Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-192 - Province of Ontario More Homes for Everyone Plan Bill 109 Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Finance and Corporate Services Committee DATE OF MEETING: April 25, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Rosa Bustamante, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 Natalie Goss, Manager Policy and Research, 519-741-2200 ext. 7648 Janine Oosterveld, Manager Customer Experience and Project Management, 519-741-2200 ext. 7076 Garett Stevenson, Manager Development Review, 519-741-2200 ext. 7070 WARD(S) INVOLVED: ALL DATE OF REPORT: April 14, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD-2022-192 SUBJECT: Province of Ontario More Homes for Everyone Plan (Bill 109) RECOMMENDATION: That report DSD-2022-192 Province of Ontario More Homes for Everyone Plan (Bill 109)P More Homes for Everyone Plan which includes Bill 109; proposed guidelines for the Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator; and the Missing Middle Housing and Gentle Density Discussion Paper. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the substantive changes proposed to planning and development process through Everyone Plan which includes changes to, among other things, the Development Charges Act and Planning Act through Bill 109; Bill 109 proposes that, effective January 1, 2023, application fees for site plan and Zoning By-law amendment (including combined Official Plan amendments) that are not decided on/approved within the required Planning Act timeframes, are required to be refunded between 50 and 100 per cent based on the amount of time that has passed since a complete application was received by the City. This proposed change poses the greatest risk to Kitchener in terms of application processing, revenue stream, and community/development industry perception; City of Kitchener Staff support the provincial objective to streamline development approvals to bring housing online efficiently to meet the needs of current and future residents. Corporately, the City has prioritized continuous improvement through the Development Services Review (DSR) which resulted in the creation of a customer- informed workplan that included 18 Lean improvement projects known as Kaizens involving over 111 staff. Additionally, projects are underway to implement *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. recommendations from the provincially funded 2021 KPMG report on Digital Transformation as well as through Streamlining Development Approvals provincial fundingawarded earlier this yearto continue to refine our processes. As a result of is issued on average between 3 and 6 months with full site plan approval being obtained on average within 16 months. The time it takes to obtain full site plan approval is partially dependent on how quickly the applicant can clear conditions; As a corporation we have worked hard to build relationships and develop key partnerships with the development industry and community. It will be increasingly challenging to engage and continue to build partnerships if fee refunds are required for complex planning applications that cannot be completed within the legislated timeframe. Minimizing ability to involve the community, Council, and the development industry in discussing and resolving matters through a transparent process is of great concern; The proposed fee refund changes to the Planning Act have the potential to impact a key Planning and Engineering Division revenue source and could reduce staffing levels leading to an unintended consequence of slowing down applications further; This report ha Council/Committee meeting. Staff also presented an overview of the More Homes for per this initial discussion, staff understand that there is likely little support in Waterloo Region for the proposed fee refund requirements included in Bill 109, and; This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: On March 30, 2022, the Province released the following for comment: Proposed Planning Act changes (Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022); Proposed Development Charges Act changes (Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022); Proposed New Home Construction Licensing Act changes; Proposed New Home Warranties Plan Act changes; Opportunities to increase missing middle housing and gentle density, including supports for multigenerational housing discussion paper; Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator Proposed Guideline; and Access to Provincial Financing for Not-for-Profit Housing Providers proposal. The above is available for comment on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) until April 29. REPORT: The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the substantive changes proposed to planning and development process through recent legislative changes and to seek Attachment 1 to Report DSD-2022-192 provides an overview of the benefits and concerns that the proposed legislative changes pose. Bill 109 More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 Bill 109 is an omnibus Bill proposing changes to the Development Charges Act, the Planning Act, the New Home Construction Licensing Act, and the New Home Warranties Plan Act. The following proposed change to the Planning Act through Bill 109 has been identified as having the greatest risk to Kitchener in terms of application processing, revenue stream