919 3.11 2.97 (0.14) Whitby 37,240 43,529 2.99 2.95 (0.04) Oshaw a 54,925 62,595 2.58 2.55 (0.03) Clarington 26,850 32,838 2.90 2.80 (0.10) Bradford West Gw illimbury 7,950 11,591 3.02 3.05 0.02 Innisfil 11,400 13,364 2.73 2.74 0.00 Barrie 46,515 52,476 2.76 2 .70 (0 .07) Total 1,903,285 2,242,216 2.82 2.75 (0.06)
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2006 and 2016 Census Data
Of the 18 municipalities, the average household size increased in four municipalities, including Milton (+0.29 persons per unit), Brampton (+0.09), BWG (+0.02) and Innisfil where there was a slight increase. In the other 14 municipalities, there were slight-to-significant declines, with decreases upwards of 0.14 to 0.19 persons per unit in municipalities such as Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, and Pickering.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 6 Page 69 September 2020
Figure 6 Change in Average Household Size, 2006-2016 Persons per Unit
Burlington (0.03) Oakville (0.00) Milton 0.29 Mississauga (0.12) Brampton 0.09 Caledon (0.00) Toronto (0.10) Vaughan(0.19) Richmond Hill (0.15) Markham(0.19) Aurora (0.10) Pickering (0.15) Whitby (0.04) Oshawa (0.03) Clarington (0.10) BWG 0.02 Innisfil 0.00 Barrie (0.07)
(0.20) (0.15) (0.10) (0.05) - 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Source: Altus Group based on 2006 and 2016 Census data
2.1.3 Migration Data
Using Statistics Canada data on migration can provide information on the sources of population change within the upper-tier (or single-tier) municipalities with the GTA. Beyond natural life factors that affect population (such as births and deaths), there are four key flows of people into and out of municipalities and regions:
Intraprovincial migration - persons moving in/out of the municipality or metropolitan area, but staying within the same province; Net immigration - persons arriving from outside of Canada (as permanent residents) minus persons that were living in Canada leaving the country; Net Interprovincial migration – net inflow or outflow of persons moving into of a municipality or region from another province (or vice versa); Net non-permanent residents – net inflow or outflow of persons such as temporary workers, students, etc.
For example, over the 10-year period ending mid-year 2019, the City of Toronto has seen several distinct movements of population in and out of the City:
A net outflow of 277,200 persons that have left the City for other parts of the province of Ontario (intraprovincial migration); An additional 411,400 persons residing in the City from net immigration (persons coming to reside in the City from outside of Canada);
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 7 Page 70 September 2020
A net inflow of approximately 22,700 persons moving to reside in the City from interprovincial migration – persons moving to the City from other places in Canada outside of Ontario; and An additional 124,600 net new non-permanent residents (comprised on international students, temporary workers, etc.).
Figure 7 Migration by Census Division, 2009-2010 to 2018-2019, Ranked by Net Intraprovincial Migration
Net Intraprovincial Net Interprovincial Net Non-Permanent Migration Net Immigration Migration Residents Amount Rank Amount Rank Amount Rank Amount Rank Total Census Division Persons Persons Persons Persons Simcoe County 71,112 1 2,714 6 (6,864) 4 6,120 4 73,082 Durham Region 53,487 2 14,061 5 (8,029) 5 4,731 6 64,250 Halton Region 43,342 3 18,936 4 455 2 5,687 5 68,420 York Region (2,373) 4 73,122 3 (510) 3 12,977 3 83,216 Peel Region (110,545) 5 189,668 2 (8,420) 6 53,720 2 124,423 Toronto (277,222) 6 411,423 1 22,715 1 124,639 1 281,555
Source: Statistics Canada, 2018-2019 Annual Demographic Estimates
A significant outflow of persons from a municipality to other parts of a province (intraprovincial migration) can be due to households leaving an area due to a lack of desired housing options in a municipality, or the unaffordability of the housing options that are available. Of the six regions within the GTA, three (Toronto, Peel and York) are experiencing net outflows of residents to other parts of Ontario, significantly so for Toronto and Peel. In these three regions, the net number of persons leaving the regions for other pars of Ontario has been increasing in Peel and York, and more recently so in Toronto.
Figure 8 Annual Net Intraprovincial Migration – Toronto, Peel and York 2006-2018 20,000
Toronto Peel York 10,000
0
-10,000
-20,000
-30,000
-40,000
-50,000 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Source: Altus Group based on Statistics Canada, Annual Demographic Estimates data
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 8 Page 71 September 2020
For the three other regions within the GTA that have been seeing net inflows of people from elsewhere in the province:
The net inflows in Halton have been decreasing steadily from the highs of 2006-2010, but remain positive on an annual basis; The net inflows into Durham have generally remained steady at between 4,000 and 6,000 persons per year; and The net inflows into Simcoe have been increasing, with the last four years the highest in the 13-year period, all at or above 8,000 persons of net inflow.
Figure 9 shows the annual Intraprovincial trends for Halton, Durham and Simcoe.
Figure 9 Annual Net Intraprovincial Migration – Halton, Durham and Simcoe 2006-2018 12,000
Durham Halton Simcoe 10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Source: Altus Group based on Statistics Canada, Annual Demographic Estimates data
To understand the nature of the Intraprovincial flows to/from the six GTA regions to/from other parts of Ontario, Figure 10 below shows Intraprovincial migration by age for the year 2018-2019.
Areas with outflows are seeing the net outflows driven by persons aged 25- 44. Meanwhile, Halton, Durham and Simcoe are gaining persons in this age group from other parts of the province, with a significant proportion likely coming from nearby places such as Peel, York and Toronto.
The data appears to indicate that a lack of housing both affordable and suitable for families is resulting in younger families (and their children) leaving the inner parts of the metropolitan areas (Toronto, Peel, York) that
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 9 Page 72 September 2020
generally have higher prices for areas with more affordably priced and suitable housing options for families.
Figure 10 Intraprovincial Migration for Age Group 25-44, 2018-2019, Greater Toronto Area
4,000 Number of Persons 3,003 3,118 2,211 2,000
0
-2,000 -1,321
-4,000
-6,000
-8,000 -7,133
-10,000
-12,000 -12,131 -14,000 Halton Peel Toronto York Durham Simcoe Source: Altus Group based on Statistics Canada, Annual Demographic Estimates, 2018-2019
2.2 HOUSING TENURE
An analysis of the tenure of occupied dwellings shows that there has been an increase in the share of renter households in every one of the studied municipalities. As of 2016, only five (5) of the 18 municipalities have shares of renter households greater than 20%.
An increased share of renter households does not necessarily mean that there has been an increase in the amount or share of housing built as ‘purpose-built’ rental housing. Instead, this could also mean that there has been an increase in the size of the secondary rental market (rented single- detached, semi-detached, townhouse units, and condominium apartments put on the secondary rental market).
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 10 Page 73 September 2020
Figure 11 Household Tenure in Studied Municipalities, Ranked by Highest Share of Renter Households in 2016 % Increase in Share of Renter Households Households by Tenure Change in 2006 2016 Pct. Points Ow ner Renter Municipality Percent Share Percent Change Toronto 45.6% 47.2% 1.6 10% 18% Oshaw a 30.1% 31.5% 1.4 12% 19% Barrie 23.6% 28.8% 5.2 5% 38% Mississauga 25.0% 27.7% 2.7 8% 24% Burlington 20.4% 23.6% 3.2 8% 30% Brampton 18.5% 20.0% 1.5 31% 44% Oakville 15.9% 18.3% 2.4 14% 35% Richmond Hill 13.7% 17.6% 3.8 20% 61% Bradford West Gw illimbury 17.2% 17.3% 0.1 46% 47% Whitby 16.0% 16.7% 0.7 16% 22% Aurora 14.2% 16.1% 1.9 18% 36% Milton 11.9% 14.1% 2.2 81% 120% Markham 11.3% 13.9% 2.7 29% 64% Pickering 10.9% 12.6% 1.7 7% 26% Clarington 11.2% 11.9% 0.7 21% 30% Innisfil 6.7% 11.6% 4.9 11% 103% Vaughan 7.3% 10.4% 3.1 31% 94% Caledon 8.6% 9.2% 0.6 16% 25%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2006 and 2016 Census of Canada
2.3 HOUSING STARTS & COMPLETIONS
Figure 12 shows how housing starts by housing type have changed in the studied municipalities over the past ten years, as broken out into separate five-year periods.
Figure 12 Change in Housing Starts by Structure Type Selected Municipalities, 2010-2019, by 5-Year Period
Percent 70% 2010-2014 2015-2019 63.80%
60% 55.70%
50%
40%
30% 27.00%
20.70% 20% 12.40% 13.30% 10% 4.90% 2.20% 0% Single-Detached Semi-Detached Row House Apartment Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Starts data
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 11 Page 74 September 2020
There has been an increasing proportion of housing starts in higher density forms such as row houses and apartment, while lower density housing forms (single-detached and semi-detached) have declined in share.
Of the 18 municipalities studied, 14 municipalities have seen declines in the share of ground-related housing starts over the past two five-year periods (see Figure 13). The only municipalities with increases in share of ground- related housing have been Richmond Hill, Oakville, and Aurora, however, these increases were relatively modest, ranging from increases in share of 1.1 to 5.9 percentage points. The share of ground-related housing in Bradford West Gwillimbury has remained unchanged, at 100% in both periods.
Figure 13 Change in Share of Ground-Related Housing Starts by Municipality 2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019 100% 2010-2014 2015-2019 90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% 53.9% 22.2% 63.8% 66.7% 86.2% 76.5% 43.5% 15.2% 93.8% 92.1% 100.0% 91.0% 10.7% 9.8% 70.6% 49.2% 59.6% 60.7% 57.1% 42.3% 73.3% 79.2% 84.7% 52.1% 90.2% 89.8% 86.2% 63.8% 96.9% 75.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 73.2% 58.2% 43.0% 0%
Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data
An analysis of the tenure of occupied dwellings shows that despite the number of renter households increasing, there has been a lack of purpose- built rental housing construction in the Greater Toronto Area, with only two municipalities seeing more than 10% of new housing starts be purpose-built rental in the last five years (Oshawa at 24.5% of housing starts, and Toronto at 13.0%).
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 12 Page 75 September 2020
Figure 14 Share of Rental Tenure Housing Starts, by Municipality 2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019 25.0% 2010-2014 2015-2019
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0% 13.0% 14.4% 24.5% 8.9% 5.2% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 0.4% 3.6% 8.7% 3.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 7.2% 0.9% 1.5% 5.4% 0.0% 0.3% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 1.6% 1.3% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 9.8% 9.4% 0.0%
Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data
The number of rental housing starts increased by 87% from the 2010-2014 period to the 2015-2019 period. On average, among studied municipalities, rental housing starts comprised just 8.4% of all housing starts over the past five years, although that share was higher than the 4.9% share of rental housing in the prior five-year period.
2.4 OTHER MUNICIPAL DATA
2.4.1 Housing Prices
Housing prices in the studied municipalities have increased significantly. Over the 2006-2018 period, based on CMHC data, average prices of absorbed single-detached homes have increased by an average of 158%.1 Figure 15 shows the changes in absorbed single-detached housing prices over the 2006-2018 period.
1 The percentage change in absorbed single-detached housing prices should be used with some caution as the data does not control for size of single-detached dwellings in the sample, meaning that the data set could be skewed towards luxury estate lots in one period, but smaller single- detached dwellings in a residential subdivision in another period.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 13 Page 76 September 2020
Figure 15 Change in Absorbed Single-Detached Housing Prices 2006-2018 450% 416% 400%
350%
300% 288%
257% 250% 241%
198% 200% 188% 175% 153% 150% 126% 124% 119% 113% 96% 92% 100% 87% 83% 65% 50% 17% 0%
Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data
2.5 MUNICIPAL STAFF PER CAPITA
Using available municipal data, an analysis was undertaken to estimate the number of staff (expressed as Full-Time Equivalent or FTE) that municipalities have made available to review development and building permit applications as a significant part of their day-to-day work.
Figure 16 Municipal Planning Employees per 1,000 Housing Starts
Employees per 1,000 Housing Starts 160 143 140
120 104 97 100 93 88 86 82 80 80 74 74 Avg: 75.1 71 71
57 57 60 53 49 41 40 30
20
0
Note: Housing Starts in denominator are based on annual average over 2015-2019 period Note: Staff counts include planning and development staff, and staff responsible for building permits
Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data, municipal data
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 14 Page 77 September 2020
To compare municipal staffing across municipalities of varying sizes, we have put all employee counts on a per 1,000 housing starts basis, based on an average of housing starts from the past five years.
Across the studied municipalities there is an average of approximately 75 municipal planning staff per 1,000 housing starts.
For those municipalities with below average staffing levels, the relative outliers are Aurora, Toronto and Innisfil, which each have less than 50 municipal planning staff per 1,000 annual housing starts. This suggests that these municipalities may not have sufficient staffing resources to process applications going forward, particularly in busy years, although it could also suggest that staff at municipalities at the low-end of the scale have to-date been relatively efficient in getting housing applications processed with the resources available. However, in several cases (Aurora, Innisfil, Toronto, Brampton), low staffing levels coincides with longer municipal approval timelines.
Those municipalities with above-average staffing levels are Burlington, Richmond Hill, and Mississauga, each of which have more than 95 planning staff per 1,000 annual housing starts. This suggests these municipalities would have the capacity available to take on a surge in housing development, should one arrive in the coming years.
2.6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Based on our review of demographic and statistical information for the studied municipalities, we have found the following:
Population is increasing in each municipality studied, but in many cases, this trend is accompanied by falling average household sizes. Both of these add to housing demand – one from net new persons moving into a municipality, and a second from more housing units being needed just to house the existing population; In several parts of the GTA (York, Peel and Toronto), there has been a net out-migration of residents from these areas to other parts of Ontario, particularly by adults between aged 25-44 (as well as children aged 0- 14), suggesting that persons forming households (particularly families) are leaving to other areas where they’re able to better afford and/or more readily find their desired housing product. Halton, Durham and Simcoe have seen net inflow of persons aged 25-44, suggesting that these areas are currently able to meet the demands of younger families for affordable and suitable housing; Each of the studied municipalities have seen an increase in the number of renter households, however, purpose-built rental housing construction remains a relatively minor component of overall housing construction;
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 15 Page 78 September 2020
There has been a shift in the types of housing being built, with much more emphasis on apartment housing units in most municipalities studied; The staffing levels at municipalities are generally consistent when expressed on a ‘per 1,000 housing starts’ basis, though there are a few outliers (high and low), which may indicate municipalities that are able to respond (or not) to surges in housing development activity going forward. In some cases, low staffing levels coincides with longer municipal approval timelines (Aurora, Innisfil, Brampton, Toronto).
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 16 Page 79 September 2020
3 MUNICIPAL UTILIZATION OF TOOLS AND PROCESSES
This section of the report reviews the tools that are available to municipalities to assist staff in reviewing development applications, or help applicants navigate the requirements for their development submissions.
3.1 LISTING OF MUNICIPAL TOOLS AND PROCESSES
We have identified numerous features or approaches taken by Ontario municipalities that may positively or negatively influence the ability to get new housing approved and ultimately built in a more expedient fashion than otherwise possible.
Each municipality is scored on whether they have tools or utilize processes that can be deemed beneficial to an efficient planning approvals system or to increase transparency for developers and other stakeholders.
The features reviewed are as follows:
Online development application submission or building permit application portal; The availability of a “development guide”, which shows required studies and components of various planning applications, to ensure applicants understand the requirements of applications and achieve ‘complete application’ status; Clear terms of reference for required studies; Online status list or tracking system for active development applications, as well as whether mapping of applications is provided, and supporting studies and plans are provided; Online zoning, including whether a GIS file and/or a GIS portal available.
The following section of the report presents our measures of how each studied municipality utilizes these tools and features, and what proportion of the 18 municipalities studied are each tool or feature.
3.2 SCORECARD ON PLANNING SYSTEM FEATURES
Based on our review, many tools and processes are already present in most of the 18 municipalities, though no single feature is fully present in more than three-quarters of municipalities.
The most frequently utilized tool is a tracking system for active development applications, while very few municipalities provide clear terms of reference for studies required to be submitted with development applications. A lack of clarity regarding study requirements can result in unnecessary re- submissions and delay the ability to submit a fully complete application.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 17 Page 80 September 2020
Figure 17 Feature % of Municipalities with Feature
Development Guide 67%
Terms of Reference 47%
Development Application Tracking 75% System – Active Applications
Development Application Tracking 42% Database – Historic Applications
Application Tracking – Map 64%
Application Tracking – Supporting 56% Files and Studies
Zoning – GIS file available 22%
Zoning – GIS Portal / Mapping 72%
Another feature explored, but complicated due to COVID-19 adaptation by municipalities is the availability of online submission portals for development applications and/or building permit applications.
Of the studied municipalities only one municipality utilized all eight tools (Toronto) and processes, and some only utilized a few of the tools and processes.
Figure 18 Number of Features (out of 8) Municipalities with Number of Features
7 or more Barrie, Brampton, Oakville, Burlington, Toronto
Between 5 and 7 Clarington, Milton, Vaughan
Between 3 and 5 BWG, Pickering, Caledon, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, Aurora
Below 3 Innisfil, Whitby, Oshawa, Markham
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 18 Page 81 September 2020
3.3 STUDY REQUIREMENTS
Many planning applications require numerous studies, plans and technical reports to be submitted to satisfy municipal staff regarding the nature of the proposal and detailing any potential impacts on the community.
A review of development guides for seven municipalities, including some lower-tier, upper-tier and single-tier municipalities shows the range of potential studies that may be required for a development application – the full list of potential studies is presented in Figure 19.
We have found almost 60 different types of studies, with most applications usually requiring some combination of 20-30 of these studies, depending on the municipality, location of the development and the type of building(s) and uses being proposed.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
The review of utilization of planning tools and processes has found that some tools that could assist with potentially streamlining municipal processes and commenting periods, or would improve the quality of submissions from applicants, such as online submission portals and detailed terms of reference for technical studies required for review of development applications are often not used in many of the municipalities studied.
A review of the list of studies that may be required by municipalities shows that some development applications may be burdened with a vast array of study requirements - in some cases potentially in the range of 20-30 studies for a single project, depending on the municipality, application type, and location of development.
The required quantity and variety of technical studies, even if necessary to ensure that developments are in the public interest, results in significant costs to retain experts necessary to complete the studies and adds significant time for the studies to be completed, and then reviewed by municipal staff. The greater the number of studies also likely increases the likelihood of revisions and resubmissions, adding more time to the approvals process.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 19 Page 82 September 2020
Studies and Technical Reports / Plans That May Be Required in Select Municipalities Figure 19 Municipality Toronto Durham Clarington Halton Oakville Simcoe Barrie Affordable Housing Report XX Agricultural Impact/ Assessment X X X X Air Quality Study X Arborist Tree Preservation Report X X X X Archeological Assessment X X X X X X Block Master Plan X Community Services and Facilities Study X Contaminated Site Assessment X X Contamination Management Plan X Earth Science Heritage Evaluatio X Electromagnetic Field Management Plan / Study X Energy Strategy X X Enviromental Site Assessment X X X X Environmental evaluation study X Environmental Impact Study X X X X X X X Erosion or Natural Hazard Assessment X X X Financial Impact Study X X X X X Fire Access Plan Fisheries Impact/Marina Impact Study XX Floodplain Report X X Geotechnical Study / Soils Report X X X X X X Healthy Communities X Heritage Impact Report X X X X X X Housing Issues Report X Hydrogeology / Groundw ater Assessment X X X X X X Landfill Impact Study X Landform Conservation Plan X Landscaping Plan X Lighting Plan X X X Linkage Assessment X Loading Study X Marine archaeological assessment X Market Impact Study X X X Natural Heritage Impact Study X X X Noise Impact Study X X X X X X Odour/Dust/Nuisance Imapct Report X X X X X Parking Study X Parkland Impact Study / Recreation Needs X Planning Rationale / Justification X X X X X X X Public Consultation Strategy Report X Rental Housing Conversion Report X Servicing Report X X X X X X X Slope Stability Report X X X Stormw ater Management / Drainage Report X X X X X Streetscape Plan X Sun/Shadow Study X X Sustainability Report X Topographical Survey X Traffic Operations Assessment X X Transportation Impact Study X X X X X X X Urban Design Report X X X X Vegetation Inventory Vibration Study X X X X X X X Water conservation plan X Water Quality Study X Watershed Study X Wellhead Risk Assessment Report XX Wind Study X X X
Note: Some studies show n as not being required may actually be required w ithin other larger studies show n, depending on the specific terms of reference for each study. In most instances, the studies listed may only be required for some application types, or only in some circumstances. Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Municipal Offical Plans
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 20 Page 83 September 2020
4 ESTIMATES OF MUNICIPAL APPROVAL AND PERMIT TIMELINES
Lengthy timelines for development application approvals from municipalities are a common complaint of development industry stakeholders. This section reviews findings from exhaustive research into timelines for recently approved applications for most municipalities studied in this report.
