Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-19-135 - Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019REPORT TO:Council DATE OF MEETING:May 27, 2019 SUBMITTED BY:Justin Readman,General Manager, Development Services, 519-741-2200 ext. 7646 Jonathan Lautenbach, Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services, 519-741-2200 ext. 7334 PREPARED BY:Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 Ryan Hagey, Director of Financial Planning 519-741-2200 ext. 7353 WARD(S) INVOLVED:All Wards DATE OF REPORT:May222019 REPORT NO.:DSD-19-135 SUBJECT:Bill 108, MORE HOMES, MORE CHOICE ACT, 2019 RECOMMENDATION: WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has introduced Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 in an effort to increase housing supply; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEDthatthe City of Kitchener expressits support for aspects to the bill including proposed changes to: Schedule 6, Environmental Assessment Act, which increases environmental assessment exemptions from low risk municipal undertakings; and, Excess Soil Regulatory Proposal and Amendments to Record of Site Condition (Brownfields)(Proposed Regulation), which would allow more excess soil to be reused locally; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEDthat the City of Kitchener request the Province to reconsider proposed changes to: Schedule 3, Development ChargesAct, which may reduce the ability for soft services to be continue to be funded by new growth; Schedule 9, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, which would shorten municipal decision-making timelines and reduce community engagement and increase decisions made by a tribunal rather than locally; and, *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. 5 - 1 Schedule 12, the Planning Act, Section 37, to continue to permit density bonusing where the bonusing provisions are clearly articulated in amunicipalits zoning by- law; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Provincebe requestedto extend consultation on Bill 108to 120 daysas key implementation measures have not been released; andfurther, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that Report DSD-19-135 be submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Regional Members of Provincial Parliament, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario,. BACKGROUND: Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 was given first reading by the Provincial legislature on May 2, 2019. Bill 108 comprises 13 schedules and affects 15different pieces of provincial legislation, most of which affect municipalities directly.While aspects of the proposed changes related to Environmental Assessments and excess soil appear to have positive outcomes and simplify processes, proposed changes to the Development Charges Act and the Planning Act would have profound impact on municipalities. A summary of the Bill, which identifies all of the affected legislation, is attached as Appendix A. According to the Province of Ontario, the proposed amendments provide a suite of changes to increase the supply of housing that is affordable and to streamline the overly complex development approval process announcements). This report provides an overview and comments with respect to those schedules which are of particular interest to the City of Kitchener. The deadline for comments is June 1, 2019. REPORT: Scope of Bill 108 and Opportunity for Consultation The breath and depth of Bill 108 is broad and deep. While all of the ramifications are still being determined, it is clear that municipalities are significantly impacted. One month is insufficient time for analysis to review and develop improvementsand alternatives that may be helpful to the government. The City of Kitchener requeststhat the consultation period be extended by 120 days. Schedule 2 Conservation Authorities Act Schedule 2 introduces the concept of identifying core services for conservation authorities, and will require conservation authorities to enter into memoranda of understanding with municipalities to avoid service delivery duplication. It also includes governance and oversight- related provisions such as conservation authority board member training and Minister oversight. 5 - 2 The City of Kitchener maintains a positive working relationship with the Grand River Conservation Authority, which has prepared comments for submission that are generally supportive of the proposal. AMO will participate in discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks on the implementation of these changes, including draft regulations, in the months ahead. Schedule 3-Development Charges Act Schedule 3 proposes changes to the Development Charges Act(DCA), 1997 that intend to reduce development costs and provide more housing options, which can help make housing more attainable for the people of Ontario. Specifically, the proposed changes aim to support a range and mix of housing options, and boost housing supply; increase the certainty of costs of development; and make housing more attainable by reducing costs to build certain types of homes. City staff have reviewed the proposed changes to the DCA and believe they will not achieve the stated goal of increasing housing supply/reducing costs, and also go against the long-stated Increasing Housing Supply/Reducing Costs The two ideas of increasing housing supply and decreasing costs go hand in hand because as costs go down, supply would go up (and vice versa). Bill 108 seeks to reduce costs of development by removing some current development charge (DC) items from DC legislation, and by reducing or spreading out the remaining DC costs of development. While on the surface both of these changes would seem to reduce development costs, a more detailed look shows that these changes could actually adversely affect housing supply and degrade the quality of new neighbourhoods being built. First, rental housing, non-profit housing, and commercial/industrial/institutional DCs willbe payed in six equal annual payments commencing the date an occupancy permit is issued or occupancy of the building, whichever is earlier. This will negatively affect DCcash flows since revenue collection will be delayed. This means the City may need to delay the construction of engineering infrastructure, such as roads, watermains and sewers, needed to further develop the city,which will constrain the amount of land available to be developed and increase land costs (which will increase housing prices). This will also add to administrative costs related to tracking, billing,and collectingdeferred payments. On a related note, under Bill 108,DCamounts will also be determined at the time of site plan/zoning amendment applications as opposed to the issuance of a building permit. This means the City will receive less revenue, as developers will not be paying at the current DC rate, which will again reduce the amount of funding available to build the infrastructure needed to prices, not lower housing prices. Staff also expect thiswill likely increase the number of disputes about application dates and decrease the quality of planning submissions as developers will be motivated to bring forward their applications early in order to lock in lower DC rates. 