and community/development industry perception: Effective January 1, 2023, for site plan applications that are not approved within the required Planning Act timeframe and Zoning By-law amendment (ZBA) applications (including combined Official Plan Amendment (OPA) applications) which are not decided on within the required timeframe, the application fees collected by the City would be required to be refunded between 50 and 100 per cent based on the amount of time that has passed since a complete application was received by the City. Table 1 below provides a summary of the proposed fee refunds required by Bill 109. Table 1: Summary of Bill 109 Proposed Fee Refunds by Application Type 50% 75% 100% Application Type No Refund Application Fee Application Fee Application Fee Refund Refund Refund ZBA Final decision Decision made Decision made Decision made made by within 91 and within 150 and after 210 days Council within 149 days 209 days 90 days Combined OPA Final decision Decision made Decision made Decision made and ZBA made by within 121 and within 180 and after 240 days Council on ZBA 179 days 239 days and Regional Council on OPA within 120 days Site Plan Decision made Decision made Decision made Decision made by Manager of within 61 and 89 within 90 and after 120 days Development days 119 days Review within 60 days Staff are supportive of the Provincial objective to streamline development approvals to bring housing online efficiently to meet the needs of current and future residents. Corporately, the City has prioritized continuous improvement through the Development Services Review (DSR) which resulted in the creation of a customer-informed workplan that included 18 Lean improvement projects knowns as Kaizens involving over 111 staff. Additionally, projects are underway to implement recommendations from the provincially funded 2021 KPMG report on Digital Transformation as well as through Streamlining Development Approvals Provincial funding awarded earlier this year to continue to refine our processes. The intent of the proposed free refund change through Bill 109 is to expedite approvals to increase housing supply throughout Ontario. However, it may do so at the potential detriment of good planning process and principles, dialogue with applicants, and the value added by the community through a comprehensive public engagement process that has . Specifically, should Bill 109 be implemented in its current form, there are the following potential risks to Kitchener: Process, resources, and timing risks Processing applications within the Planning Act timelines may not allow for consideration of the complex technical matters that some applications bring (e.g., Environmental Impact Studies, Heritage Impact Assessments, Urban Design Reports) which take additional time to review and assess, and may have seasonal field requirements; Advancing quality building design and the ability to negotiate with developers to achieve better outcomes for a development could be challenged with compressed review times; External commenting agencies add value to the process and time for technical review which may not be able to be achieved in all cases within the timeframes contemplated by the proposed changes to the Planning Act; The process is likely to result in unintended outcomes such as more recommendations for refusal of development applications and/or more appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). This would take decisions out of the local context and reduce time for issue resolution through the planning review process. Additionally, more appeals will require considerable additional Planning and Legal resources; Should a Planning recommendation report not be able to be brought to Council for a decision within the time required by the Planning Act or should Council defer a Planning staff recommendation, the result may be a refund of the planning application fees which will ultimately be borne by the tax base rather than the principle of growth paying for growth; It is widely understood by the development industry and planners that the legislative timelines do not provide adequate review time of average and complex development applications. More recently Kitchener has seen an increase in applications for multi- tower developments which are complex in nature and typically take a longer period of time to review. Kitchener has, on average, met legislative timeframes for minor applications that did not require more than typical levels of community engagement or, a detailed review of modifications to the proposal; and Substantial process changes beyond what the local development industry has identified through the Development Services Review will be required to achieve decisions within the proposed legislative timeframes. This will impact many business units across the corporation which will have to dedicate time to process overhauls. Bill 109 requires the delegation of site plan approval to staff, which Kitchener has already done through its Site Plan Control By-law. Bill 109 also proposes to allow the Province, through a future legislative regulation, to prescribe complete application requirements for site plans. A pre-submission consultation process is already used by staff to outline complete application requirements for development applications including site plans. Once the Provincial regulations for complete applications for site plan are established, staff may have additional