4.1 APPROACH
Altus Group endeavoured to measure typical approval timelines for development applications in various municipalities across the Greater Toronto Area.
The approval timelines were measured from the date a municipality provided acknowledgment that an application was deemed ‘complete’2 to when a planning approval was provided by the municipality. The nature of a ‘planning approval’ can take many forms, including approvals provided by a municipality for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium, site plan approval, or a combination thereof.
Although contingent on the availability of data provided by municipalities, it was possible to undertake a few types of analyses of approval timelines for different applications types for municipalities in the study. However, not every municipality made available all necessary information to do the analysis for all application types, and there are some municipalities where certain types of applications are relatively rare (i.e., subdivision applications in the City of Toronto). Only in instances where it was possible to obtain robust samples for particular application types are findings shared. An overview of the sources for data informing our analysis are summarized in the following table.
It should be noted that while the analysis focuses on the time between complete application and municipal approval, it does not account for the significant period of time that an application may take to achieve a ‘complete application’ status (i.e. “pre-submission”), nor the period of time from development approval to building permit approval. There are also significant timelines associated with the process of getting vacant land designated for urban uses (e.g. greenfield development) – often this process can take several years, and in some cases can take upwards of 10 or more years.
2 Such as, direct affirmations of an application’s complete status date or the date a notice of a public meeting was provided.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 21 Page 84 September 2020
Figure 20 Data Source Description
Municipal Some municipalities provide comprehensive lists of recently approved applications. Application Often, data can be extracted from the published records about date of complete Status Lists application, date of approval(s), etc.
Council / Each municipality studied makes some amount of information regarding development Committee approvals through agendas, minutes, and associated documents and reports Agendas, available through Council / Committee meeting portals. Council / committee agendas Minutes, Staff were carefully reviewed to tabulate development approvals, with searches then Reports undertaken for sources with a recorded date of complete application – often this information is contained within the staff report recommending approval.
Open Data Some municipalities make datasets available with recently approved development Portals applications, which often include data regarding the date of complete application, and approval (and for which planning instruments planning approvals were obtained).
The diagram below depicts the major elements of the land development and building approval process and highlights the element that this analysis of municipal timelines focuses on.
Figure 21
4.2 FINDINGS – DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TIMELINES
4.2.1 Overview of Methodology
The analysis summarized below is based on a significant amount of work to collect a robust sample as possible. Nearly 1,000 development applications that were approved by a municipality were reviewed and recorded in the process of data collection. However, it should be noted that this analysis does not include timelines associated with the following:
Developments that were refused by the municipality and may have been subject to an appeals process (in this instance, likely appealed by the
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 22 Page 85 September 2020
applicant). Where those applications are ultimately approved by the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT), this adds considerable time to the approvals process, but the timelines associated with these developments are not included in our analysis. The approval periods for applications that were subject to LPAT appeal processes are left out as the additional time required to obtain approval from an LPAT process is not necessarily reflective of issues with municipal processes, and timelines for applications subject to the LPAT process can be lengthy due to productive reasons such as time spent in settlement discussions, or other reasons that are not in the control of the municipality, such as LPAT case backlogs that delays the scheduling of hearings; Appeal periods related to developments that were approved by the municipality, but appealed by other stakeholders to LPAT, which would add considerable time onto the approval period – this additional time is not accounted for in this study; Applications that are obvious outliers - records where the timelines significantly exceeded the average of most other data points in the sample. Some application approvals may, for example, involve lands that have been sold to a new owner who has decided to make modifications to a pre-existing submission, however as these instances are not necessarily the fault of the municipality, they have not been included.
The data sample includes the most current application approvals for each municipality. However, given the scale of development in some municipalities, it was necessary to collect information for applications that received an approval as far back as 2015 in order to reach a robust sample size. Therefore, the ‘average’ timelines presented may not necessarily be reflective of a typical timeline in 2019/2020 or capture impacts of more recent improvements that municipalities may have made in the last 12-24 months.
The data averages presented in Figure 22 looks at how long, on average, a development application took for the municipality to approve but does not distinguish between applications that had multiple concurrent submissions and applications that were submitted as consecutive submissions (one after another), or submissions that required only one application. The timelines for developments requiring only ‘single’ approval versus ‘multiple’ approvals is analyzed separately and presented in a later section of this report.
4.2.2 Findings
The analysis shows significant variations in the approval timelines of municipalities. Generally, the more populous and urban municipalities (i.e. Mississauga, Brampton, and Toronto) had longer timelines, while more suburban or exurban municipalities had shorter timelines.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 23 Page 86 September 2020
Only four municipalities, Oshawa, Innisfil, Burlington and Oakville had average approval timelines below 12 months, while another nine municipalities had averages that fell within a range from 12 to 18 months. In four municipalities, the average timeline for municipal approvals ranges from 18 to 24 months. For one municipality (Milton), there was not enough available data found on municipal approvals to include in the report.
Figure 22
Average Approval Timelines by Application Type, by Municipality
Official Plan Zoning By-law Plan of Plan of Municipality Site Plan Average Amendment Amendment Subdivision Condominium
Oshawa (n=29) ** 9 months 9 months 8 months ** 9 months
Innisfil (n=24) 9 months 9 months 10 months ** ** 9 months
Burlington (n=26) 13 months 11 months 7 months ** ** 11 months
Oakville (n=96) 12 months 12 months 11 months 8 months 15 months 11 months
Barrie (n=30) 10 months 11 months 12 months ** 18 months 12 months
Markham (n=33) 11 months 14 months 9 months ** ** 13 months
Whitby (n=29) 10 months 13 months 15 months 11 months ** 13 months
Vaughan (n=78) 14 months 15 months 11 months 8 months 12 months 13 months
Clarington (n=31) ** 12 months 13 months ** ** 13 months
Pickering (n=37) 16 months 13 months 13 months 13 months ** 14 months
Richmond Hill (n=26) ** 18 months 18 months 14 months 16 months 16 months
Aurora (n=23) ** 19 months 25 months 8 months 18 months 17 months
Mississauga (n=18) 18 months 17 months ** ** ** 18 months
Brampton (n=85) 26 months 19 months 19 months ** ** 20 months
Toronto (n=76) 32 months 25 months ** 8 months 30 months 21 months
Caledon (n=18) ** 23 months 23 months ** ** 23 months
BWG (n=23) ** 21 months 25 months ** ** 24 months
Overall Range 8-37 months 9-25 months 7-25 months 8-14 months 12-30 months 9-24 months
Overall Average 16 months 15 months 15 months 9 months 18 months 15 months ** denotes where either data was not available, or the sample size was too small to be statistically robust
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 24 Page 87 September 2020
The analysis by application types shows that applications with official plan amendments (OPAs) take the longest to be approved with municipal averages ranging from 8 to 37 months, while the quickest type of application to gain approval on average is plan of condominium, with municipal averages ranging from 8 to 14 months.
The findings relating to approvals timelines may not necessarily be consistent with the findings on the availability of tools or features of planning systems in the studied municipalities or staffing levels in the municipalities. Even with full usage of the identified tools and features, or large amounts of staff on-hand, an approvals process can still be slow without the right deployment of tools or features, or the efficient allocation of staff resources.
The results regarding average timelines for approved applications in each municipality should be used with some caution as the complexity of development applications was not controlled for, given the subjectivity of any evaluation, measurement or adjustment for complicating factors adding to an application’s complexity. However, it is understood that complexity can be elevated by variables such as the scale of development proposals (land area, number of units, height, etc.), environmental issues, concerns about community impact, political issues, etc. These complicating factors will vary from one application to the next, and may be especially prevalent in certain municipalities studied.
4.3 ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS
4.3.1 High-Density vs. Low-Density
For analytical purposes, the development applications within the collected data set were broadly categorized as either ‘low-density’ projects, or ‘high- density’ projects. Low-density projects were generally defined as being applications that were predominantly oriented towards ground-related housing (singles, semis, townhouses), while high-density projects were defined to be development applications that predominantly include multi- family homes such as apartments and condominium high-rises.
It was found that there was no significant difference in the average timelines for the two types of development applications, with low-density applications taking an average of 14.4 months to be approved, and high-density applications taking an average of 14.3 months. However, when averages were compared for specific municipalities, some disparities in averages between the two types are evident (see Figure 23)
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 25 Page 88 September 2020
Figure 23 Averages for Low-Density Averages for High-Density significantly less than High- significantly less than Low- Density Density
Toronto (low-density 11 months Richmond Hill (9 months faster for faster than high-density) high-density than low-density)
Burlington (low-density 8 months Vaughan (3 months faster for high- faster than high-density) density than low-density)
Brampton (low-density 4 months Whitby (3 months faster for high- faster than high-density) density than low-density)
4.3.2 Multiple Applications vs. Lone Applications
Municipalities often promote the submission of multiple applications at the same time (e.g. an official plan amendment with a zoning by-law amendment) with the notion that it can save both time and fees for the developer. The benefit to municipalities is that it in theory, concurrent review of applications more efficiently uses staff resources because it allows staff to save time reviewing aspects of a development proposal that may overlap between different application types.
While potential for time savings for developers can provide significant benefits, there are also risks to developers. First, because staff are dealing with more expansive aspects of a development proposal all at once, their recommendation report to council may take longer to submit, delaying final approval. Second, a major issue delaying review or approval of one application may cause other applications to be delayed.
The chart below (Figure 24) shows the difference in average approval timelines for single applications versus multiple applications reviewed concurrently. While lone applications take generally less time individually by application type, should a developer sequentially go through the application process gaining one approval only after others have been received, it would take significantly longer than a bundle of application submitted all at once. The data obtained and reviewed in this exercise shows that when there are multiple applications submitted, it generally takes just 2 to 3 months longer for the bundle of applications to be approved than just an individual application.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 26 Page 89 September 2020
Figure 24 Application Type Single Application Multiple / Concurrent Application
Official Plan ** 16 months Amendment
Zoning By-law 13 months 16 months Amendment
Plan of Subdivision 12 months 15 months
Plan of Condominium 8 months 10 months
Site Plan 16 months 23 months
Average 13 months 16 months
Overall, applications submitted alone made up about one-third of the total sample, while applications that were concurrently submitted with others made up the remaining two-thirds. This information suggestions that a large majority of applications are already being bundled together with others, however, there is still a significant minority that are not, and potentially could be bundled together.
If there is any possibility for the avoidance of certain planning applications, and consolidation of planning applications into one type of submission, it appears that there would be a benefit to the applicant of reduced timelines.
4.3.3 Approval by Municipal Council vs. Local Planning Appeals Tribunal
While applications that were approved by the LPAT were not included in the main dataset, some information was collected that provided a sub-sample that could be used to analyze and contrast with average timelines for municipal approvals. While the sub-sample was sufficiently large for aggregate comparison purposes (with 100 records), it was not large enough to allow for analysis by any single municipality.
On average, applications approved by the LPAT took on average roughly twice as long to gain approval as those approved by a municipality, with the overall approval period for applications approved by LPAT inclusive of the time the applications spent in the municipal review process, and the time spent getting through the LPAT process.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 27 Page 90 September 2020
Figure 25 Approval Timelines by Source of Approval
Months 30 28 Municipal Council Approvals LPAT Approvals 27 25 25 24 24
20 18 16 15 15 15
10 9
5
0 OPA ZBL Subdivision Condominium Site Plan Source: Altus Group based on various municipal and LPAT records
Having to gain approval through the LPAT and that taking roughly double the amount of time to gain municipal approval, if approval is obtained at all, illustrates a risk associated with the current appeals system – getting an approval via an appeal adds significant cost in terms of the additional time required to gain approval, over and above the expense of the hearing itself with additional costs for the legal counsel and experts required to navigate the LPAT process.
4.4 CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of average development approval timelines finds that the average period of time to get a development approval from a municipal council in the Greater Toronto Area ranges from 9 to 24 months, however, there is significant variation between the municipalities studied:
The more urbanized municipalities have application approval timeline averages around 20 months, while suburban and exurban municipalities generally take significantly less time to provide approvals. Some of this variation can likely explained by the generally higher level of project complexity for projects submitted to more urban municipalities, as well as, and the volume of submissions in those municipalities; Bundled applications only take 20% to 30% longer to approve than submissions requiring only one type of application, suggesting that there are significant economies of scale and efficiencies for bundled applications, providing benefits to both municipality and applicant;
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 28 Page 91 September 2020
While the success rate at the LPAT was not examined as part of this study, gaining a development approval through an LPAT appeal can take, on average roughly twice as long as an approval from a municipality. Gaining approval through the LPAT can be incredibly costly and time consuming.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 29 Page 92 September 2020
5 MUNICIPAL CHARGES ON NEW HOUSING
This section gives further detail on the various municipal charges levied on newly built homes, and charged to developers, home builders and/or purchasers of newly built homes. The charges reviewed include those levied by lower‐tier or upper‐tier municipalities and school boards.
5.1 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
5.1.1 Municipal Development Charges
The Ontario Development Charges Act grants authority to municipalities to enact a development charges by‐law to impose a charge against land to be developed where the development will increase the need for municipal services, thus offsetting capital costs.
Municipal development charges collect funds for services deemed as being eligible in the Development Charges Act, such as Parks & Recreation, Libraries, Fire Services, Police Services, Water, Sewer, Roads, Transit, etc. Where there is both an upper-tier and lower-tier municipality, the services included in each respective municipality’s DC by-law are based on which tier is the provider of each service.
Each of the lower‐tier/single‐tier municipalities reviewed in this report imposes development charges for a variety of services. As required under the Development Charges Act, development charge by-laws are to be reviewed at least every five years, and in the interim periods between DC by-law reviews see DC rates indexed either annually or semi‐annually, depending on the approach adopted by each municipality.
Figure 26 shows the significant increases to development charge rates since the 2009 in the studied municipalities, on a per single‐detached unit basis. Since 2009, DC rates have increased by an average of 137% in the municipalities surveyed. Toronto, Innisfil, Vaughan, and Mississauga have had DC rate increases at or greater than 200% since 2009.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 30 Page 93 September 2020
Figure 26 Municipal Development Charges from 2009-2020, Selected Ontario Municipalities Dollars per Single-Detached Unit 120,000 2009 Lower/Single-Tier York Region Halton Region Peel Region 2009 Upper-Tier 2020 Lower/Single-Tier 100,000 62,200 2020 Upper-Tier 53,500 53,500 Simcoe 62,200 62,200 80,000 County 53,500 53,500 Durham Region 62,200 62,200 53,500 53,500 62,200 62,200 9,800 9,800 60,000 9,800 9,800 29,000 29,000 32,700 32,700 40,000 32,700 29,900 32,700 32,700 29,000 29,000 32,700 32,700 4,100 23,700 29,000 29,000 29,900 17,600 23,700 18,500 29,900 18,500 17,600 17,600 23,700 23,700 18,500 4,100
20,000 18,500 76,800 76,800 53,600 19,400 37,500 24,700 36,600 12,400 20,900 55,600 38,400 30,900 16,500 23,900 24,600 18,100 45,600 51,700 66,000 7,400 6,900 0 12,400 12,300 11,700 18,700 14,800 21,700 10,700 19,000 21,300 18,700 12,400 10,200 14,500 28,600 12,800 27,400 BWG Milton Barrie Innisfil Hill Aurora Whitby Toronto Oakville Oshawa Caledon Vaughan Pickering Markham Burlingon Brampton Richmond Clarington Total Missisauga Percent 521% 221% 130% 135% 125% 27% 11% 23% 198% 137% 133% 59% 97% 126% 54% 69% 264% 141% Change Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Municipal DC By-laws
5.1.2 GO Transit Development Charges
Development charges are also levied to collect funds for growth‐related projects associated with the GO Transit system. Most regions in the Greater Toronto Area have been allocated a share of the projected growth‐related capital costs associated with the GO Transit system, with the municipal, provincial and federal governments each in total funding one-third shares of the capital costs.
The GO Transit development charge was originally approved for a two‐year period, with the by‐laws expiring December 31, 2003. Since then, the GO Transit development charges have been updated regularly to fund a rolling ten‐year budget.
5.1.3 Area-Specific Development Charges
Six of the municipalities reviewed in this report impose area‐specific development charges (“ASDC”). We have therefore made assumptions regarding the area that the hypothetical developments would fall within:
Halton Region – Halton Region imposes a higher DC for homes built in the greenfield area than those built within the Region’s built boundary. For this analysis we have assumed that the low-rise scenario is within the greenfield area, and that the high-rise development scenario is located within the built boundary area; City of Barrie – The City of Barrie imposes different DC rates for the parts of the City within the former City boundaries, and for the Hewitt and
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 31 Page 94 September 2020
Salem Secondary Plan areas on the lands annexed from the Town of Innisfil. For this analysis, we have assumed that both the low-rise and high-rise development are within the former City boundaries; Town of Innisfil - The Town of Innisfil imposes numerous ASDCs applicable to different parts of the Town. For this analysis we have assumed that the low-rise development is in Innisfil North and the high- rise project is in Innisfil Central; City of Markham – The City of Markham imposes additional area- specific DC rates for homes built in certain areas within the City and levies them on a per hectare basis. For this analysis we have assumed that the development is located outside the areas subject to ASDCs; and Town of Richmond Hill – The Town of Richmond Hill imposes additional ASDCs on a per net hectare basis in selected greenfield areas in the Town, over and above the Town-wide charges. For the low-rise scenario included in our analysis of government charges, we have taken the average of these greenfield ASDCs and added that onto the Town-wide development charges.
5.2 EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
In Ontario, education development charges (EDC’s) are collected by local municipalities on behalf of local school boards that qualify to impose such charges under the Education Act and associated regulations. EDC’s are used by school boards to fund the acquisition of school sites and related costs (site preparation, legal costs, etc.) to accommodate net new growth-related pupils. EDC’s are usually charged by both English-language public and separate school boards and are usually levied on both residential and non‐residential growth. Funding for school building construction is provided by the Province on an as-needed basis stemming from requests for funding submitted by local school boards.
EDC’s on residential development are imposed solely on a per unit basis, meaning that single-detached units are charged the same rate as townhouse and apartment units. The Education Act and associated regulations enable school boards to impose these charges on a differentiated basis (i.e., higher rates for single-detached units, lower for apartment units), but to-date, this approach has not been utilized.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 32 Page 95 September 2020
Figure 27 Education Development Charges by Jurisdiction Dollars per Unit
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000 7,761 7,007 3,000
4,572 2,000 3,335 2,959 1,000 1,793 1,738
0 Toronto York Halton Peel Durham (excl. Clarington Simcoe Clarington) Note: Part of “Peel” EDC applies to part of Dufferin County, part of “Simcoe” EDC applies to part of Muskoka, and the “Durham” rates are not applicable in Clarington, which is under jurisdiction of Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB and Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic DSB Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on various EDC By-laws
5.3 PLANNING & APPROVAL FEES
There are various fees and charges associated with the municipal approval for a development, several fees for the permits required for the construction of the building(s), and engineering fees and permits for the infrastructure works associated with a development.
The modelling undertaken groups these fees into three main categories outlined in the subsections below, but in many municipalities, there is no clear delineation between the departments that review plans, approve plans, and/or issue permits, meaning that in some cases, engineering review fees may be covered within the costs recovered through planning review fees.
5.3.1 Planning Review Fees
For this analysis, it is assumed that the low‐rise scenario would require both lower‐ and upper‐tier official plan amendments, a zoning by‐law amendment, and plan of subdivision approval. It is assumed that the high‐rise development scenario would require an official plan amendment, a zoning by‐ law amendment, as well as plan of condominium and site plan approval.
Often there is considerable overlap between the studies and reports required for different planning applications. To acknowledge this, some municipalities provide reduced or discounted costs for joint applications where more than one planning instrument is being amended.
In imposing ‘per unit’ fees for planning review fees, some municipalities acknowledge that certain ‘economies of scale’ exist for larger applications,
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 33 Page 96 September 2020
and so levy discounted per unit rates beyond certain unit thresholds, a feature sometimes referred to as a ‘declining’ fee rate. This approach to structuring the planning review fees is based on the notion that there are certain fixed costs to reviewing planning applications whether the application has 10 units or 100 units.
Some municipalities treat the diminishing marginal costs for larger applications through both a declining fee rate, but also a ‘cap’ on planning fees. For example, the City of Brampton (as of December 2019) caps fees for development applications requiring some combination of zoning by-law amendment, official plan amendment or subdivision approval at $359,220 and caps fees for site plan approvals at $85,219.