5 - 3 Second, under Bill 108 allsoftor discountedservices (including libraries, recreation facilities, cemeteries,parkingand growth related studies), have been removed from the DCAand will be funded by a new Community Benefit Charge(CBC). Thisnew charge must also be used for Parkland Dedication, which is being eliminated as a stand-alone charge. Funding for the CBC will be a percentage of land value as determined at the time a building permit is issued. The percentage has not yet been determined, therefore no detailedanalysis can be completed related to overall financial impact at this time. Having said that, given the stated goal of reducing development costs, City staff expect the CBCwill be less than the current soft service DC, meaning there will be less funding available for these projects going forward. This will degrade the quality of new neighbourhoods as fewer new recreation facilities will be able to be funded unless existing taxpayers fund these growth-related recreation facilities. Growth Pays For Growth believe that growth must pa does not achieve the principle of growth paying for growth, Bill 108 appears to move further away from the principle, specifically as it relates to the Community Benefit Charge (CBC). As noted in the item above, the CBC will be used to fund discounted DC projects as well as Parkland Dedication items. Combined, these two funding sources were planned to provide approximately $140M over the next 10 years for capital projects such as community centre expansions, building a new library in the south end, and developing parks in new neighbourhoods. Unless the CBC rate revenues meet or exceed what was anticipated to be collected through DCs and Parkland Dedication, there will be a negative impact because any new development will not fully be covering these costs. If the City wants to maintain service levels in new communities by continuing to build new recreation facilities, it will be up to existing taxpayers across the city (not wholly bydevelopment driving the need for the new facilities) to fund the projects. The other option is to not build as many new facilities in developing neighbourhoods, which will drop service levels in those locations and put increased pressure on existing amenities as new residents visit these already established facilities. In either case, growth would not be paying their fair share of the costs of growth. Schedule 6 Amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act Schedule 6 proposes to increase the exemptions for low risk activities within the municipal class EA. As examples these could include items related to de-icing, and streetscaping. As well, the province has exempted itself from a number of EA requirements related to transit, mines, parks and real estate. At this time, City staff view the proposed municipal changesto be both practical and positive. A consultation paper has been released and AMO will be providing comment. While greater information around duty to consult, the sale of provincial brownfields and the bump up process is being sought by AMO, these proposed changes reflect long-term requests from the municipal 5 - 4 sector. Schedule 9 Amendments to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act Under Schedule 9, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal(LPAT)will remain but will no longer evaluate appeals based on compliance with official plans and consistency with provincial plans with de novo hearings, as was the case when planning disputes were resolved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Meeting the legislated timelines proposed by Schedule 9 would necessitate a reduction in level of community engagement City staff undertake prior to bringing a recommendation to Council, especially for complex projects. Even if engagement is reduced, many of these timelines may be unachievable. This could lead to more planning decisions being made at LPAT rather than by the municipality. Notwithstanding the modest additional funding promised for LPAT, having more planning decisions made by a tribunal, rather than by the municipality, will delay approvals and housing construction. The table below outlines the time in which a municipality must make a decision on an application, after which time the application can be appealed to LPAT. Application TypePre-Bill 139Current (Bill 139)Proposed (Bill 108) Official Plan Amendment180 days210 days120 days Zoning By-law Amendment120 days150 days90 days Draft Plan of Subdivision180 days180 days120 days de novo approach to appeals has drawn out hearings. It is unclear how this reversal will speed up housing development. AMO does note, however, that proposed limits on third party appeals of subdivisions is positive. There will also be new limits on the extent of testimony. In addition, the province has committed to hiring additional staff to help deal with the existing LPAT case backlog that arose from the OMB process and transition. Schedule 11 Ontario Heritage Act Schedule 11 proposes several changes to the Ontario Heritage Act.A noteworthy change is that Council decisions on by-laws to designate or alter a building or structure on apropertythat is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act can now be appealed to LPAT, a decision- making body. Currently, appeals are heard by the Conservation Review Board, whichmakes recommendations to either Council or the Minister. Another noteworthy change is that there are new mandatory notice and objection provisions for the listing of properties on the Heritage requirements. Schedule 12 Amendments to the Planning Act Bill 108,as proposed,touches on numerous land use planning policies. Below is a summary of some of the proposed changes, based on information known at this time: 5 - 5 Additional Residential Unit Policies: Bill 108 proposes to require official plans to allow an additional residential unit in an ancillary building (e.g. garden suite), in addition to the two residential units that are allowed in the main building. While garden suites are suitable in a number of circumstances and could be part of the solution of improving housing choices, there are some contexts (e.g. extremely small urban lots or underservices areas) where it may