comments depending on the nature of the requirements proposed. In accordance with current Planning Act provisions, staff will continue to use the Official Plan to outline additional pre-submission requirements for site plans. Application fee risks The City of Kitchener currently does not budget for or issue refunds of development application fees. Reduced planning revenues, which is what would occur if fees were refunded, will have the unintended consequence of reducing staffing levels which could to work expeditiously to process development applications; Official Plan Amendment (OPA), Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA), and Site Plan application fees are one of the primary revenue sources for the Planning Division and are collected to cover the cost of processing the applications (i.e. growth pays for growth); Refunding application fees will do very little in the way of achieving housing affordability and costs to cover the staff time that are not covered through the application fee (i.e. the refunded portion) will have to be funded through the tax base, which will increase taxation costs to all Kitchener residents or may result in service cuts; The Planning Division collects fees and is the process owner for the OPA, ZBA, and Site plan applications. Planning relies on other divisions (Building, Transportation, Engineering, Operations, etc.) and external agencies (Region, Grand River Conservation Authority, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks, Ministry of Northern Development, Mines, Natural Resources and Forestry Services, and Ministry of Transportation) to participate in the process. The City has very little to no ability to influence process change outside of the City. External agencies (except the Region) do not collect application fees and are not subject to the same fee refund requirements. Additionally, the City will have little ability to control response times for the applicant to address staff and agency comments; therefore, it could be in the interest to delay and recoup fee revenue, and; The increased volume and complexity of applications drives the need for additional permanent Planning resources, which cannot be provided without the certainty covering those costs through application fees. Perception risks approach to planning includes a fulsome community-based process that involves building relationships with the community, development industry, and Council; sharing information; and receiving and considering feedback on planning proposals, projects, and processes. Placing emphasis on making planning decisions faster will result in fewer engagement opportunities with the stakeholders mentioned above. As a corporation we have worked hard to build relationships and develop key partnerships with the development industry and community. It will be increasingly challenging to engage and continue to build partnerships if fee refunds are required for complex planning applications that cannot be completed within the legislated timeframe. Minimizing involve the community, Council, and the development industry in discussing and resolving matters through a transparent process is of great concern. Through the Development Services Review (DSR), City staff heard from the community that transparency, access to information, and meaningful, inclusive engagement were top priorities. Improvements have already been made to the engagement process using StoryMap and additional digital engagement platforms; the use of postcards instead of technical letters to share information with the community about development proposals; and notifying all residents and property owners within 240 meters of a development proposal double the requirement in the Planning Act. Municipal Benchmarking Study, it takes Ontario municipalities anywhere from 12 to 30 months to issue site plan approval for developments. As a result of improvements made to approval in principle is issued on average between 3 and 6 months with full site plan approval being obtained on average within 16 months. The time it takes to obtain full site plan approval is partially dependent on how quickly the applicant can clear conditions. Processing applications within the Planning Act timelines to avoid refunding application fees will most certainly require changes to the development application processes, specifically community engagement processes. These changes may move further away from the process and engagement improvements that have already been made through the DSR which in turn may result in lower levels of and less meaningful community engagement (e.g. not hosting multiple Neighbourhood Meetings, working groups, site walks, etc). Other matters of note Proposed legislative changes to Development Charges and Community Benefits Charges are relatively minor in nature and will have minimal impact on these areas. This work will continue to proceed to Council for decision in the format and timeframe as currently planned. The Bill 109 proposed changes to the Planning Act include the ability for the Minister to Bill 109 that could be ordered as parkland do not meet the current or proposed standards of acceptable parkland within the proposed Spaces Parkland Dedication Policy and By- law. These changes have the potential to impact the amount of cash-in-lieu that could be Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) and downtown. At this time, staff does not have a clear understanding