5.3.2 Building Permit Fees
Each of the lower‐tier and single‐tier municipalities being reviewed charge building permit fees for the construction of residential buildings, charged on a per square metre basis.
5.3.3 Engineering and Servicing Fees
Each lower‐tier and single‐tier municipality reviewed charges a variety of engineering and service fees for the development, review, inspection, connection and/or assumption of a development’s water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer services. The various engineering and servicing related fees may include servicing fees, subdivision agreement and assumption fees, and engineering inspection fees, which are typically charged as a percentage of costs of the engineering works to be done.
5.4 PARKLAND DEDICATION / CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND
Although Bill 108 (passed June 2019) was intended to alter how municipalities collected funds for parkland acquisition, the recently passed Bill 197 (assented July 2020) essentially restores most of the current parkland dedication / cash-in-lieu of parkland system.
Currently municipalities acquire parkland and other forms of open space through parkland dedication requirements imposed on new developments. Alternatively, a developer is able to provide “cash‐in‐lieu” (“CIL”) of parkland dedication to a municipality.
The Ontario Planning Act says that as a condition of development or redevelopment of land, that land in an amount not exceeding 5% of the land to be conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes. Alternatively, for residential developments, the land conveyed to the municipality may also be provided at a rate of 1 hectare per 300 dwelling units.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 34 Page 97 September 2020
The Ontario Planning Act also says that in lieu of providing the land for parkland to the municipality, the developer may instead provide a payment to the municipality in the amount of the value of the land to be conveyed, at a rate not to exceed 1 hectare per 500 dwelling units. The value of the land is to be determined as of the day before approval of the draft plan of subdivision.
The statutory parkland rates are used in each Ontario municipality reviewed in this report, except as follows:
City of Toronto: The City has an alternative parkland dedication rate of 2% of land area, or 0.4 hectares per 300 units. In Toronto, cash‐in‐lieu of dedication payments are also capped based on the size of the development site and the value of the site: o For smaller sites (less than 1 hectare), this cap is 10% of the value of the site; o For 1-to-5-hectare sites, the value of the payment cannot exceed 15% of the value of the site; o For larger sites (greater than 5 hectares) this cap is 20% of the value of the site. City of Mississauga: The City of Mississauga follows the statutory parkland rates, except for medium- and high-density development which has a fixed rate of $8,970 per unit; City of Vaughan: The City of Vaughan’s cash-in-lieu of parkland contributions are calculated at a rate of 1 hectare per 500 units, except for high density development which has a rate of $8,500 per unit; Town of Richmond Hill: The Town of Richmond Hill requires landowners to convey land at the greater of 5% of the land within the development application, or the lesser of: o 1 hectare of land of land per 300 dwelling units; or o 1 hectare of land for each 730 persons to be housed.
5.5 SECTION 37
The former Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act (as it was prior to the passage of Bill 108) allowed for increases in permitted height and/or density through the zoning by‐law in return for community benefits, provided that Official Plan policies are in place. These contributions are typically directed to community infrastructure needs arising from the expected surplus in housing units/people being accommodated in a development relative to the original plans.
While Section 37 is used in some 905 municipalities, it is most frequently utilized in the City of Toronto. The City of Toronto Official Plan sets out
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 35 Page 98 September 2020
several community benefits that may be provided in return for increased height and/or density, including parkland/park improvements, streetscape improvements, public art, childcare facilities, etc.
While Section 37 contributions are often provided by private developers when developing in Toronto, there is no publicly available formula or method for how these are calculated and/or arrived at. These section 37 contributions can also be provided in the form of cash contributions, or in-kind contributions.
Based on our review of various zoning by-laws in the City, the cash contributions agreed to by developers and the City can vary significantly from one development to the next – in some cases less than $1,000 per unit, and in others in excess of $15,000 per unit, and up to over $22,000 per unit in some select instances. The average section 37 cash contribution has been steadily increasing since the year 2000, and over the 2015-2017 period, the average section 37 cash contribution amounted to approximately $3,800 per unit, on average. The City also regularly secures non-cash contributions, such as rental housing replacement units, public art, playgrounds, daycare spaces, recreation facilities, etc., which are not accounted for in the average cash contributions depicted in Figure 28.
Figure 28
The former Section 37 density bonusing system, under Bill 108 and Bill 197 will be effectively replaced with a Community Benefits Charge (“CBC”), which would see a percentage of land value payable for developments with both 10 or more residential units that are also 5 or more storeys in height. As of the time of writing this report, the prescribed CBC percentage has not been set.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 36 Page 99 September 2020
5.6 LAND TRANSFER TAXES
Land transfer taxes (“LTT”) are levied by the Province of Ontario, and so those charges are not included in our modelling of charges imposed by municipalities. However, the City of Toronto, under authority granted to it by the City of Toronto Act, does levy its own municipal land transfer tax. The Toronto Municipal Land Transfer Tax is imposed on the value of property being transferred from a seller to a buyer, at rates of:
Value up to $55,000 – 0.5%; Value from $55,000 to $250,000 – 1.0%; Value from $250,000 to $400,000 – 1.5%; Value from $400,000 to $2,000,000 – 2.0%; and Value over $2,000,000 – 2.5%.
No other municipality among those studied in this report levies a municipal land transfer tax.
5.7 OTHER GOVERNMENT CHARGES NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT
Government charges levied on new homes by Provincial or the Federal government are not included in this report, as the focus of the analysis is on charges and fees levied by municipal governments. Therefore, charges such as the provincial land transfer tax, sales taxes (provincial and federal), and CMHC mortgage insurance are not included in this study.
However, unlike municipal charges, which are typically incurred by the developer (and ultimately passed onto new homebuyers through prices), the charges levied or required by upper-levels of government are typically incurred directly by homebuyers, and so also have a significant impact on the affordability of housing in Canada.
5.8 EMERGING TRENDS
5.8.1 Bill 108 and Bill 197
Bill 108, passed in June 2019, eliminated the former Section 37 density bonusing provisions of the Planning Act and combined with Bill 197 (introduced in July 2020) alter how development charges are collected in municipalities across Ontario. The other two substantial changes to government charges are first, the removal of the 10% statutory deduction to certain ‘soft’ services such as indoor recreation, libraries, etc., which will cause DC rates to increase modestly. The legislated changes to the calculation of DCs have not been accounted for in DC by-laws as of the time of writing this report.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 37 Page 100 September 2020
Second, the two bills would see the introduction of a Community Benefits Charge (CBCs) which would allow municipality to fund capital costs on development with 5-or-more storeys and 10-or-more dwelling units, as a percentage of land value the day before building permit issuance. However, as the province has not yet produced a finalized set of CBC regulations, which will include the prescribed ‘cap’ on what municipalities can impose as CBCs, the costs associated with CBCs are not incorporated into the modelling summarized by this report.
Bill 108 also included several changes to the Development Charges Act as it pertains to the timing of calculation of DCs payable and the period in which DCs are paid.
For the development of rental housing, institutional, industrial, commercial and non-profit housing, DCs are set either at the time of site plan application or zoning by-law amendment application, rather than at the time of building permit issuance. For these same land uses, DCs are now payable in six equal annual installments, with the first payment due at the issuance of an occupancy permit, or the date the building is first occupied. The calculation and timing of payment of DCs for condominium and freehold residential homes remains unchanged in Bill 108.
5.9 QUANTIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL CHARGES AND FEES
This subsection of the report aims to provide a high-level overview of the charges levied by municipal governments on new development and attempts to quantify the costs these charges and fees payable by developers, home builders, and ultimately, home buyers.
5.9.1 Scenarios
To model and estimate the charges and fees imposed by the municipalities studied in this report, we have devised two development scenarios – one ‘low-rise’ consisting of a mix of single-detached and townhouses, and one ‘high-rise’ consisting of a condominium apartment building.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 38 Page 101 September 2020
Figure 29 Feature Low-Rise Scenario High-Rise Scenario
Unit Types 75 single-detached, 50 125 condominium apartment units (75 townhouses 2+bedrooms, 50 bachelor and 1- bedroom)
Land Area 6.91 hectares (17.06 acres) 0.52 hectares (1.29 acres)
Unit Sizes Single-detached: 2,500 sf Large apartments: 900 sf
Townhouses: 1,800 sf Small apartments: 650 sf
5.9.2 Findings
5.9.2.1 Low-Rise Scenario
Our modelling of charges imposed on low-rise development was done on all 18 municipalities included in the study. On average, for the municipalities studied, the charges imposed by municipalities amount to $93,700 per unit, or 9.7% of the housing price.
Figure 30 Municipal Charges per Unit, Ranked, Low-Rise Scenario
Charges per Rank Municipality Upper-Tier Unit ($)
1 Vaughan York 148,083 2 Markham York 138,154 3 Toronto n.a. 134,653 4 Richmond Hill York 124,723 5 Aurora York 116,232 6 Mississauga Peel 108,976 7 Brampton Peel 103,019 8 Caledon Peel 96,647 9 Oakville Halton 88,224 10 Whitby Durham 75,607 11 Pickering Durham 74,923 12 Barrie Simcoe 73,997 13 Oshaw a Durham 72,827 14 Innisfil Simcoe 72,149 15 Milton Halton 71,644 16 Burlington Halton 66,826 17 BWG Simcoe 65,984 18 Clarington Durham 54,258
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 39 Page 102 September 2020
The results vary significantly by municipality – from $148,100 per unit in Vaughan to $54,300 in Clarington. Seven of the eight municipalities with the highest municipal charges on low-rise development are in York or Peel Regions, owing to the significant amount of development charges imposed on new housing developments by those regional municipalities.
In particular, the municipal charges in York Region municipalities may be driven by infrastructure costs for water and wastewater owing to the Region being landlocked, which increases costs associated with finding solutions to water and sanitary infrastructure needs.
When the municipal charges are expressed as a % of housing prices3, the charges range from 5.6% in Burlington to 14.5% in Vaughan.
Figure 31 Municipal Charges as % of Housing Price Ranked, Low-Rise Scenario
Charges as % of Rank Municipality Upper-Tier Housing Price
1 Vaughan York 14.5% 2 Brampton Peel 11.8% 3 Markham York 11.6% 4 Toronto n.a. 10.7% 5 Innisfil Simcoe 10.6% 6 Aurora York 10.3% 7 Caledon Peel 10.2% 8 Richmond Hill York 10.0% 9 Barrie Simcoe 9.8% 10 Oshaw a Durham 9.7% 11 Mississauga Peel 9.5% 12 Whitby Durham 9.4% 13 BWG Simcoe 9.0% 14 Oakville Halton 8.5% 15 Pickering Durham 8.4% 16 Milton Halton 8.3% 17 Clarington Durham 7.1% 18 Burlington Halton 5.6%
The most significant charge in almost all the surveyed municipalities is the development charge, typically amounting to 75% of the municipal charges
3 The ‘housing price’ used to contextualize municipal charges is a weighted average of assumed housing prices for single-detached units and townhouse units, based on the distribution of each unit type in our low-rise scenario. Assumed prices are based on $/sf asking prices for housing developments in each municipality, with this per square foot average then applied to the assumed unit sizes of single-detached and townhouse units within the low-rise scenario. Therefore, given the unit size and unit mix employed in our low-rise scenario, the ‘average price’ assumed in our model is not indicative of typical average or median prices of absorbed units in a municipality
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 40 Page 103 September 2020
payable for a new low-rise development, and over 85% in some cases (Aurora, Clarington, Caledon and Barrie).
The second most substantial charge is typically the parkland dedication requirement or cash-in-lieu payment (though most low-rise developments will dedicate parkland rather than pay cash-in-lieu of dedication), averaging 17% of municipal charges payable. The remainder of charges imposed on low-rise development are comprised of planning fees, building permit fees, and other minor charges.
5.9.2.2 High-Rise Scenario
Our modelling of charges imposed on high-rise development was done on all 18 municipalities included in the study. The charges imposed on high-rise developments vary widely by municipality – from $96,200 per unit in Markham and $30,500 in Clarington.
On average, the high-rise charges imposed by municipalities are $57,800 per unit, or 10.7% of the price of the residential units. Out of top three municipalities with the highest charges, two were in York Region (Markham and Vaughan).
Figure 32 Municipal Charges per Unit, Ranked, High-Rise Scenario
Charges per Rank Municipality Upper-Tier Unit ($)
1 Markham York 96,233 2 Vaughan York 81,216 3 Burlington Halton 77,680 4 Toronto n.a. 76,762 5 Aurora York 72,466 6 Richmond Hill York 68,823 7 Mississauga Peel 67,994 8 Brampton Peel 60,206 9 Oakville Halton 57,498 10 Caledon Peel 55,488 11 Milton Halton 51,373 12 Barrie n.a. 46,946 13 Innisfil Simcoe 43,840 14 Oshaw a Durham 41,671 15 Whitby Durham 38,828 16 Pickering Durham 38,213 17 BWG Simcoe 34,037 18 Clarington Durham 30,497
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 41 Page 104 September 2020
When the municipal charges imposed are expressed as a percentage of housing prices, the charges levied on new housing development are upwards of 16% in the Town of Aurora and the City of Markham.
Figure 33 Municipal Charges as % of Housing Price Ranked, High-Rise Scenario
Charges as % of Rank Municipality Upper-Tier Hous ing Pr ice
1 Aurora York 16.3% 2 Markham York 15.8% 3 Brampton Peel 13.8% 4 Vaughan York 12.8% 5 Burlington Halton 12.4% 6 Richmond Hill York 11.7% 7 Milton Halton 11.2% 8 Caledon Peel 11.1% 9 Toronto n.a. 11.0% 10 Mississauga Peel 10.8% 11 Oakville Halton 10.5% 12 BWG Simcoe 9.9% 13 Whitby Durham 8.0% 14 Oshaw a Durham 8.0% 15 Innisfil Simcoe 7.5% 16 Pickering Durham 7.1% 17 Clarington Durham 6.9% 18 Barrie n.a. 6.9%
Similar to the results of our low-rise analysis, the most significant charge in almost all of the surveyed municipalities are the development charge, typically amounting to 68% of the municipal charges payable for a new high- rise development, and over 90% in some municipalities (Aurora and Innisfil).
The second-largest charge imposed on high-rise is also usually the land dedication requirement or cash-in-lieu payment, which makes up an average of 26% of municipal charges payable.
5.9.3 Conclusions
Based on the modelling done on the two hypothetical development scenarios, there significant municipal-imposed charges on new development, but that these charges can vary significantly from one municipality to the next. However, generally, charges imposed by municipalities on new housing development are generally the highest in Toronto and municipalities within York Region and Peel Region.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 42 Page 105 September 2020
The average municipal-imposed government charges for low-rise development in the studied municipalities is $93,700 per unit or 9.7% of housing prices. Six of the eight highest charges per unit were in York and Peel municipalities; For high-rise, the average works out to $57,800 per unit, or 10.7% of housing prices. Three of the four highest charges per unit on high-rise development are in municipalities located in York Region.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 43 Page 106 September 2020
6 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE MUNICIPAL PROCESSES
This section of the report quantifies the costs (or potential cost savings) for developers and landowners involved in the time spent gaining approval for development projects.
In each case, we have attempted to put the estimates of costs associated with waiting for approvals on the basis of ‘costs per month’ – this puts all of the various elements of this analysis into a comparable metric, and allows for the calculation of impacts of time saved in the approvals process to be quantified, by multiplying the ‘per month’ costs by the number of months deemed possible to be cut off of the approvals process.
The cost estimates are modelled using the same hypothetical low-rise and high-rise development scenarios used for the analysis of charges and imposed by municipalities.
6.1 TAXES PAYABLE ON VACANT LAND
For each month in the development process, assuming a vacant site, the developer/landowner must continue to pay property taxes to the municipality. The sooner the site can receive approvals, be developed, and turned over to the ultimate buyers, who will become the taxpayers for the property, the less expense to the developer/landowner.
Based on estimated land values in each of the municipalities studied in this report, and tax rates in the studied municipalities, each month in the approvals process for a high-rise development costs an average of $1,830 per month. For a low-rise development, the average cost of each month in the approvals process is less than that of the high-rise development, averaging $406 per month.
6.2 INCREASES TO MUNICIPAL CHARGES AND FEES
As evident from the modelling done on charges imposed by municipalities on development, there are significant costs that must be paid by developers to municipalities to pay for things such as growth-related infrastructure, planning and approvals fees, etc.
Many of the charges imposed by municipalities regularly increase – some increase at the same rate as inflation (many planning fees increase 1-3% per year to stay in line with general inflation), while others are much more volatile and subject to periodic, but significant increases (such as development charges).
As the most significant charge levied by most municipalities is development charges, we have looked at what DCs were in the studied municipalities, both
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 44 Page 107 September 2020
at the time of writing this report and in addition to prior years, in order to estimate what a typical ‘per month’ change in DCs has been, to see what the potential effect of each additional month spent gaining approvals can mean.
One potential issue with this approach worth acknowledging is that it does not account for the typical way in which DCs change over time - DCs are relatively static for several years, except for some modest inflationary indexing usually in the range of 1-2% per year, but then a significant increase can come into effect at the time of a DC by-law review, which usually range anywhere from 10% to 50%, but can sometimes be much more.
On average, it is found that DCs increase by an average of approximately $379 per month for single-detached units, and approximately $143 to $211 per month for apartment units (depending on the size of unit).
Figure 34 Average Per Month Change in Development Charges in Select Municipalities
% Increase 2009-2019 10-Year Change 2009-2019 10-Year Change 2009-2019
Single- Large Small Single- Large Small Single- Large Small Detached Apartment Apartment Detac hed Apartment Apartment Detached Apartment Apartment Municipality Percent Dollars per Unit Dollars per Unit per Month Oakville 96% 54% 70% 41,145 14,605 12,537 342.87 121.71 104.48 Burlington 55% 13% 34% 21,218 3,128 5,605 176.82 26.07 46.71 Milton 69% 34% 52% 27,812 8,453 8,981 231.77 70.44 74.84 Brampton 134% 98% 135% 56,110 30,366 23,038 467.58 253.05 191.98 Mississauga 216% 183% 220% 68,347 42,533 28,765 569.56 354.44 239.71 Caledon 132% 104% 133% 51,526 28,698 21,337 429.38 239.15 177.81 Toronto 507% 446% 465% 65,413 38,162 25,722 545.11 318.02 214.35 Markham 162% 149% 128% 66,043 39,350 28,092 550.36 327.92 234.10 Vaughan 227% 221% 145% 85,201 52,389 33,856 710.01 436.58 282.13 Richmond Hill 147% 154% 89% 52,683 33,985 19,303 439.03 283.21 160.86 Pickering 80% 89% 38% 23,437 15,438 6,321 195.31 128.65 52.68 Whitby 104% 93% 46% 30,563 17,569 7,882 254.69 146.41 65.68 Oshaw a 123% 129% 49% 33,424 21,323 8,325 278.53 177.69 69.38 Clarington 62% 45% 26% 20,228 9,112 4,718 168.57 75.93 39.32 Aurora 155% 152% 108% 57,082 35,142 22,769 475.68 292.85 189.74 Bradford West Gw illimbury 127% 98% 123% 39,784 19,919 18,476 331.53 165.99 153.97 Barrie 157% 150% 113% 42,115 23,922 15,318 350.96 199.35 127.65 Innisfil 298% 260% 248% 35,603 20,970 17,218 296.69 174.75 143.48
Average 378.58 210.68 142.71
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting
6.3 CARRYING COSTS OF LOANS
During the approvals process, applicants will have typically obtained financing for their project and will pay interest on the construction loan until all proceeds from sales have been received.
The estimate of additional carrying costs per month is based on a high-level model that estimates the cost of construction financing, with one version assuming a 30-month construction financing period, and a second version assuming a 31-month construction financing period, with the difference in the
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 45 Page 108 September 2020
total cost of construction debt in the two versions the estimated ‘per month’ difference.
It is estimated that the cost of construction debt is approximately $91,600 for each additional month that construction financing is required for high-rise. For low-rise, each additional month would add $139,600 per month in financing costs associated with construction loans.
6.4 COST INFLATION
When a development is in the approvals process the costs associated with the construction of the building can increase. This includes the costs of both materials and labour.
6.4.1 Construction Cost Inflation
The construction costs of building typically increase over time. Over the Q1 2017 to Q3 2019 period, construction costs have increased by 11.8% for high-rise apartment buildings, 15.1% for single-detached homes, and 14.8% for townhouse units. This equates to an average monthly increase of between 0.34% and 0.42% per month, depending on the unit type. Each additional month that an application is in the municipal approvals process adds to project construction costs, for all unit types.
Based on the hard construction costs of a hypothetical high-density residential building, we were able to model the average monthly increase in construction costs as a result of municipal processing time - each additional month would add approximately $181,800 monthly in construction costs for a low-rise development and approximately $93,900 per month for a high-rise development.