not work. The province is urged to allow municipalities to regulate the context of where garden suite are permitted as long as the regulations are justifiable on technical grounds and not prohibitive. Inclusionary Zoning:This tool currently allows municipalities to require developers to incorporate a certain percentage of units in a housing project asaffordable housing. Currently, this tool is broadly enabled across the province but has yet to be implemented; probably due to the fact that the process is extremely onerous to establish and requires dedicated resources to administer. Bill 108 would limit its application to Major Transit areas. Although directing more affordable housing to major transit areas aligns with the ability to deliver affordable housing more broadly.The City of Kitchener encourages the province to simplify the inclusionary zoning process and maintain its broad application beyond Major Transit Station Areas. Parkland Dedication: Currently, parkland is acquired through development in two ways: (1) in plans of subdivision, where up to 5% of the land is dedicated to the City; or (2) as is most often the case for infill residential development, at a rate of up to 1 hectare per residential 300 units. -in- parkland or other recreational infrastructure offsite. The cash-in-lieu value is tied to land value. If a Community Benefit Charge system is enacted, it would replace the second tool, but the first tool requiring 5% of land requirement through subdivisions would remain. In sum, outside of plans of subdivision, the acquisition of parkland will become one of many competing demands on community benefit funds. Fundamentally, acquiring parkland through the development process is different than funding other community infrastructure. Outside of the subdivision process, the City would no longer have the option to acquire lands through the development approval. Instead, it must use community benefit funds to purchase lands at high market value established by already challenging task of acquiring sufficient park spaces that add value and support communities. The proposed changes appear that they may further reduce the ability to procure land and deliver soft servicesas the funding tool may be combined. This appears that it would risk financial capability to acquire and develop land for recreational purposes. Any proposed changes should ensure that local municipalities are made whole when funding new services that are driven directly by new growth. Density Bonusing: Municipalities can currently allow an increase in permitted density beyond what is usually permitted inits zoning by-law in exchange for the developer providing community benefits. The province has eliminated this tool and integrated development related benefits into the new Community Benefit Charge framework with the 5 - 6 objective of being more predictable than the current density bonusing framework in the Planning Act. City staff agree that predictability in the use of bonusing is important- a-. Accordingly, comprehensive zoning by-law review (CRoZBy) the city developed a transparent set of rules for higher densities in the Downtown where the community benefits and the bonus values are pre-defined. This approach is unique to Kitchener, aligns with provincial objectives, is largely concerned, however, that Schedule 12 may disable the use of animportant city building issuggested to the Province as a reasonable mechanism to ensure transparency.Further, this approach requires a lot le than what is being proposed through Bill 108. Mandatory Development Permit System:Bill 108 proposes to give the Minister the authority to establish a mandatory development permit system, a development approval system which more or less integrates site plan and zoning approvals. While this tool could be helpful with improved regulations, having it imposed reduces local level decision- making. It is cumbersome to establish andoperate a development permit system with the current regulations. Future regulations:Staff will continue to monitor additional details as they become available. If Bill 108 becomes law, many regulations would be required for implementation.Regulations can have a significant impact on the implications of regulations. Environmental Compliance Approval in respect of Sewage Works (Proposed Regulation) This regulation aims to streamline approval requirements for constructing sewage works that the municipality may eventually own. Prescribed persons, such as developers, would be able to conditions are met, instead of obtaining a separate ECA. Essentially, the proposed change would reassign the approval of sewage works infrastructure from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to municipalities. In general, City staff see opportunity to gain efficiencies in the approval process. In doing so, however, municipalities would be required to assume some liability by approving their own engineering designs. Excess soil regulatory proposal and amendments to Record of Site Condition (Brownfields) (Proposed Regulation) This regulation introduces changes for more excess soil to be reused locally. 5 - 7 The proposal seeks to clarify rules associated with managing and transporting excess soil, limit the amount of healthy soil being sent to landfill and lower greenhouse gas emissions from the sector, while continuing to ensure strong environmental protection. The recognition that municipal infrastructure related work generates excess soil, and should generally be exempt, has been discussed through a previous government proposal. City staff e of excess soils and providing details around what is permissible. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: vision, which is largely implemented by the tools provided by the affected legislation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: that the proposed legislative changes may have significant financial implications as outlined in this report. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM- Council meeting. CONCLUSION Despite the absence of implementation detail,Bill 108 would change the way municipalities do business, wouldlimit the time to engage the community through development processes and would likely undermine the principle that growth pay for growth. The City of Kitchener has been ess and encourages the Province to consider revisions to Bill 108. ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Justin Readman -General Manager, Development Servicesand Jonathan Lautenbach Chief Financial Officer, Financial Services 5 - 8 Schedule A Summary of Bill 108 5 - 9 5 - 10 5 - 11 5 - 12 5 - 13 5 - 14 5 - 15 5 - 16 5 - 17 5 - 18 Source: Extracts from Explanatory Note posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario 5 - 19