of when or in what context the Minister may issue such an order. If this order is only at the request of a municipality, then it is unlikely that this situation would occur in Kitchener. However, if such orders can be generated in other ways, these proposed changes could significantly impair the ability to collect parkland or cash-in-lieu to the proposed standards within the Spaces Parkland Dedication Policy and By-law. Bill 109 also includes provisions that enable municipalities to create a Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator to speed up approvals for housing and community (MZO) like process). The Province has also prepared proposed guidelines for how Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerators would work. As the proposed changes to the Planning Act regarding this matter are enabling rather than a requirement, should Kitchener choose to enable this mechanism, it has the potential to have impacts on its robust community engagement approach and relationships that have been built with the community and Council. A fulsome discussion regarding the merits and drawbacks of this tool should occur prior to its use. On March 30, 2022, the Province increased the Non-Resident Speculation Tax from 15 to 20 per cent and expanded the tax provincewide (beyond the Greater Golden Horseshoe). This tax applies to the purchase or acquisition of an interest in a residential property located in Ontario by anyone who is not a citizen or permanent resident of Canada or by a foreign corporation/taxable trustee. The Province has indicated that this change has the potential to assist with their plan to increase housing supply and affordability. There is no evidence to date that this tax addresses affordability. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed fee refund changes to the Planning Act have the potential to impact a key Planning and Engineering Division revenue source. This item would have Operating Budget Implications should the province implement the proposed bill. However, the magnitude of the impact is not known at this time and would ultimately depend on what portions of the application could be required and reviewed before deeming the application complete. Capital Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM the Council / Committee meeting. CONSULT Staff from the Planning, Parks and Cemeteries, Finance, Legal Services, Legislative Services, Building, Realty Services and Equity, Anti-Racism, and Indigenous Initiatives (EARII) Divisions met to discuss the More Homes For Everyone Plan including Bill 109. The comments in this report are reflective of this cross-divisional discussion. Staff presented an overview of More Homes for Everyone Plan, including Bill 109 to the Kitchener DLiaison Committee (KDLC) on April 8, 2022 to understand their perspectives and share initial staff comments. As per this initial discussion, staff understand that there is likely little support in Waterloo Region for the proposed fee refund requirements included in Bill 109. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. REVIEWED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director Financial Planning and Reporting Katherine Hughes, Assistant City Solicitor Niall Lobley, Director Parks and Cemeteries Andrew Ramsaroop, Social Planning and Affordable Housing Program Lead Dianna Saunderson, Manager Council/Committee Service/Deputy City Clerk Danielle Sbeiti, Manager Realty Services APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager Development Services Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A More Homes for Everyone Plan: Summary of City of Kitchener Comments law) any - concerns with this have the potential gthening of the len pdated to conform to Provincial Comments to be submitted to the Province Staff have norequirement. Staff have concerns with proposed changes that would enable approval timeframe for Regional Official Plans as it has the ability to do necessary updates to their local planning framework (Official Plan and Zoning Byin a timely manner. More information is needed on the OLT process and whether or not there could be parties to hearing on matters referred. Kitchener continues to support current Planning Act provisions that do not provide for an appeal of Official Plans that are being ulegislation, policies and plans.Staff have significant concerns around this new requirement.Fee refunds to upfront most of the necessary the Comments to the law Amendment - to make a decision on City of Kitchener Regional Official Plan What It MeansThe schedules that are already prepared on an annual basis and attached to a Council report will need to be posted separately onwebsiteon the approval of Regional Official Plans or Regional Official Plan amendments.The Minister can refer all or parts of aOntario Land Tribunal (OLT). If the Minister refers all or parts of a plan to the OLT, the OLT will make a recommendation to the Minister whether to approve the plan, parts of the plan or make modifications to the plan.If the City failsa Site Plan application within 60 days, a Zoning By(ZBA) within 90 days or an Official Summary of : there may be appeals of the Proposed AmendmentA Development Charges statement must be made available to the public by posting it on the The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can provide notice to suspend the period of time after which failure to make a decision in respect of a