6.4.2 Wage Inflation
Based on Statistics Canada data on wage rates by worker types, the hourly wage of various contractors involved in the construction of a building increase by an average of $1.21 per hour, per year. On a per month basis, this would be a $0.10 per hour increase for each contractor involved in the project.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 46 Page 109 September 2020
Figure 35 Average Hourly Wage, Select Construction Trades, 2013-2018
Crane Cement Total / Carpenter Operator Finisher Electrician Labourer Plumber Bricklayer Roofer Average Year Dollars per Hour Toronto CMA Sep-13 52.75 52.66 49.68 58.58 48.66 59.71 52.95 51.66 53.33 Sep-18 59.43 58.88 54.72 65.64 53.75 66.70 58.25 57.51 59.36
5-Year Increase 6.68 6.22 5.04 7.06 5.09 6.99 5.30 5.85 6.03
Average Monthly $ Increase 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.10 Average Monthly % Increase 0.20% 0.19% 0.16% 0.19% 0.17% 0.18% 0.16% 0.18% 0.18%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on CANSIM, Table 327-0003
Based on Altus Group’s model that estimates construction-related employment associated with residential developments, a 125-unit apartment building would generate 319 person-years of employment, which is equivalent to 319 persons working for an average of one year each (or 638 persons working for an average of 6 months each, etc.). For a low-rise development (of 75 single-detached and 50 townhouses), approximately 432 person-years of employment would be required.
Figure 36 Estimate of Additional Wage Costs per Month (Average), Toronto CMA Low -Rise High-Rise Person-Years Person-Years 432 319 Person-Months Person-Months 5,186 3,832 Dollars per Hour Average Monthly Increase in Hourly Wages 0.10 0.10 Dollars per Month Average Monthly Increase in Labour Costs 87,539 64,687
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Statistics Canada
Assuming each of these workers would be subject to a similar increase in wages evident from the Statistics Canada data, each additional month an application is subject to the municipal approvals process would add, on average, roughly $64,700 per month in additional labour costs to the high- rise project due to wage inflation. For the low-rise project, the additional wage inflation expected each month amounts to approximately $87,500.
6.5 CONCLUSIONS
Figure 37 combines the various elements modelled and estimates the total monthly cost to a developer / landowner for each month an application is within the development approvals process.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 47 Page 110 September 2020
Figure 37 Summary of Per Month Costs of Application and Approvals Process, Toronto CMA Estimates based on low -rise scenario and high-rise scenario (125 units each)
Carrying Increased Taxes on Cos ts of Municipal Construction Labour Cost Vacant Land Loans Charges Cost Inflation Inflation Total Development Scenario Dollars Low -Rise 735 139,571 46,027 181,798 87,539 455,669 High-Rise 2,290 90,564 24,371 93,854 64,687 275,766
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting
Overall, the estimated costs associated with each additional month a project is in the approvals process adds approximately $455,700 in costs per month for the hypothetical low-rise project, and $275,800 in costs per month for the hypothetical high-rise project. These costs equate to an additional $1.46 per buildable square foot per month for the low-rise project, and $2.21 per buildable square foot per month for the high-rise project.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 48 Page 111 September 2020
7 BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING MUNICIPAL PROCESSES
While our study is generally limited to the 18 municipalities, in this section of the report, which scans for best practices for improving municipal processes, we have allowed for the scan to include any community within Ontario that may be undertaking positive steps towards improvement to the municipal approval process.
It is important to note that development application timelines on decisions have recently been shortened under Bill 108. Municipalities will have to render decisions significantly more quickly in some cases. The benefit of these shortened timelines should result in not only better timelines for developers, but it will also create significant incentives for municipalities to re- examine their processes, workflow, technology, and organizational structures to find efficiencies and more effective ways of reviewing applications.
Figure 38 Planning Application Type Timelines Prior to Bill Timelines After Bill 108 108
Official Plan Amendment 210 Days 120 Days
Zoning By-law Amendment 150 Days 90 Days
Plan of Subdivision 180 Days 120 Days
Site Plan 30 Days 30 Days
7.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT INITIATIVES
7.1.1 City of Hamilton - Open for Business Initiative
The City of Hamilton started an Open for Business initiative, with one of the goals being to improve the City’s development application process. One of the identified solutions was for the City to review its draft plan of subdivision approval process, with the new process being enacted in early 2017.
One key change was making sequential processes into parallel processes, so the City allows applicants the option to have processes for minor variances, water service assessments, site plan approvals, engineering reviews and building permit applications run concurrently, with the caveat that some processes are still conditional on others, and a change in one may result in a re-submission being required. However, in the case of
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 49 Page 112 September 2020
resubmission, applications requiring only modest revisions receive priority processing.4
The City has also started issuing fewer circulation letters, instead opting for one standard consultation letter for all reviewing parties. The City has estimated that this change alone typically saves five business days for applicants.
The City found that prior to making the improvements to the subdivision approvals process, the average processing time from complete application to draft plan approval was 1,350 days (or approximately 44 months), with approximately half of that time related to City review, but the other half due to awaiting comments, permits or consents from ministries or regional agencies, as well as time taken by applicants responding to comments, or revising plans to address comments made. Within this period, the City found that it took an average of 187 days from receiving an application to provide an initial set of comments, and resolving comments required an average of 2 to 4 revisions to the submitted plans.
7.1.2 City of Brampton – Streamlining Development Application System
The City of Brampton is in the process of adopting a community planning permit system (“CPPS”) for the Queen Street East Precinct, which covers lands along the Queen Street East corridor from Highway 410 in the east to Etobicoke Creek in the west. The CPPS would merge the currently separate processes of rezoning, minor variance and site plan control into one process.
The objectives of the CPPS is to ‘front-end’ many of the required technical studies, meaning that once the CPPS is done, a developer only has to deal with site-specific issues, rather than larger-scale issues. This system is expected to significantly reduce the typical planning process timelines.5
7.1.3 City of Toronto End-to-End Review
The City of Toronto has commenced with an “End to End Review” of its development review process. As part of this review process, the City retained consultants that submitted a report to Council in the fall of 2019 which identified 31 systematic challenges that negatively impact development application outcomes in terms of efficiency, consistency, transparency, timeliness.6
In total, the KPMG report provides 20 recommendations on how the City Planning can improve its operational model and service delivery. An integral part of the proposed transformation is to replace the current “hub and spoke”
4 Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Reducing Business Burdens ……. 5 City of Brampton, Staff Report re: Queen Street Corridor Land Use Study, (Sept 27, 2019) 6 KPMG, End-to-End Review of the Development Review Process, (August 16,2019)
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 50 Page 113 September 2020
system, where a community planner solicits comments from other colleagues and departments, as this creates divisional conflict and disperses accountability. The proposed new system is based on a multi-disciplinary team model where there are team members representing various departments that collaboratively work on development applications together.
Within the KPMG report, there are various proposals geared towards operationalizing the new transformational model. These include but are not limited to:
Establish a formal mechanism to identify and accelerate applications with City-wide significance; Shift specialized work to specialized teams to enhance system capacity; Adopt a standard, City-wide approach to the use of guidelines and draft policies, and make that approach publicly available; Establish circulation limits and automatic escalation to reduce application timelines and incentivize collaboration; Establish a new, senior-level, Business Transformation Lead reporting to the Chief Planner with interdivisional accountability for the development review process; Modernize the existing application workflow and management system; Improve online application tracking to enhance transparency and improve customer service; Improve the availability of development review-related information and data to enhance application quality; Enhance transparency and consistency by defining stakeholder roles and developing standard operating procedures; Improve project management-related tools and techniques to empower multidisciplinary teams; and Modernize performance measures and adopt a review mechanism to monitor their on-going effectiveness.
Many of the recommendations can be categorized within the ‘buckets’ of technology improvement, project management enabled team collaboration, operational standardization, and stakeholder communication improvements.
The KPMG report placed a lot of emphasis on improving communications and information transfer between applicant and planning staff and between staff. Improved communication was also deemed important to create consistent operational standards to enhance predictability, transparency, and accountability.
As of July 2020, this initiative has led to the establishment of the “Concept to Keys” team that is focusing on improving the development review process, by
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 51 Page 114 September 2020
consulting with customers on the nature and quality of the interactions they’ve had with the City. The insights yielded are being used to help drive improvements to process and operationalizing technology.
7.1.4 City of Burlington – Cutting Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force
In early 2019, the Mayor of Burlington assembled a “Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force” that spent 5 months collecting insights and ideas from the City’s business community, partner organizations, and staff. This resulted in a report submitted to council in the fall of 2019 with 22 recommendations to improve department operations and customer service.
The recommendations include the establishment of a Chief Business Development position at City Hall to deal with outreach and expediting applications, as well as, the creation of key performance indicators (“KPI”). In addition, the City hired consultants to take a deep dive into service delivery and functional improvements of various departments, including the development application process. The review looked at the site plan approval and building permit issuance stages of the process for infill development, both multi-residential and non-residential types.
The report highlighted that as part of a building permit issuance process, applicants require both a zoning clearance and grading/drainage certificate before they apply for a permit. 7 This process came about due to streamlining efforts that were in reaction to Bill 124 (2005) that required a decision on a building permit to be issued within 10 business days. As of part of the certificate process, there is an aspirational target of having these completed in 5 to 7 days, before the 10-day building permit process begins.
Despite there being many interwoven technical issues that are addressed in both certificate processes, each can be applied for separately. As well, often an applicant will require a tree clearance permit, but this is almost never applied for at the same time as the other certificates, notwithstanding there being an interplay between the zoning, tree preservation, and the building permit bylaws. The report noted that many applicants are unaware of the relationship between these processes and the City’s website does not sufficiently highlight them.
Other issues noted in the report include an organizational design that is not optimally designed for an efficient certificate review process with staff currently working on a “best effort” timeframe.
7 Performance Concepts Consulting & Dillion Consulting, City of Burlington Service Delivery Reviews Technical Report, (December 19th, 2019).
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 52 Page 115 September 2020
The report notes that there is consensus of four “best practices” emerging within the Greater Golden Horseshoe with regards to the site plan approval process. They are:
1. Mandatory pre-consultation meetings between applicants and city staff – this ensures that when applications are submitted, they are of a high-quality “complete” nature. 2. Zero-tolerance rule regarding the acceptance of incomplete application submissions – incomplete applications waste finite municipal staff resources that could be used on complete applications. 3. E-portal and workflow software implementation – helps staff organize and track applications, as well as communications internally and externally with the applicant. 4. Delegated site plan approval to senior City staff – allows for timelines to be compressed while continuing to be democratically accountable with more controversial applications being elevated to the attention of Council.
Unlike other jurisdictions, Burlington already allows for staff delegation of site plan approval, as it is estimated to save an estimated 50 to 60 days from the usual approval process. However, further improvements in this regard would be to continue the default processing rule with as few escalations to council as possible.
Currently, the vast majority of Burlington’s progress on the recommendations established by the task force and consultants report have an “in-progress” status. The municipality is currently only in the early stages of this project, it is expected that it will take some time before implementation is complete.
7.1.5 City of Kawartha Lakes – Planning Approvals Task Force
The City of Kawartha Lakes has been experiencing a steady and significant increase the demand for development planning staff usage, such as a 35% increase pre-consultation meetings between 2016 and 2017. In early 2017, City Council adopted a series of recommendations by the Planning Approvals Task Force, which was setup to help improve application processing and business engagement.
A common complaint from stakeholders was a perceived lack of customer service by planning staff with the perception of negative or adversarial attitudes towards applicants, especially those with lesser knowledge of the building process. To rectify this issue, staff were required to take customer service training, and standards were created in operational processes, such as returning phone and emails within 2 business days or general inquires within business 5 days. Even if staff were not able to deal with an inquiry due
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 53 Page 116 September 2020
to resource limitations, they were encouraged to engage with the stakeholder so that they know the message has been received.
In addition to interpersonal operational improvements, the task force identified other types of resources to help improve operations. This included the creation of report requirement checklists and processing cost outlines to be provided to applicants during pre-consultation meetings.
In the summer the 2017, the City implemented new software called “Cityworks”, which allows staff to digitally store all information on properties, including the ability to track applications. While this tracker is not made available to the public yet, the software allows any staff member to view the application and answer general inquiry questions rather than requiring the specific planner on the file’s attention, enabling a more efficient division of labour and a better use of staff time.
In addition to providing staff with new internal technological capabilities, the City embarked on a rebuild of their municipal website to facilitate better communication. This new portal was completed in July 2017 and includes features such as development guides, checklists, and the ability to examine a properties official plan land-use designation or zoning within a dedicated page.
Finally, the municipality also examined the possibility of expanding the power of the Director of Development Services with the ability to approve subdivision agreements after a council has permitted a Draft Plan Approval. However, staff found an LPAT case related to this process and recommended back to council that they continue to have oversight on the execution of subdivision agreements. 8 At this time, the Director only has the ability to provide site plan approvals.
7.2 THEMES EMERGING FROM PROCESS REVIEWS
There are several key themes involved in the process reviews underway, or recently completed
Improving the Application Process Requires a Continuous Improvement Plan.
There is no single ‘fix-all’ that will improve development application processes other than through continuous examination and refinement. This requires a first step of identifying and standardizing as many processes as possible to foster an environment of consistency, accountability, and transparency. Standardization can involve creating simple rules such as the timeframes within which staff must respond to inquiries, or it can become as complex as creating templates for development application comments. Once processes
8 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, formerly known as the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”)
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 54 Page 117 September 2020
have a baseline standardization, they can then be tracked and examined under the lens of a key performance indicator (“KPI”) and from there be improved upon.
Miscommunication Creates Conflicts that Lead to Delays
The development application process requires the transfer of information not just between a single developer and the planner on the file. The process includes many different staff members in various departments for both the applicant and the municipality, as well as, outside consultants and other stakeholders like council members. It is important to examine information flows and how best to minimize potential areas of miscommunication, such as not knowing if an inquiry was received.
Strategies to deal with this include providing a one-window portal that can be accessed either internally or externally to track developments, the creation of checklists and other materials that can be retrieved before a pre-consultation and are provided during the meeting, having a website with up-to-date information with detailed explanations of processes and other features like property data, contact information, online submission forms or payment options, etc.
Pay Close Attention to Workflows and Team Composition
How municipal staff deal with development applications affects how long it takes to process. There is no one correct organizational structure that can be implemented, however, many larger municipalities are finding a multi- disciplinary team-based approach is more effective in dealing with large volumes of very complex applications rather than a “hub and spoke” model. Regardless of the ultimate model used, careful attention should be paid to conflicts and redundancy in the workflow process.
Empower Staff with More Delegated Powers
Many municipalities are looking at ways to transfer approval authority to senior planning staff. This allows councils more to focus attention on difficult files, while allowing less complex applications to be fast-tracked. Providing an applicant with the ability to appeal a decision from staff to council ensures that applicants are still able to maintain accountability for their projects, even when approval authority is delegated outside of the municipal Council.
Reduce Required Statutory Processes Where Possible
Pre-zoning systems are a tool that some municipalities have implemented but many others have not. There is a potential to significantly improve the overall development process by using this tool, and minimizing the effort and technical studies required to bring an application forward.
Have a Staff Member That “Owns” Transformation and Outreach
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 55 Page 118 September 2020
While costly, many municipalities are creating senior-level positions that while not part of the direct development application process, have oversight and interactions with other staff members involved in the development review process. This provides another contact point between applicants and municipal staff that can help identify, escalate, and solve major problems in a timely manner and more importantly, prevent a similar problem from arising again in the future by transforming processes where needed.
Improvements are Limited Without Technology
There are many software packages that municipalities are using to help with internal project tracking and workflow management. These software packages can allow for more standardized project management-based team collaboration, so staff can focus more time on value-added tasks, such as examining the proposed grading of a building, instead of more administrative tasks, like dealing with minor inquiries or spending time trying to find a paper copy of a file that would be more readily accessible with an electronic file management system.
While the trend of adopting internally-oriented technology tools is apparent in many municipalities, most municipalities have yet to adopt external-facing tools. The benefit of this technology and things such as e-portals, is that they can provide a convenient access point for application submissions or fee payments, as well as, reduce delays associated with intake.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 56 Page 119 September 2020
8 CONCLUSIONS
Based on a review of municipal planning processes, planning features, government charges, and other elements of research undertaken into the studied municipalities, there are several overarching findings about how municipalities compare, and recommendations for municipalities.
8.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Figure 39 summarizes the findings from the three major elements studied that feed into housing affordability – getting housing approved, ensuring approvals are done in an expedient manner, and government charges that get borne by buyers/renters.
Overall, the municipalities of Barrie, Burlington and Oakville rank atop the list, with all three municipalities having top-6 ranks in each of the categories. The largest municipalities by population among those studied (Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Markham, Vaughan) all rank on an overall basis no higher than 10th.
Figure 39 Overall Scorecard - Planning Features, Government Charges, Approvals Timelines
Score Planning Government Approvals (Average Features Charges Timelines Rank) Rank rank (1=best) rank (1=lowest) rank (1=best) lower=better Barrie 2 3 5 3.3 1 Burlington 2 6 3 3.7 2 Oakville 2 9 4 5.0 3 Clarington 7 1 9 5.7 4 Oshaw a 16 5 1 7.3 5 Pickering 11 2 10 7.7 6 Innisfil 15 7 2 8.0 7 Milton 7 10 n.a 8.5 8 Whitby 16 4 7 9.0 9 Toronto 1 14 15 10.0 10 Vaughan 6 17 8 10.3 11 Mississauga 9 11 13 11.0 12 Brampton 5 15 14 11.3 13 Richmond Hill 11 13 11 11.7 14 Caledon 9 12 16 12.3 15 Aurora 11 16 12 13.0 16 BWG 14 8 17 13.0 16 Markham 18 18 6 14.0 18
Note: Government Charges based on average of low -rise and high-rise scenarios, as measured by government charges as % of housing prices Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 57 Page 120 September 2020
8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.2.1 Need for Increased Transparency and Simplicity
Many municipalities do not have clear development guidelines or application checklists. An even greater number of municipalities not provide specific terms of reference for required technical studies and reports.
Increasing transparency and specificity surrounding application requirements is a proactive, and relatively easy way to cut down on incomplete application submissions and reduce the number of resubmissions required.
8.2.2 Delegate More Approval Authority to Staff and Officials
That development approvals can be delayed because of issues with timing of municipal committee or council meetings is a potentially avoidable issue for some applications. Staff should be given the authority to assess and approve applications that broadly meet official plan requirements but need additional zoning changes, where those zoning changes are within the bounds of permitted discretion for the delegated authority. This can be done through increased use of development permit systems, or other forms of delegated authority. This can reduce council workloads and can eliminate unnecessary political interference in applications that meet the intent and policies of municipal plans.
8.2.3 Use of Technology
Its important that municipalities invest in more advanced development tracking software, and potentially gradually phase-in online development submission systems. The changes to municipal development submission
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 58 Page 121 September 2020
systems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic will be an important first step in getting e-portal systems acceptance on a broad scale.
Technology can be a critical component in improving development approval timelines by supporting improved workflows, transparency, and creating a more collaborative environment within and across planning and related municipal departments involved in the development application review process.
BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 59 Page 122 Attachment 2 to Report PSD-047-20
BILD Municipal Benchmarking Project Study Overview
DURHAM REGION / SIMCOE October 29, 2020
1
Page 123 Study Objective
How are municipal processes, fees, and charges contributing to housing affordability issues in the Greater Toronto Area?
2 altusgroup.com
Page 124 Changes in Absorbed Single-Detached Housing Prices 2006-2018
Percent Change 450% Tripling+ 416% High-Rise Price Index (GTA): 400% 2006: $314,370 350% 2018: $774,554 Doubling+ Change: +146%
300% 288% 257%
250% 241% 198%
200% 188% 175% 153% 150% 126% 124% 119% 113% 96% 92% 87%
100% 83% 65% 50% 17% 0%
Source: CMHC Housing Now, 2006 and 2018, Year-End, Absorbed Single-Detached Housing Prices 3 altusgroup.com
Page 125 Overview of Study Methodology and Results
4
Page 126 Major Elements of Study
• Demographic and Other Municipal Data
• Population, dwelling units by type, tenure
• Housing starts
• Migration
• Municipal staffing levels • Government Charges Analysis
• DCs
• Parkland CIL
• Section 37
• Planning / Permit Fees • Timelines Analysis
• Average timelines for municipal approvals
• Costs of delay ($ / sf / month)
5 altusgroup.com
Page 127 Interpretation of Results
Included in the Rankings Not Included in the Rankings
• Municipal charges • LPAT timelines
• Planning tools, features • Servicing constraints
• Transparency and availability of information needed to meet • Community opposition application requirements • Complexity of development (large developments, • Approvals timelines infill, brownfields, etc.)
• May be above average due to sound work processes, having sufficient staffing resources, etc. These are factors largely in a municipality’s control While these are significant and very real factors, they are often outside of a municipality’s control, and so were not A high ranking means that absent other factors (see list to factored into the ‘rankings’. the right), a solid foundation is otherwise in place to positively impact the ability of affordably priced, timely housing to be approved / built.
6 altusgroup.com
Page 128 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis) Change in Housing Starts by Structure Type GTA Study Municipalities, 2010-2019, by 5-Year Period
GTA (excl. City of Toronto) City of Toronto 100% 100% 2010-2014 2015-2019 2010-2014 2015-2019 90% 90%
80% 80% 90.2% 89.3% 70% 70%
60% 60%
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 45.4% 30% 38.8%
20% 34.3% 20% 25.9%
10% 23.0%
10% 6.3% 20.4% 3.3% 8.4% 4.0% 1.0% 0% 0% 6.3% 0.4% 3.0% Singles Semis Row Apt Singles Semis Row Apt 7 altusgroup.com
Page 129 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis)
Change in Share of Rental Tenure Housing Starts by Municipality 2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019
60% 55% 2010-2014 2014-2019 50% GTA lacking new rental supply 45% (only Toronto & Oshawa > 10%) 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%
10% 8.7%
5% 3.6% 0%
8 altusgroup.com
Page 130 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis) Sources of Migration, Greater Toronto Area, 2009/10 – 2018/19
800,000 709,924
600,000 Overall Net Change: +694,946 persons (doesn’t include births/deaths)
400,000 Domestic flows in/out
207,874 200,000
0 -653
-200,000 International flows in/out -222,199
-400,000 International Immigration (net) Non-Permanent Residents (net) Interprovincial Migration (net) Intraprovincial Migration (net) Students, temporary In/out of Ontario from In/out of GTA to/from workers, etc. other Provinces other parts of Ontario 9 altusgroup.com
Page 131 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis) Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019, Durham Region 2,500 Number of Persons 2,269
2,000 1,731
1,500 1,272
1,000
500
122 60 0 -43 -207 -192 -500 0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
10 altusgroup.com
Page 132 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis) Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019, Simcoe County 2,500 Number of Persons
2,001 2,000
1,574 1,500
1,117 1,103 1,004 1,000
512 500 462 245
0 0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
11 altusgroup.com
Page 133 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis) Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019, Peel Region 3,000 Number of Persons
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000 -541 -1,179 -2,000 -1,981 -2,239 -2,457 -3,000 -2,730 -3,257 -4,000
-5,000 -5,152 -6,000 0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
12 altusgroup.com
Page 134 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis) Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019, York Region 3,000 Number of Persons
2,500
2,000 1,718 1,500
1,000
500 39 0 -115 -500 -258
-1,000 -936 -1,088 -1,027 -1,500 -1,360
-2,000 0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
13 altusgroup.com
Page 135 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis) Intraprovincial Migration by Age Group, 2018-2019, Halton Region 2,000 Number of Persons
1,667
1,500 1,359
1,000 852
500
62 37 0
-302 -500 -401 -362
-1,000 0-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
14 altusgroup.com
Page 136 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis) Intraprovincial Migration, Age Group 25-44, 2018-2019, Greater Toronto Area
4,000 3,003 3,118 2,211 2,000
0
-2,000 -1,321
-4,000
-6,000
-8,000 -7,133
-10,000
-12,000 -12,131 -14,000 Halton Peel Toronto York Durham Simcoe
15 altusgroup.com
Page 137 Findings (Demographic & Statistical Analysis)
Municipal Planning Employees per 1,000 Housing Starts Employees per 1,000 Housing Starts 160 143 Canada Average (excl. GTA): 58 140 GTA Average: 75
120 104 98 97 100 93 88 82 86 80 80 76 77 80 74 71 71 71 69 66 69 57 60 53 57 57 59 60 53 49 40 42 41 41 35 40 30 21 20
0
Note: employee counts are FTE, and include community planning, urban design, building departments. Does not include departments such as transportation, engineering, etc. 16 altusgroup.com
Page 138 Methodology – Government Charges
• Municipal charges imposed on new housing development
• Includes the following municipal charges:
• Development Charges,
• Planning Fees,
• Density Bonusing,
• Parkland CIL, etc.
• Does not include provincial / federal charges (sales taxes, mortgage insurance, etc.)
• Modelling based on two hypothetical developments scenarios:
• Low-Rise Scenario: 125 ground-related units (75 single-detached, 50 townhouses)
• High-Rise Scenario: 125 unit condominium apartment building
17 altusgroup.com
Page 139 Changes in Development Charge Rates, by Municipality, 2009-2019
Percent Change 600% 521% 500%
400%
300% 264% 221%
200% 198% 141% 137% 135% 133% 130% 126% 125%
100% 97% 69% 59% 54% 27% 23% 11% 0%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Municipal DC by-laws and pamphlets 18 altusgroup.com
Page 140 Findings (Municipal Charges – Low-Rise)
19 altusgroup.com
Page 141 Findings (Municipal Charges – High-Rise)
20 altusgroup.com
Page 142 Findings (Municipal Charges)
Low-Rise Average Per Unit As % of Housing Price
Canadian Average (excl. GTA) $33,600 5.0% GTA Average $93,700 9.7% Durham Region municipal avg. $69,400 8.7%
High-Rise Average Per Unit As % of Housing Price
Canadian Average (excl. GTA) $20,600 4.1% GTA Average $57,800 10.7% Durham Region municipal avg. $37,300 7.5%
21 altusgroup.com
Page 143 Findings (Municipal Charges)
Low-Rise Average Per Unit As % of Housing Price
Canadian Average (excl. GTA) $33,600 5.0% GTA Average $93,700 9.7% Simcoe municipal avg. $70,700 9.8%
High-Rise Average Per Unit As % of Housing Price
Canadian Average (excl. GTA) $20,600 4.1% GTA Average $57,800 10.7% Simcoe municipal avg. $38,900 8.7%
22 altusgroup.com
Page 144 Findings (Process)
Feature CHBA Study BILD Study Ability to appeal land use decisions X Mandated timelines for appeal decisions X Triggering of appeal rights after certain number of days X Timed review of preliminary submissions / declaration of complete X submission Online application portal XX Development guide showing required studies for various types of XX applications Clear terms of reference for required studies XX Requirement to review Municipal Plans on regular basis X Requirement for a minimum supply of designated and/or serviced lands X Have development application status tracker XX Online zoning information portal XX
23 altusgroup.com
Page 145 Findings (Best Practices)
Some municipalities are undertaking reviews of their development application and related processes. Key themes/directions emerging from reviews (CHBA/BILD reports): • Pre-zoning systems (community planning permits) to help reduce required processes; • Delegated approval authority for certain ‘obvious’ applications; • Simplifying/combining certain planning amendment processes; • Increasing transparent and predictability of application process;
• Improved customer service
• Improved communication regarding application requirements • Since COVID-19, have seen numerous municipalities move to online application submission
24 altusgroup.com
Page 146 Methodology - Municipal Processes and Approvals
Review of Municipal Processes • How long are typical municipal approvals taking?
• Created database of recent development approvals for each municipality
• We collected almost 1,500 recently approved developments (between CHBA and BILD studies), with significant samples for most municipalities (including 680 in GTA)
• Each approval was categorized by type of approval (zoning, subdivision, site plan, etc.), type of development (low-density, high-density) to allow for more refined analysis
• Start: Date of Complete Application / Finish: Date of Municipal Approval
• Doesn’t include timelines for refused applications, or timelines for applications ultimately approved by courts/tribunals (those some of those are sampled separately), etc.
• Doesn’t include timelines for initial land designation, pre-submission, building permit stages, etc.
25 altusgroup.com
Page 147 Findings (Approval Timelines)
Regina Calgary Hamilton Halifax Charlottetown Surrey Delta Ottawa Saskatoon Vancouver Burnaby London Edmonton St. John’s Winnipeg
4 months 8 months 12 months 16 months 20 months 24 months 28 months 32 months
Oshawa Markham Brampton Innisfil Whitby Toronto Burlington Vaughan Caledon Oakville Clarington BWG Barrie Pickering Richmond Hill
Aurora 26 altusgroup.com Mississauga
Page 148 Preliminary Findings (BILD Study - Timelines)
• Timelines for Municipal Approvals by Type of Application
Overall GTA Range of Durham Region Average Municipal Municipal Averages Averages (Low-High) Official Plan Amendments 16 months 8-37 months 12 months Zoning By-law Amendments 15 months 9-25 months 12 months Plan of Subdivision 15 months 7-25 months 13 months Plan of Condominium 9 months 8-14 months 11 months Site Plan 18 months 12-30 months 14 months
27 altusgroup.com
Page 149 Preliminary Findings (BILD Study - Timelines)
• Timelines for Municipal Approvals by Type of Application
Overall GTA Range of Simcoe Average Municipal Municipal Averages Averages (Low-High) Official Plan Amendments 16 months 8-37 months 19 months Zoning By-law Amendments 15 months 9-25 months 13 months Plan of Subdivision 15 months 7-25 months 16 months Plan of Condominium 9 months 8-14 months 8 months Site Plan 18 months 12-30 months 18 months
28 altusgroup.com
Page 150 Findings (Approval Timelines)
• Gaining approval from LPAT (including time for municipality to make decision) takes just under double the time it takes to gain municipal approval
*Above table presents averages for all GTA municipalities
29 altusgroup.com
Page 151 Findings (Costs of Delay)
• Estimated the following indirect costs: Additional Costs • Taxes payable on vacant land per Month (per sf) • Increases to municipal charges and fees
• Carrying costs of loans (interest costs)
• Construction cost / labour wage inflation Low-Rise $1.46 / sf / month • Put indirect costs on a ‘per month’ basis to allow for scalability of estimates
• Used two hypothetical scenarios, one low- High-Rise $2.21 / sf / month rise, one high-rise
• Same scenarios as Municipal Charges analysis
30 altusgroup.com
Page 152 Overall Findings
• Combined Ranking - combination of rankings for Rank: Planning Features planning features, government charges and approval Rank: Government Charges timelines • Potential subsequent studies will allow for time-series Rank: Approvals Timelines analysis of how things are changing (improving or deteriorating) Overall Score Note: rankings include things municipalities can control (municipal charges, planning tools, approval timelines), and do not include many things they do not necessarily control (LPAT timelines, servicing constraints, community Durham Region BILD Study Rank CHBA Study Rank opposition). Municipalities (out of 23) (out of 35) Clarington #4 #14 Therefore, rankings should be thought of as the “potential” municipalities have to ensure an Oshawa #5 #21 affordably priced housing supply to meet housing Pickering #6 #18 demand, if other potential impediments were not present Whitby #9 #27
*Note – relative rankings may differ slightly between two studies due to different elements31 altusgroup.com considered in planning feature scoring across the two studies
Page 153 Overall Findings
• Combined Ranking - combination of rankings for Rank: Planning Features planning features, government charges and approval Rank: Government Charges timelines • Potential subsequent studies will allow for time-series Rank: Approvals Timelines analysis of how things are changing (improving or deteriorating) Overall Score Note: rankings include things municipalities can control (municipal charges, planning tools, approval timelines), and do not include many things they do not necessarily control (LPAT timelines, servicing constraints, community Simcoe BILD Study Rank CHBA Study Rank opposition). Municipalities (out of 23) (out of 35) Barrie #1 #4 Therefore, rankings should be thought of as the “potential” municipalities have to ensure an Innisfil #7 #23 affordably priced housing supply to meet housing BWG #16 #33 demand, if other potential impediments were not present
32 altusgroup.com
Page 154 Thank You
Questions / Comments
33
Page 155
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: November 16, 2020 Report Number: PSD-048-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: PLN 7.23 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Update to Site Plan Control By-law Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-048-20 be received;
2. That the By-law attached to Report PSD-048-20, as Attachment 2, be approved; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-048-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Page 156 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PSD-048-20
Report Overview
The purpose of this report is to update the Municipality of Clarington’s Site Plan Control By- law 2010-139 regarding the delegated signing authority as a result of the recent organizational and position name changes.
1. Background and Discussion
1.1 The Planning and Development Services Department administers the site plan approval process. The current delegated authority is to the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Engineering Services as provided in By-law 2010-139. Currently, the site plan approval letter to an applicant and stamping of drawings have two signatures.
1.2 With the creation of a new Public Works Department it became evident that the delegated authority required updating by revising the Site Plan Control By-law 2010- 139.
1.3 Currently there is a review process set out in the site plan procedure manual. A revised procedure has been drafted to include sign off by the Public Works Department much in the same manner as occurred previously. Staff have agreed that it would streamline the process to have the final approval by the Director of Planning and Development Services, based on the process in Attachment 1.
1.4 Prior to stamping drawings, written concurrence will be provided by the Manager of Development Engineering to the Director of Planning and Development Services. This will be done in consultation with the Director of Public Works as required.
1.5 This change in procedure is based on what occurs during the drawings and conditions review between the two departments. Communication between the two departments is ongoing regarding the status of drawings that are under review. Revisions by the applicant are required prior to the drawings being ready for approval. There is no risk this minor change in procedure will complicate the approval process or change the quality of approved drawings, rather it will help with efficiency.
1.6 To recognize the changes that have occurred with the reorganization, it is necessary to update Site Plan Control By-law by revising the Director of Engineering Services involvement is signing off on the conditions and drawings. Staff have taken the opportunity to review the process and recommend the delegated authority rest with the Director of Planning and Development Services.
Page 157 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-048-20 2. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Director of Public Works and the Director of Legislative Services who concur with the recommendations. 3. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that the Planning and Development Committee approve the by-law to amend the Site Plan Control By-law included as Attachment 2.
Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services, 905- 623-3379 ext 2407 [email protected].
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Excerpt of the Procedure for Site Plan, regarding sign-off
Attachment 2 - Amendment to By-law 2010-139
Interested Parties:
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Page 158 Attachment 1 to Report PSD-048-20
5. Issuing Site Plan Approval
5.1 Site Plan Approval can be issued with conditions requiring the concurrence of the applicant or if the application is minor and has limited conditions Site Plan Approval can be issued without the concurrence of the applicant.
a) Site Plan Approval with Sign Back
i) Once all comments have been addressed, the Planner will prepare proposed Conditions of Site Plan Approval “SPA 7 – Circulation Complete with Sign Back” for review by the Manager and the Manager of Development Engineering. The template provides standard conditions that will generally apply to all applications; however, depending on the details of the development, site specific conditions may be required or some omitted.
ii) The Planner forwards the proposed Conditions of Site Plan Approval to the applicant and awaits concurrence from the applicant. The applicant has one (1) month to provide the sign back letter.
iii) Once the sign back is received, the Planner shall advise the applicant that a total of two full sized sets of the drawings are required for stamping and circulation. The Planner must ensure that the drawings are revised in accordance with the “SPA 7 - Circulation Complete with Sign Back” letter.
iv) Following receipt of the final drawings prepare “SPA 8 – Site Plan Approval Final”. (Note that this letter simply has the word “PROPOSED” removed).
v) Prepare the drawings and final conditions of approval for signature by the Director of Planning and Development Services and the Manager of Development Engineering. Each drawing is folded leaving 1 inch of the left margin as single-ply for binding purposes.
vi) The Planner provides one set of drawings and Site Plan Approval letter to the applicable Manager accompanied by a covering memo “SPA 9 – Director’s Sign Drawing Memo”. The Manager will forward to the Manager of Development Engineering, with a cc: to the Director of Public Works, for final review and signature.
vii) The Manager of Development Engineering shall initial and return the memo and the set of drawings to the Director of Planning and Development Services/Administrative Assistant. A space is provided on the Memo for the Director of Planning and Development Director’s sign-off.
Page 159 Attachment 1 to Report PSD-048-20 viii) The drawings and Site Plan Approval memo with clearances from the Director of Planning and Development Services, and the Manager Development Engineering will be returned to the Administrative Assistant. At the Administrative Assistant’s cue, the Planner will work with the Administrative Assistant to ensure the necessary copies of drawings and conditions are stamped and dated accordingly.
ix) Once stamped, the Administrative Assistant shall return the drawings and letter to the Planner. The Planner shall prepare “SPA 10 – Site Plan Approval Letter”. Provide one full set of drawings, a copy of Site Plan Approval letter to the applicant.
Page 160 Attachment 2 to Report PSD-048-20
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law 2020-xxx
Being a by-law to amend By-law 2010-139, being a by-law to designate the Municipality of Clarington as a site plan control area, to define classes of development that may be undertaken without the approval of certain plans and drawings and to delegate the approval authority.
Whereas, arising out of Report PDS-048-20, Council deems it necessary to make changes to the delegation of site plan approval authority;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. That Section 6 of By-law 2010-139 be amended by deleting the following words:
“Director of Planning Services and the Director of Engineering Services”
and replacing them with the following words:
“Director of Planning and Development Services”;
2. This by-law shall take effect on the date of passing.
Passed in Open Council this _____ day of ______, 2020.
______Adrian Foster, Mayor
______C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk
Page 161
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: November 16, 2020 Report Number: PSD-049-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: S-C-2017-0005 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Street Names in Foster Northwest Neighbourhood, Newcastle Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-049-20 be received;
2. That the street names proposed for the Foster Northwest Neighbourhood development, as outlined in Report PSD-049-20, be approved; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-049-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Page 162 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PSD-049-20
Report Overview
This report recommends Council approve names of new streets in the Foster Northwest Subdivision in Newcastle. Nearly all new street names follow the Municipality’s War Dead and War Veteran Names for Streets policy, though there has been exceptions. In this case, the names are meant to honour a war veteran, and local settler and First Nations history. These names have been approved by Durham Region.
1. Background
Street Naming Policy
1.1 The War Dead and War Veteran Names for Streets policy was approved by Council on May 29, 2001 and has been updated on June 26, 2006, March 25, 2008, and April 16, 2012. This policy encourages the Municipality of Clarington to use war dead and war veterans’ names within plans of subdivision. This policy has been followed for nearly all new public streets within plans of subdivision. Previous exceptions have been made in special circumstances.
Historical Significance of Area
1.2 The Foster Northwest Subdivision (S-C-2017-0005) was draft approved on September 27, 2019. In the summer of 2018, discussions began regarding honouring the history of the area. Along with conserving the historic Belmont House and Newcastle Fish Hatchery, this honouring would acknowledge the First Nations who fished and hunted in the area via the naming of parks and/or streets and other interpretative features.
1.3 Street names represent cultural values and have a vital significance to people’s sense of belonging and feeling at home. Names that reflect the local history help to define and create a sense of place, fostering civic pride, and a connection to community.
Developing a List of Potential Street Names
1.4 After ongoing discussions between Planning staff and staff at D.G. Biddle and Associates (the owner’s agents) about potential street names, in January 2020, Planning staff provided a list of possible street names based on the Environmental Impact Study which identified various plant and animal species in the area.
1.5 In August of 2020, the owner’s agent in consultation with the owner provided a list of potential street names drawn from settler history in the area, including a war veteran name, one name was intended to honour the First Nations history.
Page 163 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-049-20 1.6 Staff consulted with Myno Van Dyke of the Newcastle Village and District Historical Society, John Greenfield of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 178, Chief Dave Mowat from Alderville First Nation, Tom Cowie from Hiawatha First Nation, and Cathy Richards of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation.
1.7 Some contacts provided specific name suggestions while others offered more general advice and comments. The list of possible street names was further winnowed down to meet the Region of Durham requirements. 2. Proposed Streets
Proposed Street Names
2.1 After consultation and review, the following names are proposed for the Foster Northwest subdivision:
Grady Drive Flood Avenue Belmont Drive Jacob Crane Drive Salmon Crescent Ziibi Way Northrop Avenue Ed Ewert Avenue Alex Knott Drive
Proposed Layout of Streets
2.2 Clarington’s Traffic Coordinator from the Pubic Works Department reviewed the draft plan of subdivision of Foster Northwest and determined where naming was necessary. These decisions are reflected in the proposed map (see Figure 1).
Page 164 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PSD-049-20
Figure 1 – Proposed Street Names
Background on Proposed Names
Grady Drive and Flood Avenue
2.3 Grady Drive and Flood Avenue currently exist to the east of the proposed subdivision. These streets would be extended into the Foster Northwest subdivision and maintain the same name for continuity and clarity.
Belmont
2.4 Belmont Drive recognizes the central importance of the Historic Belmont House (Samuel Wilmot’s 19th century family home) which is being preserved in the park in the northwest area of the subdivision. Belmont Drive will see single detached dwellings that back onto the park. From Regional Highway 2, Belmont Drive will be the main street to
Page 165 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PSD-049-20 enter the subdivision. Durham Region approved the name on the condition that addressing have a numbering sequence 100 or above.