plan.The Minister can refer plans to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a recommendation or a decisionNew rules around when municipalities are required to refund fees in respect of applications. More Homes for Everyone Plan - More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 o (64) (Zoning : (Regional Provincial LegislationDevelopment Charges Act, 1997Subsection 43 (2.1)Planning Act, 1990New subsections 17(40) and (55) to (64)Official Plan)New subsections 17 (55) t(Regional Official Plan)New subsection 34 (10.12)Bylaws) Attachment 1 Bill 109 n taff staff applicatio - there is little ndustry, i and may also result in in Waterloo Region for evelopment Comments to be submitted to the Provincetechnical studies and community engagement to a preprocessmore recommendations for refusal due to insufficient information provided. Limiting funding to Planning Divisions in Ontario that are charged with the responsibility of approving developments is contrary to speeding up approvals.Based on preliminary conversations with the dunderstand that support the proposed fee refund regulations.As this is an enabling provision and not a requirement, shave no concerns with this additional ability being made available to municipalities.Staff have no concerns with this requirement. - ) for law shall - dments for Site Plans or e law Amen - City does not pass a resolution law is in effect, the City shall ZBAs, the City shall refund 100% - What It MeansPlan Amendment within 120 days, the City shall refund 50% of the development application fee.If the decision takes 30 days longer than the timeframe for Site Plans or 60 days longer than the timeframe for ZBAs, the City shall refund 75% of the development application fee.If the decision takes 60 days longer than the timefram120 days longer than the timeframe for of the development application fee.City Council may pass a resolution requesting that the Minister pass a 34 (Zoning Bythe purpose of accelerating community infrastructure and/or housing.If a Community Benefits Charges Byensure that a review of the CBC Bylaw occurs every 5 years.If the within 5 years, the CBC By - Proposed AmendmentAn additional type of Ministeorder has been added that can be made by the Minister at the request of a municipality.A requirement for regular reviews of community benefits charge bylaws every 5 years. (59) 11.1) (Site Plans) Provincial LegislationNew subsection 41 (New detail to Section 34.1(Zoning Bylaws)New subsections 37 (54) to(Community Benefits Charge) the . - this change, this ling legislation does not have any . Should Comments to be submitted to the ProvinceKitchener already utilizes delegated approval authority for site plan applications and supports enabregarding the requirement to consult.Staff supports the extended time period for site plan reviewOnce the regulations for complete applications for site plan are established, staff may have additional comments depending on the nature ofrequirements proposed. In accordance with current Planning Act provisions, staff will continue to use the Official Plan to outline additional presubmission requirements for site plans.Staff have concerns with respect to this provision. At this time, Kitchener provision would make ensuring adequate parkland supply in law - Oriented - provide ddressed through law was passed. complete application - For sites less than or equal to five What It Meansbe deemed to have expired 5 years after the ByMunicipalities will be required to report on how the municipal need for parks as set out within their parks plans is being aparkland dedication levies.The approval of site plan applications submitted on or after July 1, 2022 will be delegated to staff.The site plan application review period will be extended from 30 days to 60 days.The province can pass regulations to establishrequirements for site plan applications (similar to what currently exists for Zoning ByAmendments and Official Plan Amendments).The Province has implemented a tiered alternative parkland dedication rate for TransitCommunities (TOCs) to increased certainty of parkland requirements:- . eteness of applications. Proposed AmendmentNew rules regarding consultations with municipalities before plans and drawings are submitted for approval and respecting compl New requirements for alternative parkland dedication rates and ability for the Minister to order acceptance of parkland d (Site Provincial LegislationAmendments to Section 41Plan)Amendments made to Sections 42 and 51.1 with respect to parklanrequirements. . municipalities . If maintain o specific plans of subdivision. ue to have discretion and additionally require requirements in f parkland (or parkland fees) for Comments to be submitted to the ProvinceFurther, staff are unclear whethersubsection 4.27 would enable the Minister to order acceptance oland that would not meet the parklandKitchener to encumbered landsStaff have no concerns with the ability to extend lapsed approved Staff have some concerns about the ability of the province to more narrowly regulate and prescribe what conditions the City can impose on subdivisions, since this has been traditionally flexible, allowing staff to tailor conditions tdevelopments.Staff are still reviewing the legal and financial implications of surety bondswill continon the details of the surety bond policies, the City does not have concerns with this change or - ed relat - iously been deemed not to have