Jacob Crane
2.4 Jacob Crane was a Chief of the Scugog Mississaugas in the mid-1800s. He appeared as Chief in the 1851 and 1861 censuses. Chief Crane helped his people navigate the rapidly changing conditions by moving to Mud Lake (also known as Chemong Lake at present-day Curve Lake First Nation Reserve) and then back to Lake Scugog where, with their own money, purchased an 800 acre parcel of land. Naming a large and central street after Jacob Crane is intended to honour the First Nations history of the area.
Salmon
2.5 Salmon Crescent is proposed to be the crescent closest to the area where various First Nations fished for salmon and the later historic Wilmot fish hatchery that originally operated out of the basement of Belmont House. The intention of this name is to honour both settler and First Nations history in the immediate area.
Ziibi
2.6 Ziibi (pronounced zee-bee) is an Ojibwe word that translates as ‘river.’ Ojibwe, the fifth transformation of the ancient Algonquian dialect, was the traditional language of the Mississauga Anishinaabeg (Michi Saagiig).
2.7 Along with ziibi, Tom Cowie of Hiawatha First Nation also suggested wiigwaasikaa (many birch), mitigokaa (many trees), and agaaming (on the other side of a body of water).
2.8 Dave Mowat from Alderville First Nation suggested niigaani-gichigami, which translates as ‘leading lake’ (Lake Ontario is the lead lake in the chain of the five great lakes). Jiigi- zaaga'igan (translated as ‘by the lake’) was also suggested.
2.9 Using a word from the First Nations language helps people learn the dialect, even if it is one fairly simple word. Clearly the intention of this name is to honour the First Nations history of the area.
Northrop
2.10 Henry Northrop was a partner in the drug manufacturing company Northrop & Lyman. The land owner of the subdivision originally suggested ‘Lyman’ as a street name, but history shows Northrop to be the more prominent and deserving of a street name. The company Northrop & Lyman began their business in 1854 in Newcastle with a retail store and wholesale outlet. It remained a company until about 1980.
Page 166 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PSD-049-20 2.11 Northrop & Lyman were once one of the biggest dealers in patent medicine and became well known due to innumerable containers, glass bottles and other materials emblazoned with their trademark name.
2.12 Including his first name “Henry” in the street name is not ideal because there are safety concerns with more than one similar sounding street name in Clarington. Naming a street ‘Northrop’ honours the settler history and spirit of entrepreneurship in Newcastle. Staff suggest that Lyman be reserved for the draft approved Plan of Subdivisions in North Newcastle Neighbourhood.
Ed Ewert
2.13 Doctor Edwin Ewert, who went by Ed, was a Captain in the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps in World War Two. He served overseas in Europe as a doctor treating wounded soldiers. He was then Chief of Staff at Bowmanville Memorial Hospital and then had a private practice. He lived in Newcastle in the harbour area. He died January 18, 2007. If his name is approved he would be entitled to a Veterans Street Name Sign.
Alex Knott
2.14 Alex Knott was from the Curve Lake First Nation and held the hunting rights to a large plot of land that encompassed roughly the eastern quarter of the Former Township of Darlington and the western quarter of the Former Township of Clarke. This included the land being developed into the subdivision. The Knott family’s hunting rights were recorded at the Williams Treaties signing in 1923 when the government sought to purchase vast tracts of land and have First Nations relinquish all rights to said land. Naming a street after Alex Knott would honour local First Nations history. 3. Concurrence
Not Applicable. 4. Conclusion
To honour a war veteran and local and First Nations history, it is respectfully recommended that Council approve these street names for the Foster Northwest Neighbourhood.
Staff Contact: Mark Jull, Planner, 905-623-3379 ext 2426 or [email protected].
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 167
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: November 16, 2020 Report Number: PSD-050-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: S-C-2019-0002 & ZBA2019-0003 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 25 townhouse dwellings in a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice. Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-050-20 be received;
2. That the application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by Lynstrath Developments Inc. (Esquire Homes) to permit 25 townhouse dwellings, be supported subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD-050- 20;
3. That the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved and that the Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-050-20 be passed;
4. That once all conditions contained in the Official Plan with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved;
5. That no further Public Meeting be required for the future Common Elements Condominium;
6. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of report PSD- 050-20 and Council’s decision; and
7. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-050-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Page 168 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PSD-050-20
Report Overview
This report recommends approval of a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By- law Amendment submitted by Lynstrath Developments Inc. (Esquire Homes). The applications would permit 25 townhouse units in a Common Elements Condominium. The units will be accessed by a private lane from Lawson Road. The development will have a private amenity area, water meter building and visitor parking in the common elements.
1. Application Details
1.1 Owner/Applicant: Lynstrath Developments Inc. (Esquire Homes)
1.2 Agent: The Biglieri Group
1.3 Proposal: Draft Plan of Subdivision
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision would create one block that would allow for a future common elements condominium containing up to 25 townhouse units.
Zoning By-law Amendment
To rezone the lands from “Urban Residential Exception (R1- 17) Zone” to permit the townhouse dwelling units.
1.4 Area: 0.69 Hectares (1.7 acres)
1.5 Location: 3 Lawson Road, Courtice
1.6 Roll Number: 181701010016610
1.7 Within Built Boundary: Yes 2. Background
2.1 On January 29, 2019, Lynstrath Developments Inc. (Esquire Homes) submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of 28 townhouse dwellings.
2.2 A statutory Public Meeting was held on April 1, 2019. Comments received from the public were related to traffic, parking, and character of the area.
Page 169 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-050-20 2.3 Since the Public Meeting, the applicant revised the concept to address agency and public comments. The current submission proposes 25 townhouse dwellings. The units on the east side are 2 storeys in height shown in blue on Figure 1. The balance of the units are three storeys. The amenity space is adjacent to Lawson Road, and all units are on a private lane. Applications for Site Plan Approval and Common Elements Plan of Condominium are required in the future.
Figure 1: Revised concept plan with 25 townhouse dwellings
2.4 The applicant has submitted the studies in support of the applications which are reviewed in Section 7 of this report:
Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Planning Justification Report & Urban Design Brief Archaeological Assessment
Page 170 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PSD-050-20
Traffic Impact Brief Stormwater Management Report Noise Impact Study 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses
3.1 The subject lands are located on the south-east corner of Townline Road and Lawson Road, Courtice. The site is currently vacant with a small wooded area, including a pond, on the southern portion of the lands. The lands are generally flat, sloping slightly to the south.
3.2 The surrounding neighbourhood consists of mainly single detached dwellings. The dwellings on Lawson Road are mainly one or one and a half storeys in height with a few two storey dwellings. The properties on the south side of Lawson Road are significantly larger, with deeper lots than found on the north side of Lawson Road. Dwellings on Townline Road are a mix of one and two storeys. The existing lots on Townline Road are significantly more varied in lot frontage and lot size.
3.3 The subject lands are located within the north-west corner of the urban boundary for Courtice. The City of Oshawa is on the west side of Townline Road with their built boundary extending north of Adelaide Avenue.
3.4 To the south-west of the subject lands, in Oshawa, a new subdivision is being developed on lands that were part of Kingsway College. The draft approved subdivision has 243 lots for single detached dwelling and one block for 73 townhouse units fronting onto Townline Road. See Figure 2.
Page 171 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PSD-050-20
Figure 2: Lawson Road and surrounding neighbourhood, including subdivision currently under construction on the west side of Townline Road in Oshawa. 4. Provincial Policy
Provincial Policy Statement
4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement identifies settlement areas, such as the Courtice Urban Area, as the focus of growth. Planning authorities are encouraged to create healthy, livable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment, recreation, and open space uses.
4.2 Land use patterns shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses that efficiently use land, resources and infrastructure. Municipalities are to provide opportunities for intensification, promote renewable energy, conservation and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Page 172 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PSD-050-20 4.3 The subject applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
Provincial Growth Plan
4.4 The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing population growth to settlement areas. Municipalities are encouraged to create complete communities that offer a mix of land uses, employment and housing options, high quality open space, and access to stores and services.
4.5 The subject lands are within the defined Built Boundary and within the Urban Boundary of Courtice. Growth is to be accommodated by directing a significant portion of new growth to the built-up areas through intensification and efficient use of existing services and infrastructure. A minimum of 40 percent of all residential development occurring annually within each upper tier municipality will be within the built-up area and 50 per cent after the next Official Plan review.
4.6 The subject applications conform to the Growth Plan. 5. Official Plans
Durham Region Official Plan
5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the subject lands “Living Areas” within the Urban System. Living areas shall be used predominately for housing purposes and accommodate a full range of housing options at higher densities by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads. The development will contribute to the Region’s and Municipality’s intensification targets and is within proximity of a transit route.
5.2 Townline Road is identified as a Type B Arterial Road in the Region of Durham Official Plan.
5.3 The proposal conforms with the Region of Durham Official Plan.
Clarington Official Plan
5.4 The Clarington Official Plan designates the lands Urban Residential and is located within the urban boundary of Courtice. The Urban Residential designation is predominately intended for housing purposes.
Page 173 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PSD-050-20 5.5 Consistent with higher levels of government planning documents, the Clarington Official Plan supports opportunities for intensification within the existing built-up areas, while having regard for established residential neighbourhoods. The proposal for 25 townhouse units would contribute towards the Municipality’s Residential Intensification Target and utilize existing public services and infrastructure. Intensification within the Built-up Areas is encouraged and is to be given priority.
5.6 Table 4-3 of the Official Plan provides the Urban Structure Typologies for specific areas of the Municipality. These areas are where growth and higher intensity-built forms are to be directed. At the edge of neighbourhoods and adjacent to Arterial Roads, ground-related units are permitted with heights between 1 and 3 storeys. Permitted uses include limited apartments, townhouses, single and semi-detached units. The subject lands shall meet a minimum net density of 19 units per hectare. The proposal is for approximately 40 units per hectare.
5.7 Any intensification or infill development in established neighbourhoods, must be designed to respect and integrate with the physical character of the surrounding context.
5.8 Environmentally sensitive features were identified on site which are protected by policy but not mapped in the Official Plan. These features are important to the natural heritage system and may be identified on a site by site basis. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was required to assess the sensitivity of the treed area and the pond and impact on the ability to develop the lands. An EIS was submitted with the applications and is discussed in Section 7 of this report.
5.9 Townline Road is identified as a Type B Arterial road in the Official Plan.
5.10 The proposal conforms with the Clarington Official Plan. 6. Zoning By-law
6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands Urban Residential Exception (R1-17) which permits single and semi-detached dwellings. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (Attachment 2) will allow for the development of 25 townhouse units in a common elements condominium. A holding (H) symbol is placed on the zoning until the Draft Plan of Subdivision is registered and the Site Plan Agreement is finalized. 7. Summary of Background Report
7.1 The applicant has submitted several studies in support of the development applications which were circulated to various agencies and departments for comment. Staff have worked with the applicant to ensure that supporting documents addressed all applicable provincial, regional and local policy, guidelines, and standards. The submission materials were posted on the Municipality’s website.
Page 174 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PSD-050-20 Planning Justification & Urban Design Brief, The Biglieri Group
7.2 The reports identify the subject lands as an opportunity for infill development consistent with Provincial, Regional, and Local policies.
7.3 The Planning Justification Report states that the proposed development will contribute to providing appropriate density adjacent to an arterial road. The development will provide an alternative building form in the existing neighbourhood and provide a density that supports public transit.
7.4 The Urban Design Brief highlights the revised proposal, including the traditional townhouse units on the east side of the site with two storeys. The report also highlights that revised amenity space adjacent to Lawson Road which further reduces the visual impact of the development on the Lawson Road streetscape, integrating better with the existing neighbourhood.
Traffic Impact Brief, Tranplan Associates Inc. 7.5 The report recognizes that the existing intersection at Adelaide Avenue and Townline Road will continue to operate poorly and the current design is not optimal based on the projected traffic levels for 2025.
7.6 The report indicates that the proposed development will have an insignificant impact on the existing conditions at the Adelaide Avenue and Townline Road intersection. The report also notes that the future extension of Adelaide Avenue, east to Trulls Road, will require the closure of Lawson Road at Townline Road, with a new cul-de-sac. A new road will be built between Lawson Road and the new Adelaide Avenue extension. This is an improvement over the current situation.
Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management, John Towle Associates Limited
7.7 The report details how the proposed development can be serviced (water, sanitary and storm) from existing and new infrastructure.
7.8 The development will be serviced from existing water and sanitary services on Lawson Road. The stormwater currently sheet flows from the north-east of the property to the south-west. As part of the development, the stormwater will be captured in new underground storage tanks and discharged at a controlled rate into the stormwater sewers on Lawson Road.
Page 175 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PSD-050-20 Noise Impact Study, YCA Engineering 7.9 The report concludes that warning clauses will be required for units 1 to 16 (dual frontage units) due to the traffic noise from Townline Road. In addition, the units fronting onto Townline Road must be equipped with central air conditioning to meet the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks noise guidelines.
7.10 The Region of Durham requires the applicant to revise the report prior to finalizing the warning clauses as the modelling did not include the future Adelaide Avenue extension which is a Type C arterial road and is located less than 100 metres from the lands. The report must be finalized prior to final approval of the subdivision with the appropriate clauses included in the purchase and sale agreements. This is a Condition of Draft Approval.
Environmental Impact Study, Dillion Consulting
7.11 The report concludes that there are no significant environmental features and no provincially or locally significant species located on the lands.
7.12 The report notes that there is an existing man-made pond. The pond was observed as dry during the spring and summer months with no sign of wetland species.
7.13 The report recognizes that 0.34 hectares of deciduous forest area will be removed in order to facilitate the development. Due the location, existing surrounding land uses and the lack of connectivity to adjacent natural features, the forest area provides limited ecological function and the removal of the trees is justified provided there is compensation to the satisfaction of the municipality and conservation authority.
Archaeological Assessment Stage 1 & 2, Archeoworks Inc.
7.14 The field investigation did not identify any archeological resources on the property. A clearance letter was received from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and Sport on December 6, 2018.
Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, OHE Consultants 7.15 There is no indication of Area’s of Potential Environmental Concerns on the property. A revision to the report is required in accordance with the regulations of Ontario Regulation 153/04 and a Reliance Letter provided to the Region of Durham as a Condition of Draft Approval. Should any concerns be identified, a Record of Site Condition may be required. The report and any revised conditions should they be required, will be addressed through the Site Plan Approval process.
Page 176 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PSD-050-20 8. Public Submissions
8.1 A statutory public meeting was held on April 1, 2019. The concerns raised during the meeting and in correspondence received by staff include the following:
Proposal does not fit the existing neighbourhood in terms of proposed density (number of units), height (three storeys), unit type (townhouses) and overall character;
Concerns regarding the removal of mature trees and vegetation;
Existing traffic on Townline Road is an issue and turning movements from and onto Lawson Road are difficult and unsafe. The additional vehicles from the proposed development will make this worse. Adelaide Avenue extension should be required prior to development;
There is not enough parking for the units or visitors on the site and there is a concern that individuals will park on Lawson Road;
Emergency vehicles will not be able to access the private road;
Safety concerns as there are no sidewalks on Lawson Road;
Negative impacts to quality of life and property values;
Lack of park space for existing and future residents. 9. Agency Comments
Durham Region
9.1 Durham Region Planning, Works and Transportation Departments have no objections to the proposal. The proposal is consistent with Provincial Policy and Regional Planning Policy. The Region provided Conditions of Draft Plan Approval (Attachment 1).
9.2 The extension of Adelaide Avenue easterly to Trulls Road is within the Region’s forecasted budget for 2025. As part of this extension, Lawson Road will be closed at Townline Road with a cul-de-sac, and a new north-south connection will be constructed between Lawson Road and Adelaide Avenue. As this project has been planned for, the Region did not require a traffic impact study.
Page 177 Municipality of Clarington Page 11 Report PSD-050-20 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
9.3 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority had no objections to the applications subject to the conditions identified in the Conditions of Draft Approval. The applicant must provide compensation for the loss of existing vegetation on the subject lands to the satisfaction of the municipality and CLOCA.
Other Agencies
9.4 Enbridge, the School Boards, and Canada Post has no objections to the applications subject to conditions captured in the Conditions of Draft Approval. 10. Departmental Comments
Public Works Department
10.1 The Public Works Department has no objections to the approval of the proposed development however, they do have concerns regarding the vehicle access and egress onto Townline Road given the existing conditions. These concerns are not with the proposed access onto Lawson Road itself but rather the access to Townline Road which is under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham. Staff defers to the Region for guidance on this matter as they have the jurisdiction on the safe operation and maintenance of traffic on Townline Road. As indicated in Section 9 of this report Durham Region Works did not require a traffic impact study and provided no objections as Adelaide Avenue will be extended in the future and a new connection between Adelaide and Lawson will be provided, terminating Lawson at Townline. They will be discussed in Section 11 of this report.
Fire and Emergency Services Department
10.2 The Fire and Emergency Services Department had no objections to the approval of the application. Comments were provided regarding no parking signage for the private laneway and fire hydrants on site. These comments will be implemented through the Site Plan Approval process.
Building Division
10.3 The Building Division has no objection to the approval of the application.
Page 178 Municipality of Clarington Page 12 Report PSD-050-20 11. Discussion
11.1 The proposal is to develop a vacant 0.69 ha parcel of land. The site has frontage on Townline Road and Lawson Road. The applicant has revised the original application by reducing the number of townhouse units from 28 to 25, reducing the height of the eastern 9 units to two storeys, relocating and increasing the amenity space.
Neighbourhood Character and Intensification
11.2 The existing neighbourhood is predominately single detached dwellings that have developed over many decades. The existing development is not indistinguishable in nature. While much of the surrounding development on Lawson Road and Townline Road are single detached dwellings, the building size, form, setbacks, lot size and frontages vary greatly. In recent years, there have been a few severances in the area to create new lots on Lawson Road and Townline Road. In addition, on the west side of Townline Road, in the City of Oshawa, development is proceeding that includes townhouses and single detached dwellings. The neighbourhood is changing, and redevelopment is occurring.
11.3 The Clarington Official Plan strives to achieve many goals through various policies for residential neighbourhoods including density targets, providing housing options in building forms, creating sustainable and walkable neighbourhoods, utilizing services and ensuring new development is compatible and does not negatively impact existing neighbourhoods. The polices must be read together in order to achieve a complete vision for residential areas.
11.4 The proposal meets the density requirements and contributes to development within the built boundary, introduces a new alternative building form in the neighbourhood that the Official Plan envisions on arterial roads, and efficiently utilizes existing services. The proposal introduces a higher density and a building form that contributes to a transit supportive neighbourhood. New development in established neighbourhoods to respect and reinforce the physical character and have regard for the existing height, setbacks, etc. The intent of this policy is to ensure that new development is generally compatible and can integrate into and coexist with the existing neighbourhood. If repetition of what currently existed within neighbourhoods was all that was permitted, then intensification and additional housing forms could not be achieved.
11.5 The units will front onto Townline Road or the private lane. The proposed rear yard setbacks for the units on the east side of the site is 7.5 metres, the proposed maximum height is 10 metres, or 2 storeys. The setbacks and height are consistent with the typical minimum rear yard setbacks and height required for low density development including single detached dwellings.
Page 179 Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PSD-050-20 Traffic
11.6 The Region plans to extend Adelaide Avenue east to Trulls Road. When that is completed the intersection at Lawson Road will be closed and a new cul-de-sac constructed. Access to Lawson Road will be from a new street that will connect to the Adelaide Avenue extension via a new north-south road approximately 50 metres east of this site.
11.7 Staff and the applicant has explored different options to create a temporary access for the development on Townline Road including creating a new access for Lawson Road, on the north side of Lawson Road, towards the existing intersection at Adelaide Avenue and a right-in and right-out condition on Townline Road. The Region is the road authority for the intersection of Townline Road and Lawson Road. The Region has indicated they do not object to the development proceeding in advance of the Adelaide Avenue extension. The Region is not in favour of a temporary access for the site as it would create multiple accesses near existing intersections.
Figure 3: Existing intersection at Lawson Road and Townline Road. Adelaide Avenue and Townline Road intersection in the background.
Page 180 Municipality of Clarington Page 14 Report PSD-050-20 Amenity Space & Parkland Contributions
11.8 The amenity space for the development has been positioned adjacent to Lawson Road. This location will further reduce the visual impact of the building form on Lawson Road by providing a large setback for the mid-block units. The detailed design for the amenity space will be reviewed at the time of site plan application.
11.9 The size of the amenity space exceeds the requirements of Clarington’s Amenity Space Guidelines. A minimum of 4 square metres per unit is required for developments over 16 units, and a lot is required. The proposal provides approximately 11.5 square metres per unit. In addition, the nine units on the east side will have private backyards as amenity space.
11.10 The applicant will be required to provide a cash contribution for parkland dedication.
On-site parking
11.11 Concerns have been raised regarding on-site visitor parking. The Zoning By-law requires that each townhouse unit provides 2 parking spaces, one of which can be in a private garage. In addition, 0.25 visitor parking spaces must be provided per unit. The proposed development has provided 2 parking spaces per unit and seven visitor parking spaces, meeting the requirements of the Zoning By-law.
Environmental Impacts
11.12 The development will result in the removal of the existing trees and a man-made pond on the site. The EIS concluded the existing features are not significant as defined by Provincial or Municipal policies. Due to the existing location and the surrounding development the area provides little ecological function. The applicant will be required to provide compensation for the removal of the trees within the Harmony Creek watershed which will strengthen those existing features. The applicant will be required to protect trees on adjacent properties during construction.
11.13 As identified in Section 6, the applicant will be required to meet all obligations of Site Plan Approval prior to the removal of the Holding Symbol from the zoning.
Page 181 Municipality of Clarington Page 15 Report PSD-050-20 12. Conclusion
12.1 It is respectfully recommended that in consideration of all agency, staff and resident comments that the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 to permit a 25 unit townhouse condominium development with a private lane at 3 Lawson Road in Courtice be approved as contained in Attachment 1 and 2 of this report.
Staff Contact: Brandon Weiler, Planner, 905-623-3379 extension 2424 or [email protected].
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Conditions of Draft Approval
Attachment 2 – Zoning By-law Amendment
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 182 Attachment 1 to Report PSD-050-20
Conditions of Draft Approval File Number: S-C-2019-0002
Issued for Concurrence: October 29, 2020 Notice of Decision: ______Draft Approved: ______
______Faye Langmaid, RPP, FCSLA Acting Director of Planning and Development Services Municipality of Clarington
Part 1 – Plan Identification
1. The Owner shall have the final plan prepared on the basis of approved draft plan of subdivision S-C-2019-0002 prepared by The Biglieri Group Ltd. identified as job number 18494, dated December 13, 2018, which illustrates a total of 25 common element condominium townhouse units, amenity area, water meter building, visitor parking and private lane.
Part 2 – General
2.1 The Owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington (the “Municipality”) that contains all of the terms and conditions of the Municipality’s standard subdivision agreement respecting the provision and installation of roads, services, drainage, other local services and all internal and external works and services related to this plan of subdivision. A copy of the Municipality’s standard subdivision agreement can be found at https://www.clarington.net/en/do-business/resources/application-forms/subdivision- agreement.pdf
2.2 The Owner shall name all private lanes included in the draft plan to the satisfaction of the Municipality and the Regional Municipality of Durham (the “Region”).
2.3 All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Municipality’s Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings.
Architectural Control
2.4 (1) No residential units shall be offered for sale to the public on the draft plan until such time as the exterior architectural design of each building has been approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | [email protected] 183 | www.clarington.net
(2) No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building on any residential block on the draft plan, the exterior architectural design of each building and the location of the building on the block has been approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
Marketing and Sales
2.5 (1) The Owner shall prepare a Land Use Plan which shows the draft plan and surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan shall be in a format approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
(2) The Owner shall erect and maintain a sign on the development site and/or in the sales office which shows the Land Use Plan as approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services.
(3) The Owner shall submit its standard Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the Director of Planning and Development Services which includes all warning clauses/ notices prior to any residential units being offered for sale to the public.
Site Alteration
2.6 Draft plan approval does not give the Owner permission to place or dump fill or remove fill from, or alter the grade of any portion of the lands within the draft plan. The Owner shall be required to obtain a permit from the Municipality under Site Alteration By-law 2008-114, as amended, for any such work. If any portion of the lands are within an area regulated by a conservation authority, the Owner shall obtain a permit from the conservation authority in addition to obtaining approval from the Director of Public Works regarding the intended haulage routes, the time and duration of the site alteration work and security relating to mud clean up, road damage and dust control in accordance with the Dust Management Plan in Section 4.1 After registration of a subdivision agreement, the provisions of the Municipality’s standard subdivision agreement shall apply to any proposed site alteration on the lands covered by the subdivision agreement.
Part 3 – Final Plan Requirements
3.1 The Owner shall transfer to the Municipality (for nominal consideration free and clear of encumbrances and restrictions) the following lands and easements:
(a) Road Widenings • A 0.02 hectare road widening across the frontage of Lawson Road shown as Block 2 on the draft plan.
P a g e | 2 Page 184
3.2 The Owner shall transfer to the Region (for nominal consideration, free and clear of encumbrances and restrictions) the following lands and easements:
(a) Road Widenings • A 6 metre road widening across the entire frontage of Townline Road shown as Block 3 on the draft plan.
Part 4 –Plans and Reports Required Prior to Subdivision Agreement/Final Plan Registration
4.1 The Owner shall submit the following plans and report or revisions thereof: Phasing Plan (1) This plan of subdivision shall be developed in one registration. Noise Report (2) The Owner shall submit to the Director of Public Works, the Director of Planning and Development Services and the Region, for review and approval, an updated noise report, based on the preliminary noise report entitled Proposed Townhouse Development 3 Lawson Road, prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated September 2019, Project No.Y1829A. Functional Servicing (3) The Owner shall submit an updated Functional Servicing Report satisfactory to the Director of Public Works and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. Environmental Sustainability Plan (4) The Owner shall submit an update of the Environmental Sustainability Plan based on the preliminary Environmental Sustainability Plan entitled Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Plan, prepared by The Biglieri Group Ltd., dated January 2019, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. Such plan shall identify the measures that the Owner will undertake to conserve energy and water in excess of the standards of the Ontario Building Code, reduce waste, increase recycling of construction materials and utilize non-toxic, environmentally sustainable materials and finishes. Soils Management Plan (5) Prior to Authorization to Commence, the Owner shall provide a Soils Management Plan for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. Such plan shall provide information respecting but not limited to any proposed import or export of fill to or from any portion of the Lands, intended haulage routes, the time and duration of any proposed haulage, the source of any soil to be imported,
P a g e | 3 Page 185
quality assurance measures for any fill to be imported, and any proposed stockpiling on the Lands. All imported material must originate from within the Municipality of Clarington. The Owner shall comply with all aspects of the approved Soils Management Plan. The Director may require the Owner to provide security relating to mud clean up, dust control and road damage.
Dust Management Plan
(6) Prior to Authorization to Commence Works, the Owner is required to prepare a Dust Management Plan for review and approval by the Director of Public Works. Such plan shall provide a practical guide for controlling airborne dust which could impact neighbouring properties. The plan must:
(a) identify the likely sources of dust emissions; (b) identify conditions or activities which may result in dust emissions; (c) include preventative and control measures which will be implemented to minimize the likelihood of high dust emissions; (d) include a schedule for implementing the plan, including training of on-site personnel; (e) include inspection procedures and monitoring initiatives to ensure effective implementation of preventative and control measures; and (f) include a list of all comments received from the Municipality, if any, and a description of how each comment was addressed.
Part 5 –Special Terms and Conditions to be Included in the Subdivision Agreement
5.1 Lands Requiring Site Plans The owner shall not make an application for a building permit in respect of Block 1 until the Owner has received site plan approval from the Municipality under Section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.13. 5.2 Parkland
The Owner shall pay the Municipality an amount in lieu of conveying land for park or other public recreational purposes under section 5.1. of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. The Owner acknowledges that this amount, represents either 5% or at the rate of 1 hectare of land for each 300 dwelling units of the lands included in the draft plan, whichever is greater, and shall be based on the value of the Lands as of the day before the approval of draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2019- 0002. 5.3 Noise Attenuation
(1) The Owner shall implement the noise attenuation measures recommended in the updated noise report entitled Proposed Townhouse Development 2 Lawson Road prepared by YCA Engineering Limited and dated September, 2019 (the “Noise Report”).
P a g e | 4 Page 186
(2) The Owner shall not make an application for a building permit for any building on the Lands until an acoustic engineer has certified that the plans for the building are in accordance with the Noise Report.
(3) Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits the Owner shall require a Professional Engineer qualified to perform acoustical Public Works in Ontario shall certify that the noise control measures have been properly installed and constructed. 5.4 Common Elements
The Owner agrees to identify to purchasers and shall include the following site features as common elements within the future condominium plan: • Retaining Wall • Amenity Area • Visitor Parking • Wooden Privacy Fencing 5.5 Short Term Leases and Rentals
Upon the transfer of the POTL’s, the Owner agrees to register covenants and restrictions under Section 119 under the Land Titles Act prohibiting any short- term, less than 30 days rental or lease of any dwelling unit(s) that is/are reliant on and benefit from the common elements condominium. A draft is to be provided to the Municipal Solicitor’s office for review and approval, prior to registration.
Part 6 – Agency Conditions 6.1 Region of Durham
(1) The Owner shall prepare the final plan and shall include a land use table on the basis of the approved draft plan of subdivision, prepared by The Biglieri Group, identified as project number 18494, dated December 13, 2018, which illustrates 1 medium density residential block and 2 road widening blocks.
(2) The Owner shall name the road allowances included in the draft plan to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington.
(3) The Owner shall grant such easements as may be required for utilities, drainage and servicing purposes to the appropriate authorities.
(4) The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this
P a g e | 5 Page 187
subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Region. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan.
(5) Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Region shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision.
(6) The Owner shall convey free and clear of all encumbrances, sufficient road allowance widening to provide a minimum of 18.0m measured from the centreline of Regional Road 55 (Townline Road) along the total frontage of Regional Road 55.
(7) The Owner shall convey, free and clear of all encumbrances, a 5 metre by 5 metre sight triangle at the south-east corner of Regional Road 55 and Lawson Road to the Region of Durham.
(8) The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other regional services.
(9) Prior to the finalization of this plan of subdivision, the Owner must provide satisfactory evidence to the Regional Municipality of Durham in accordance with the Region’s Site Contamination Protocol to address the site contamination matters. Such evidence may include the completion of a Regional Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance. Depending on the nature of the proposal or the finding of any Record of Site Condition (RSC) Compliant Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), an RSC Compliant Phase Two ESA may also be required. The findings of the Phase Two ESA could also necessitate the requirement for an RSC through the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks accompanied by any additional supporting information.
(10) The Owner shall submit to the Region of Durham, for review and approval, a revised acoustic report prepared by an acoustic engineer based on the projected traffic volumes provided by the Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department, and recommending noise attenuation measures for the draft plan in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks guidelines. The Owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement t implement the recommended noise control measures. The agreement shall contain a full and complete reference to the noise report (i.e. author, title, date, and any revisions/addenda thereto) and shall include any required warning clauses identified in the acoustic report.
P a g e | 6 Page 188
The Owner shall provide the Region with a copy of the Subdivision Agreement containing such provisions prior to the final approval of the plan. 6.2 Conservation Authority
(1) Prior to any on-site grading or construction or final registration of the Plan, the Owner shall submit and obtain approval from the Municipality of Clarington, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority for reports describing the following:
(a) The intended means of controlling stormwater on the site and conveying stormwater flow from the site to an appropriate outlet, including use of stormwater techniques which are appropriate and in accordance with the provincial guidelines;
(b) The intended means of providing water quality treatment for the site to the satisfaction of CLOCA and in accordance with provincial guidelines;
(c) The means whereby erosion and sedimentation and their effects will be minimized on the site during and after construction in accordance with the provincial guidelines. The report must outline all actions to be taken to prevent an increase in the concentration of solids in any water body as a result of on-site or other related works;
(d) Details on the types and use of Low Impact Development (LID) measures to be implemented within the development to assist in reducing stormwater runoff and meeting infiltration targets in accordance with the water balance and CLOCA requirements.
(2) That, prior to removal of any vegetation on the site, on-site grading, and/or construction associated with the proposed plan of subdivision, the owner shall submit to an obtain approval from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and the Municipality of Clarington for a contribution to offset for the removal of existing vegetation related to the development. The Lake Simcoe Ecological Offsetting Policy is to be used in order to calculate the contribution.
(3) That, prior to removal of any vegetation on the site, the owner agrees to provide the agreed upon contribution established in Condition 2 to the Municipality of Clarington.
(4) The Owner shall satisfy all financial requirements of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. This shall include Application Processing Fees and Technical Review Fees as per the approved Authority Fee Schedule.
P a g e | 7 Page 189
(5) The subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of Clarington shall contain, among other matters, the following provisions:
(a) The Owner agrees to carry out the works referred to in Condition 1, 2 and 3 to the satisfaction of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
(b) The Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater and erosion and sediment control structures and measures operating and in good repair during the construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. 6.3 School Board
(1) The Owner shall agree to include in all offers of purchase and sale a statement that advises the prospective purchaser that attendance at the local public schools may not be guaranteed due to rising accommodation pressures. Pupils may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or directed to schools outside the area in accordance with continued development and accommodation pressures. 6.4 Canada Post Corporation
(1) Lynstrath Developments Inc. covenants and agrees to provide the Municipality of Clarington with evidence that satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise, have been made with Canada Post Corporation for the installation of Community Mail Boxes (CMB) as required by Canada Post Corporation and shown on the approved engineering design drawings/Draft Plan, at the time of sidewalk and/or curb installation. Lynstrath Developments Inc. further covenant and agree to provide notice to prospective purchasers of the locations of CMBs and that home/business mail delivery will be provided via CMB.
(2) The Owner shall satisfy the following requirements of Canada Post Corporation and the Municipality with respect to the provision of mail delivery to the Subdivision Lands and the provision of community mailbox locations, as follows: (a) The developer will consult with Canada Post to determine suitable permanent locations for the Community Mail Boxes or Lock box Assemblies (Mail Room). The developer will then indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans (b) The developer agrees, prior to offering any units for sale, to display a map on the wall of the sales office in a place readily accessible to potential homeowners that indicates the location of all Community Mail Boxes or Lock Box Assemblies (Mail Room)., within the development, as approved by Canada Post.
P a g e | 8 Page 190
(c) The owner/developer will be responsible for officially notifying the purchasers of the exact Community Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any home sales with specific clauses in the Purchase offer, on which the homeowners do a sign off (d) The Builder/Owner/Developer will confirm to Canada Post that the final secured permanent locations for the Community Mailboxes will not be in conflict with any other utility; including hydro transformers, bell pedestals, cable pedestals, flush to grade communication vaults, landscaping enhancements (tree planting) and bus pads. (e) The developer agrees to include in all offers of purchase and sale a statement which advises the purchaser that mail will be delivered via Community Mail Boxes or Lock Box Assemblies (Mail Room). The developer also agrees to note the locations of all Community Mail Boxes or Lock Box Assemblies (Mail Room)., within the development, and to notify affected homeowners of any established easements granted to Canada Post to permit access to the Community Mail Boxes or Lock Box Assemblies (Mail Room). (f) The owner/developer will agree to prepare and maintain an area of compacted gravel to Canada Post’s specifications to serve as a temporary Community Mailbox location. This location will be in a safe area away from construction activity in order that Community Mailboxes may be installed to service addresses that have occupied prior to the pouring of the permanent mailbox pads. This area will be required to be prepared a minimum of 30 days prior to the date of first occupancy. (g) The owner/developer will install concrete pads at each of the Community Mailbox locations as well as any required walkways across the boulevard and any required curb depressions for wheelchair access as per Canada Post’s concrete pad specification drawings. (h) The developer agrees to provide the following for each Community Mail Boxes or Lock Box Assemblies, and to include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans: (if applicable) i. - Any required walkway across the boulevard, per municipal standards. ii. - If applicable, any required curb depression for wheelchair access, with an opening of at least two meters (consult Canada Post for detailed specifications). 6.5 Utilities
(1) The Owner shall coordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution plan that allows for the safe installation of all utilities including the separation between utilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
P a g e | 9 Page 191
(2) All utilities will be installed within the proposed road allowances. Where this is not possible, easements will be provided at no cost to the utility provider. Proposed easements are not permitted on lands owned by the Municipality unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other alternative. Such easements must not impede the long term use of the lands and will be at the discretion of the Director of Public Works.
(3) The Owner shall cause all utilities, including hydro, telephone, and cable television within the streets of this development to be installed underground for both primary and secondary services.
Part 7 – Standard Notices and Warnings
7.1 The Owner shall include a clause in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for all Lots/units informing the purchaser of all applicable development charges in accordance with subsection 58(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, C.27.
7.2 The Owner shall include the notices and warnings clauses set out in Schedule 3 of the Municipality’s standard subdivision agreement in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for all Lots or Blocks.
7.3 The Owner shall include the following notices and warning clauses in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the Lots or Blocks to which they apply: 7.4 Noise Report
(1) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for Units/Lots 1 to 16:
“Purchasers are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels will exceed the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Park’s noise criteria.”
(2) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for Units/Lots 1 to 9:
“The dwelling unit located on this lot has been fitted with a central air conditioning system which will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park’s noise criteria.”
(3) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for Units/Lots 10 to 16: “This dwelling unit was fitted with ducting sized to accommodate a central air conditioning unit. The installation of central air conditioning
P a g e | 10 Page 192
by the homeowner will allow windows and exterior doors to be kept closed, thereby achieving indoor sound levels within the limits recommended by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park. (Note: The location and installation of the outdoor air conditioning device should be done so as to comply with noise criteria of Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks publication NPC-300.” 7.5 Canada Post Corporation The Owner shall include the following notice in the agreements of purchase and sale for all lots: “Mail Service - Purchasers are advised that Canada Post intends to service this property through the use of community mailboxes that may be located in several locations within this subdivision.”Part 8 - Clearance 8.1 Prior to final approval of the plan for registration, the Municipality’s Director of Planning and Development Services shall be advised in writing by, (a) the Region how Conditions 6.1 have been satisfied; (b) the Central Lake Ontario Conservations Authority how Conditions 6.2 have been satisfied; (c) the Canada Post how Conditions 6.4 have been satisfied;
Part 9 – Notes to Draft Approval
9.1 Terms used in these conditions that are not otherwise defined have the meanings given to them in the Municipality’s standard subdivision agreement. 9.2 As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. 9.3 If final approval is not given to this plan within Three (3) years of the draft approval date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file shall be closed. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is submitted to the Director of Planning and Development Services for the Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date.
9.4 Where an agency requirement is required to be included in the Municipal subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agency in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are:
(a) Durham Regional Planning Department, 605 Rossland Road East, P.O. Box 623, Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 (905) 668-7721.
(b) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, 100 Whiting Avenue, Oshawa, Ontario LIH 3T3 (905) 579-0411.