arkland could be identified through For sites greater than five What It Meanshectares, parkland would be dedicated up to 10% of the land or its value-hectares, parkland would be dedicated up to 15% of the land its value.Pan order by the Minister of Infrastructure and would be deemed to count towards any municipal parkland dedication requirements. If an approval of a plan of subdivision lapses before an extension is given, Council may deem the approval not to have lapsed unless five or more years have passed since the approval lapsed or the approval has prevlapsed under this subsection.Establish provincial regulationmaking authority to prescribe what cannot be required as a condition of subdivision approval.The Minister can authorize landowners and applicants to stipulate the type of surety bonds and other instruments to be used to secure obligations in connection with land use planning approvals. The increased use of surety bonds to secure development vision subdi Proposed AmendmentNew requirements regarding extensions of approvals by approval authorities.This section authorizes the Minister to make regulations regarding surety bonds and other instruments in relation to land use planning approvals. Provincial LegislationAmendments to Section 51(Subdivisions)New Section 70.3.1 e lerator A community infrastructure community infrastructure, Comments to be submitted to the ProvinceStaff have no concerns with this requirement, but note that it may impact staff resources depending on the requirements of the reporting. Municipalities would be required to consult use developments - ded. this tool can be used to accelerate What It Meansobligations in connection with land use planning matters could free up resources which developers could use to invest in more housing projects.Associated regulations areanticipated to establish the information about planning matters to be included in the report; the persons to whom the report must be provided; the frequency with which reports must be produced and provided; and the format in which the report must be provi Generally does not apply to municipalities does not apply to municipalities late the use of land and the location, use, height, size and spacing of buildings e Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator orders to help mitigate 1990 To use the tool, municipalities would need a Council resolution to be sent to the Minister and employment/economic development, and mixed Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator Guidelines Proposed AmendmentNew requirement for Council to require public reporting on development applications and approvals. 5285: - 019 is introducing a new tool for municipalities that can help speed up approvals for housing and community infrastructure buildings that would facilitate The Minister could impose conditions on th formal request explaining the project rationale, approvals sought and any consultations. Provincial LegislationNew Section 64New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, ERO Posting The Province(e.g. hospitals and community centres).awith the public including publishing a public notice for these meetings before a Community Infrastructure and Housing Accerequest is submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.public.potential negative impacts to ensure outcomes meet expectations that the projects are delivered quickly.and housing accelerator order can be used to reguand structures to permit certain types of development. housing, - any future 5286 to collect - may be needed in considerations regarding dability Profit Housing Providers - for working with consultants to understand - , and guideline updates that The results of this study will help inform . Kitchener is Comments to be submitted to the ProvinceFund, market conditions and affordifferent housing typologies, including missing middle and midrise housing. policy, regulationthis areaSee above.See above.See above. sing middle housing and gentle density, including supports l . There may be some limited opportunities to facilitate subsidized or affordable l to increase mis address these housing matters would be consulted on prior to the government making profit housing providers and does not apply to the City of Kitchener. - oices in existing neighbourhoods. This consultation is focused on finding ways to support gentle for - the supply of missing middle and 86: Opportunities increase 52 - changes to the planning and development Seeking Feedback on Access to Provincial Financial for Not 019 : seeks input from not ing and community building from other jurisdictions Discussion Question What are the biggest barriers and delays to diversifying the types of housing built in existing neighbourhoods?What further process would you suggest to make it easier to support gentle density and build missing middle housing and multigenerational housing, in Ontario?Are you aware of innovative approaches to land use plannthat would help multigenerational housing?Are there any other changes that would help support opportunities for missing middle and multigenerationahousing? 1234 Staff are still reviewing the implications of this toohousing.ERO Postingfor multigenerational housing In addition to Bill 109 and other information provided by the Province of Ontario, the government prepared ERO 019input on how to diversity housing chAny additional specific policy proposals to legislated changes. ORR Posting This posting