P a g e | 11 Page 193
(c) Canada Post, Metro Toronto Region, 1860 Midland Ave. 2nd Floor Scarborough ON, M1P 5A1
\\netapp5\group\Planning\^Department\Application Files\SC-Subdivision\S-C-2019\S-C-2019-0002 3 Lawson Road\Draft Approval\S-C-2019-0002 Conditions of Draft Approval.docx
P a g e | 12 Page 194 Attachment 2 to Report PSD-050-20
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law Number 2020-
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA2019-0003;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section 14.6 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Three (R3) Zone” is amended by adding Special Exception Zone 14.6.62 as follows:
“14.6.62 Urban Residential Exception (R3-62) Zone
Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 b., c., g. iv); 14.1 a.; 14.4 b., c., e., f., g., and h. those lands zoned R3-62 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for link townhouse dwellings having frontage on a private street. The following regulations apply to each Link Townhouse Dwelling as if each unit is located on a lot:
a. Lot Area (minimum) 120 square metres
b. Lot Frontage (minimum)
i) Interior Lot 5.5 metres ii) Exterior Lot 8.5 metres
c. Yard Requirements (minimum)
i) Front Yard 3.0 metres to a dwelling 2.5 metres to an unenclosed porch 6 metres to a garage door ii) Exterior Side Yard 3.0 metres to a dwelling
d. Interior Side Yard 1.5 metres, nil where building has a common wall with any adjacent building on an adjacent lot
e. Rear Yard 5.5 metres to a dwelling 6.0 metres to a garage door
\\netapp5\group\Planning\^Department\Application Files\SC-Subdivision\S-C-2019\S-C-2019-0002 3 Lawson Road\Draft By-law\ZBA2019-0003 Draft Zoning By-law.docxPage 195 f. Special Yard Regulations
i) Steps may project into the required front or exterior side yard, but in no instance shall the front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.0 metres. g. Lot Coverage 65 percent h. Landscaped Open Space (Minimum) 20 percent i. Building Height 11 metres j. Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above finished grade (maximum) 1.0 metres k. Regulations for Link Townhouse Dwellings
i) Where a Link Townhouse Dwelling Lot is a through lot with frontage on both a Public Street and a Private Lane, the lot line along the Public Street shall be deemed to be the Front Lot Line. l. No parking space shall be located in any exterior side yard m. Minimum setback for a water meter building
i) From Townline Road 2.0 metres ii) From Lawson Road 1.70 metres
Section 14.6 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Three (R3) Zone” is amended by adding Special Exception Zone 14.6.63 as follows: “14.6.63 Urban Residential Exception (R3-63) Zone
Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 b., c., g. iv); 14.1 a.; 14.4 b., c., e., f., g., and h. those lands zoned R3-63 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for link townhouse dwellings having frontage on a private street. The following regulations apply to each Link Townhouse Dwelling as if each unit is located on a lot: a. Lot Area (minimum) 165 square metres b. Lot Frontage (minimum)
i) Interior Lot 6.4 metres ii) Exterior Lot 11.0 metres c. Yard Requirements (minimum)
i) Front Yard 3.0 metres to a dwelling 2.5 metres to an unenclosed porch 6 metres to a garage door ii) Exterior Side Yard 4.0 metres to a dwelling iii) Interior Side Yard 1.5 metres, nil where building has a common wall with any adjacent building on an adjacent lot Page 196 iv) Rear Yard
a) Interior lot 7.5 metres to a dwelling b) Exterior lot rear yard 4.9 metres
Special Yard Regulations
a) Steps may project into the required front or exterior side yard, but in no instance shall the front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.0 metres.
d. Lot Coverage
i) Link Townhouse dwelling 60 percent ii) Total of all buildings and structures 65 percent
e. Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 25 percent
f. Maximum number of Storeys 2 Storeys
g. Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above finished grade (maximum)1.0 metres
h. No parking space shall be located in any exterior side yard
2. Schedule ‘4’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Urban Residential Exception (R1-17) Zone" to "Urban Residential Exception (R3-62) Zone" and from "Urban Residential Exception (R1- 17) Zone" to "Urban Residential Exception (R3-63) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto.
3. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act.
By-Law passed in open session this day of , 2020
Adrian Foster, Mayor
June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 197
Page 198
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: November 16, 2020 Report Number: PSD-051-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: COPA2018-0003, PLN34.5.2.64 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Update on Jury Lands (Camp 30) and Draft Amendment No 121 to the Clarington Official Plan Recommendation:
1. That Report PSD-051-20 be received; 2. That the Community Vision for Jury Lands, Urban Design Master Plan + Design Guidelines for former Ontario Boys Training School and WWII Prison of War Camp 30 by DTAH dated April 2019 be accepted; 3. That Official Plan Amendment 121 and the Block Master Plan implement the Community Vision by DTAH; 4. That Official Plan Amendment 121 prohibit private residential development buildings within the ring road of the Jury Lands; 5. That the consulting team for Soper Hills Secondary Plan be retained to assist with refining draft Official Plan Amendment No 121; 6. That Staff continue to work with the land owners on other issues to be brought forward a subsequent report; and 7. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-051-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Page 199 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Addendum Report PSD-051-20
Report Overview
The Jury Lands are the lands bounded by Lambs Road, the CPR tracks, Soper Creek and Concession Street East. The central portion of the property has significant cultural and historic value to the residents of Clarington, the Province of Ontario and the Country of Canada.
The Special Policy Area F: Urban Design Master Plan + Design Guidelines and draft Official Plan Amendment No 121 (Report PSD-041-19) was presented to Council in September 2019, at which time Council tabled the Official Plan Amendment (OPA) allowing for further discussion. In June 2020 Council lifted from the table the draft OPA to allow the developer and staff the ability to address new elements such as assisted care and affordable housing proposed by the developer. Staff have continued discussions with the developer, exploring affordable housing policies and other issues.
This report seeks acceptance of the community vision by DTAH from April 2019. Acceptance of the community vision would restrict development from the interior of the ring road area ensuring the area becomes municipal parkland available to all residents and the heritage character of the site is conserved and strengthened.
1. Background
1.1. The purpose of this report is to have a decision made on whether the private new residential buildings as proposed by the land owner inside the ring road is acceptable within a municipal-wide park and heritage site setting.
1.2. The Jury Lands is made up of two parcels: 42.62 ha (105 acre) parcel owned by Lambs Road School Property Ltd. (Kaitlin/Fandor) and the northern 5.42 (13.4 acre) owned by FarSight Investments Ltd. The ownership is outlined in Figure 1.
1.3. The Boys Training School/Camp 30 site was designated a National Historic Site by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada in April 2013. Council designated the site under the Ontario Heritage Act at the local level in January of 2018.
1.4. Report PSD-041-19 recommended approval of the draft Official Plan Amendment No. 121; however, the owners asked Council to consider additional densities and built forms. Council tabled the report allowing for more discussion.
1.5. In May 2020 Lambs Road School Property Ltd (LRSP) submitted a privately initiated Official Plan Amendment which staff determined to be incomplete.
1.6. Council passed the following resolution at the June 29, 2020 Planning and Development Committee meeting:
Page 200 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-051-20
1.7. LRSP/Kaitlin have not withdrawn their Official Plan Amendment, rather a pre- consultation meeting was held in July 2020. The concept plan includes development within the ring road.
1.8. A submission by FarSight Investments, the northern most property owner, has also been the subject of a pre-consultation in September. They are committed to complying with the structure policies, built forms and densities of the Official Plan.
1.9. Staff engaged with representatives of Kaitlin on a discussion regarding mediation; however, both parties acknowledged that unless there was direction from Council on what was to be mediated it was unclear how to proceed. Specifically, Staff are bound by the Official Plan with its defined urban structure.
1.10. Staff and LRSP/Kaitlin have continued discussions on the definition of “affordable”, “assisted-care” or “memory care” and what the LRSP specific requests and uses could mean in relationship to the densities and built forms. LRSP’s consultant has provided additional policy suggestions regarding affordable housing which staff are reviewing.
1.11. LRSP/Kaitlin provided a terms of reference for a 3rd party land use planning expert; however, the terms of reference did not provide the land use planning expert with latitude to make suggestions, rather it required them to select between the two competing Official Plan amendments. Staff did not see this as a workable solution.
1.12. To move forward staff have approached the planning consultants already under contract with the Municipality for the Soper Hills Secondary Plan (the area to the east of Lamb’s Road). This consulting team (SGL Planning and Design and ASI) are familiar with the area, the Official Plan, the immediate context and other future development that Special Policy Area F will fit into. The consulting team has begun reviewing the draft OPA 121 and are willing to advise and assist in finding a resolution, that addresses the Official Plan urban structure, heritage resources, densities and heights.
Page 201 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PSD-051-20 1.13. In an effort to resolve and move forward with policy direction for Special Policy Area F, Staff are recommending acceptance of the DTAH study as a guide. This will clarify which areas are appropriate for development. For the record, any developable areas/concepts identified in the Legal Agreement are antiquated and should be superseded by new information available through the National Historic Designation and DTAH’s work.
1.14. Approval of DTAH’s study will endorse the areas for development, neighbourhood and architectural design principles, and adaptive reuse strategies
1.15. Once Staff have a position on the DTAH Urban Design Master Plan and Design Guidelines, Staff will be in a position to work on finalizing a revised Official Plan Amendment that will incorporate DTAHs work, consider the LRSP May 2020 proposal, and conform to the structure policies (densities, heights, built form) of the Official Plan. 2. Previous Reports
There are a number of previous reports on the development of the DTAH Community Vision and draft Official Plan Amendment.
2.1. PSD-067-18, September 2018 was the Statutory Public Meeting report. Its purpose was to seek additional public comments, in addition to those already received at the open house held in June 2018 on DTAH concept plan and urban design guideline.
2.2. PSD-029-19, June 2019 was an opportunity for Council to receive a presentation from Megan Torza of DTAH about the Community Vision and urban design framework outlined in their report (Attachment 1). The recommendation was for staff to prepare a recommendations report on the proposed Official Plan amendment.
2.3. PSD-041-19, September 2019 was the recommendation report which contained a revised draft Official Plan amendment based on the comments and input received during the previous meetings and comments submitted by the developers. The Block Master Plan and policies relied on the DTAH study, addressed the requests of the land owners, respected the urban form and structure policies of the Official Plan and considered public input and comments (Attachment 2). Council tabled this report to allow for further discussion. 3. Legal Agreement
3.1. On June 16, 2016, Clarington and LRSP entered into an agreement that purports to grant Clarington the option to purchase certain lands at the northeast corner of Lambs Road and Concession Road for park purposes. The option to purchase is contingent on an assortment of conditions for the development of the LRSP lands. Those conditions include:
Page 202 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PSD-051-20
Approval by Clarington of development applications for the LRSP property, on the understanding that the development applications would be consistent with the overarching provisions of what was to become Policy 16.7 of the Clarington Official Plan; and
Amendment of the Clarington Official Plan to remove the “Future Urban Residential” designation from the LRSP property.
3.2. To date, Staff has been unable to reach a consensus with the land owner on a development plan for the LRSP property that adheres to the DTAH Community Vision and is consistent with the overarching policies of the Official Plan.
3.3. One area of contention is that LRSP’s privately initiated Official Plan amendment which seeks to develop an area inside the “ring road” would be inconsistent with the DTAH Community Vision. LRSP provided a more detailed concept plan for their property at a September 2020 meeting with staff (Attachment 3) 4. Development Areas
4.1. In 2016, as part of Official Plan Amendment No.107, Special Policy Area F was designated. The policies of Special Policy Area F call for the Municipality to develop a community vision. The land use designation for the central campus was reserved until the community vision was completed. Early in 2017, the Municipality retained DTAH to develop an overall community vision as called for in Special Policy Area F policies. The DTAH study Jury Lands, Bowmanville/Special Policy Area F - Urban Design Master Plan + Design Guidelines is the basis of draft OPA 121. The draft amendment includes:
a. A Master Block Plan, detail land use, recommends urban design guidelines and related policies;
b. Implements the provisions of Special Policy Area F, the Local Corridor and other policies contained in the Clarington Official Plan; and
c. Recommends future uses for the heritage buildings and municipal-wide park
4.2. The focal point of the neighbourhood is to be the central campus/municipal-wide park and its historic buildings. The DTAH study outlines adaptive re-use suggestions for each of the buildings with complimentary exterior garden spaces to reinforce the re-use of the buildings. It is anticipated that the buildings will be mothballed for a period of time awaiting funding for redevelopment. However, the park development can proceed as soon as the lands are turned over to the Municipality.
The land owners and Municipal staff are in general agreement that Areas 1, 3 and 4 are developable, subject to the appropriate background studies, see Figure 1 below. It is the built form, heights and density that have yet to be resolved and would be the subject of a subsequent report.
Page 203 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PSD-051-20
Figure 1: Development Parcels and Ownership
4.3. Area 1: the road layout, Park Drive and built form have evolved over time using the guidance provided in the DTAH study. The DTAH study had shown the maximum height as 4 storeys; however, the corner of Lambs Road and Concession Street East were seen as an opportunity to have higher built forms and densities. DTAH reviewed this modification agreeing, additional height at the intersection and apartment style developments could meet the intent of the community vision. The urban design
Page 204 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PSD-051-20 guidelines do not address apartments as a built form, an addendum will be requested to include this built form. Draft OPA 121 provides the ability for development within 250 metres of the Lambs and Concession intersection to be up to 6 storeys and include apartments as a built form, with underground parking. The May 2020 concept by LRSP/Kaitlin requests 6-8 storey apartment (condo) buildings.
4.4. Area 2 has three potential development parcels. From south to north they are referred to in Figure 1 as 2A, 2B and 2C. The Official Plan states that structures of cultural heritage value or interest are to be conserved, protected, enhanced and incorporated into community design. Development in previously non-built up areas adjacent to cultural heritage resources are required to conserve and enhance the cultural heritage attributes by providing an appropriate transition with scale, massing and character.
1. Area 2A, just south of the Triple Dormitory could be developed with a driveway access to Lambs Road; however, it is restricted by the tributary to the south and its proximity to the Triple Dorm. Townhomes (up to 3 storeys) was the built form envisioned in the DTAH study. At times LRSP/Kaitlin has indicated the parcel may not be developable because of its size. However, in their May 2020 submission it was noted as 3 storey back-to-back townhouses. Draft OPA 121 recommended it be designated for low rise (1-3 storey) development. Staff believe we can work with LRSP to determine appropriate built form and density for this area.
2. Area 2B, south of the northern tributary and east of the Cafeteria building could be developed with a driveway access to Lambs Road. This development parcel has to be carefully articulated to protect the views to and from the cafeteria. The built form and its height will require careful consideration because of how it could overshadow the cafeteria. LRSP/Kaitlin in their May 2020 submission requested this parcel be extended further south to allow for underground parking and be up to 6 storeys for affordable housing. Draft OPA121 recommended it be designated for mid-rise with a maximum of 4 storeys to not overshadow or block views of the cafeteria. Better transition from the heritage resources to any new build along Lamb’s Road will require careful consideration of built form, shadows and views.
3. Area 2C, south of the northern tributary, is the area of the former administration building, inside the ring road. This area was shown on the concept plan as Schedule B to the 2016 legal agreement (Attachment 4) as “retained lands” but was subject to the development of a community vision for the heritage resources and municipal-wide park. DTAH determined development within the campus area would be detrimental to the preservation of the cultural heritage resources of the site.
4. The development of 2C is a key feature in two competing development scenarios for the interior of the ring road. Allowing the addition of new buildings within the ring road would eliminate a portion of the open landscape, degrade the spatial relationship across the site, and impair the site’s original design composition as a “campus-plan”.
Page 205 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PSD-051-20 4.5. The precise extents of development have yet to be determined through an Environmental Impact Study which is underway and substantially complete for Area 1. The ongoing discussion centres around the built form and heights that would be desirable and acceptable for these two areas. Emergency access to Area 4 is also a consideration. The DTAH study identified concepts for a mix of townhouses and single- detached homes up to 3 storeys in height in Areas 3 and 4. LSRP/Kaitlin are seeking greater density, alternate building forms including apartments and heights of mostly 4 storeys with up to 6 and 8 storeys in select locations. Draft OPA 121 recommended a maximum of 3 storeys internal to the neighbourhood. We will continue to consider the DTAH Study, Official Plan urban structure, and land owner requests for greater density when refining draft OPA 121. 5. Items being considered in a revised OPA 121 and future report
5.1. Once DTAH’s study is endorsed, Staff will be in position to modify and refine OPA 121 while considering the revised plans and information brought forward by LRSP/Kaitlin earlier this year.
5.2. Among other typical components that are reviewed as part of an Official Plan Amendment, of particular importance for this Special Policy Area are the following items:
1. The type of neighbourhood/community that will best complement the National Historic Site and lands/buildings with significant historical importance and adaptive reuse opportunities;
2. Densities, built forms and heights and distribution of units across the Special Policy Area appropriate to heritage context of the area and in accordance with the approved urban structure policies of the Clarington Official Plan
3. Whether this is an appropriate location for low income affordable housing, and determining policy to not only encourage affordable housing in general, but to ensure it happens
4. Policies to permit units that provide specialized care (assisted living, memory care, etc.)
5.3. Staff believe there is some opportunity to modify and refine draft OPA 121 to better address these OP policies and provide additional development opportunities in select locations for LRSP. As the number of units is a target, it more important to agree on the built form.
Page 206 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PSD-051-20 6. Public Comments
6.1. A public information session was held at John M. James School on June 13, 2018 where the consultant, DTAH, had display panels explaining the overall Urban Design Mater Plan + Design Guidelines. The consultant provided a presentation on the proposed land uses, development framework and building typologies. The consultant and staff fielded questions prior to the presentation in a one-on-one setting and as a general question/answer session following the presentation.
6.2. Over 40 people attended the public information session which had been advertised in the local newspapers, on the Municipal website and through social media. The meeting was held concurrently with the Soper Creek Trail, Phase 2 meeting. Notification included all adjacent property owners on Sprucewood Crescent and Guildwood Drive. In addition, the owners of the property parcels affected by Special Policy Area F were notified and any registered interested parties.
6.3. Public comments received were:
Retain natural beauty and as many of the historic buildings as practical.
Consider wildlife, ecology, natural spaces, protect species at risk.
Include community gardens on the site to serve nearby proposed residences.
Support for the demonstration garden with produce supplying local eatery.
The development and building forms appear to be higher in density than adjacent lands and should be less dense and lower in height.
Provide special event venue space for 100+ people.
Property has been subject to severe vandalism
6.4. The Jury Lands Foundation are supportive of the DTAH Study. Council has been the recipient of numerous delegations by the Jury Lands Foundation, who stress the importance of the site as a tourism and educational opportunity. The Jury Lands Foundation collaborate with the ACO (Clarington Branch) to provide tours of the site, provide presentations on the site history and fundraise. Additional comments are:
this will create a destination park that citizens of not just Bowmanville but beyond could travel to and learn about the history of the site along with the unique example of the Carolinian forest;
the site will be linked into the trail system; and
Page 207 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PSD-051-20
the access as proposed means people can walk, ride bicycles or use public transit along with a car to access the park from Concession Street, Lambs Road or the trail system.
6.5. LRSP/Kaitlin allowed Staff to share their concept plan with the Jury Lands Foundation in late September. However, there has been no public consultation regarding their plan.
6.6. Land Owner Comments were:
The limited range of land uses, density and built form types included in the vision for the Jury Lands, which amongst other matters could have a direct impact on affordability and accessibility;
There is a lack of clarity on how the integration of the vison for the Jury Lands will work with the vison for the Secondary Plan area to the east, including the creation of a hub at the Lambs Road and east-west street;
Concern about incomplete information on future process, and associated timing, to implement the vision including opportunities to participate prior to the preparation of statutory documents;
Northern development area (Area 4) should have specific policies that override the general policies of the Official Plan and include mid-rise residential (4-6 storeys);
The requirements for alternate emergency access for Area 4 should be left to the results of an engineering study;
The request of the developers is to increase the unit target to 1,100 units (in 2019) has since increased to 1,500 units; and
The uniqueness of the site should be recognized.
6.7. The LRSP Official Plan application remains incomplete. 7. Concurrence
7.1 This report has been reviewed by the Director of Legislative Services.
Page 208 Municipality of Clarington Page 11 Report PSD-051-20 8. Comments
8.1. The community vision by DTAH has been the subject of considerable consultation with the property owners, Jury Lands Foundation and public. The built forms used in the DTAH study are for the most part taken from other Kaitlin developments. LRSP/Kaitlin now wish to include apartments (condo) as a built form. The DTAH study did not contemplate this built form for the site; however, the study called for taller building types (over 3 storeys) to be located along the Concession Street East and Lambs Road frontages. Staff agree that apartments should be part of the built form considered in the urban design guidelines and will request DTAH update the study with an addendum.
8.2. Accepting the DTAH Study establishes the cultural heritage resources take precedence over new development. The protection of the heritage buildings’ settings and campus landscape is key to the history of this site, its national designation and local designation. In particular, not allowing intrusion within the ring road is a principle upon which the community vision rests.
8.3. The National Historic Site designation identified four key attributes that are explicitly referenced and emphasized for conservation:
The complex of six buildings laid out in a campus style; An oval-shaped ring road; Visually and functionally connected by a network of paved pathways; and Viewplanes between the buildings. 9. Conclusion
9.1. New private residential development within the inner road is not compatible/conform with the community vision prepared by DTAH and vetted through extensive public input for the municipal-wide park and heritage context of the site.
9.2. Staff are recommending Council accept the DTAH Study as the basis and guideline for the Official Plan Amendment for Special Policy Area F – Camp 30.
9.3. Staff are also recommending that the consulting team for Soper Hills Secondary Plan be retained to assist in modifying draft Official Plan Amendment No 121 to ensure compatibility with the adjacent built form.
9.4. Staff will continue to work with the land owners, Jury Lands Foundation and other interested parties to resolve built form, density and transition issues.
Page 209 Municipality of Clarington Page 12 Report PSD-051-20 9.5. Making a decision on Camp 30 is one of the legacy projects listed in the Strategic Plan for this term of Council.
Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services, 905- 623-3379 x 2407 or [email protected].
Attachments: Attachment 1: DTAH Concept Plan (Built Form) Attachment 2: Draft OPA 121 Block Master Plan (Built Form) Attachment 3: May 2020, LRSP Concept Plan (Built Form) Attachment 4: Schedule “B” of the Legal Agreement
Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 210 Attachment 1 to Report PSD-051-20
Page 211 Attachment 2 to Report PSD-051-20
Page 212 Attachment 3 to Report PSD-051-20
Page 213 Attachment 4 to Report PSD-051-20
Page 214