HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2023-071 - Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing Status Update
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Community and Infrastructure Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING: March 6, 2023
SUBMITTED BY: Garett Stevenson, Interim Director, Planning Division, 519-741-2200
ext. 7070
PREPARED BY: Tim Donegani, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7062
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Wards 3, 9, 10
DATE OF REPORT: February 22, 2023
REPORT NO.: DSD-2023-071
SUBJECT: Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing: Status Update
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to update council on intermunicipal work on inclusionary
zoning, share the results of community engagement, and outline next steps.
There are no financial implications arising from this report
Community engagement included in person and digital meetings with potential
occupants of inclusionary zoning units, the for-profit and non-profit housing
development industry, and the community at large. Asynchronous engagement was
undertaken on engageWR
This report supports A Caring Community.
BACKGROUND:
Housing for All recognize the importance of using a broad
range of tools to advance critical housing affordability objectives. Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) is
a tool that allows municipalities to require market residential developments to include some
affordable housing units.
IZ works by leveraging increases in value achieved through increased density, development
approvals, investment in the ION light rail transit system and, increasing demand for
centrally located housing to provide affordable housing. In this way IZ programs can be
designed to work without government subsidies. IZ is one tool that can be used along side
investments from all levels of government, non-profits and the private sector to help deliver
Because IZ results in lower rental or sale price revenue than without an IZ policy, IZ
requirements need to be carefully crafted so as not to stifle market housing development in
Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs).
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
Inclusionary Zoning has been used extensively in the United States and some Canadian
cities. Several other Ontario municipalities are working to advance inclusionary zoning.
regulations came into effect on January 1, 2023. Toronto
of IZ is awaiting Provincial approval of Protected MTSAs.
In September 2020 staff provided an update to council regarding a financial impact analysis
of IZ through report DSD-20-150. The analysis by N. Barry Lyon Consultants (NBLC) tested
several IZ policy options at MTSAs across the region. Potential IZ polices were developed
using the principles of:
partnership with the development industry;
capturing value in new density and directing it toward affordable housing;
long term policy sustainability without financial subsidies;
targeting moderately affordable units; and
minimizing land market disruption.
Key findings of that report were:
a modest but meaningful number of affordable units can be secured through IZ in the
short term with a possibility for future growth;
different market characteristics across the MTSAs result in differing abilities to deliver
affordable units;
incentives could be used to deliver more affordable units than under the base policy;
IZ policies should be introduced slowly to minimize land market disruption;
IZ implementation should be aligned with updating planning frameworks in MTSAs;
regional coordination, frequent monitoring and policy adjustments are recommended.
Work on inclusionary zoning is being undertaken in collaboration with the cities of
Cambridge and Waterloo, and the Region of Waterloo (the partners). Consulting services
have been cost shared though a joint services agreement.
In December 2022, through its consideration of report DSD-2022-501 regarding Bill 23,
council expressed an interest in accelerating work on inclusionary zoning and asked staff to
report back in Q1 2023. The purpose of this report is to explain work to date, provide
community engagement highlights and outline next steps.
REPORT:
Regulatory Framework and Bill 23
IZ can only apply to multi-residential developments with 10 or more units within Major Transit
Station Areas. Prior to approving an inclusionary zoning by-law, municipalities must:
Requirement Status
Prepare a housing assessment report to understand local Complete
demographics and housing supply and demand
Obtain an independent review of the impacts of IZ on the housing Complete.
market and the viability of development; and Updates
underway
Establish Official Plan policies and zoning for Protected Major Transit In progress
Station Areas that include, boundaries, density targets measured in
persons and jobs per hectare, permitted uses, and minimum site-level
density permissions
On November 28, 2022, Bill 23 received royal assent. Bill 23, and related regulations, among
other things, propose changes to inclusionary zoningrequirements which are not yet in
effect. A summary of the changes and included in report DSD-2022-
501. Specifically, the proposed regulatory changes for inclusionary zoning would:
set an upper limit of 5% of the total proportion of units/floor area in a development
that can be required to be affordable;
set a maximum affordability period of 25 years, and;
prescribe the lowest price/rent that can be required for inclusionary zoning units at
80% of the average market rent for rental units and 80% of average resale price for
ownership units.
1. 2020 H OUSING A SSESSMENT - Council received a Housing Needs Assessment as
background to Housing for All strategy (DSD-20-006).
2. 2020 F INANCIAL M ODEL - NBLC tested various policy parameters that affect both
achievement of affordable housing objectives, and development feasibility
including:
or floor area in a building required to be
affordable);
duration of affordability (how long affordability must be maintained);
depth of affordability (the discount in price or rent as compared to the market);
the tenure of affordable units (rental vs. ownership).
The implications on land market dynamics and financial viability were explored considering
prototypical developments in MTSAs in all three cities. Details are included as appendices
B and E to report DSD-20-150.
3. 2022 F INANCIAL M ODEL U PDATE - NBLC updated the model to reflect significant
changes to the housing market since 2020 and to enable further updates to reflect
contemporary market conditions and test other policy options. This work will be
shared with council in late Q2 2023.
These three pieces of work together satisfy the assessment report and financial impact
assessment prerequisites for IZ outlined in the Planning Act.
4. P OLICY AND P ROGRAM R ESEARCH AND D EVELOPMENT
Over the past few years the partners have been researching best practices, meeting with
key stakeholders and analysing policy and program options. This work has informed the
following initial draft policy directions that were presented as part of community engagement.
The draft policy directions were presented for discussion purposes and to obtain thoughts
from stakeholders and the community. Input obtained will be used to inform recommended
policy directions anticipated to be tabled for further discussion with the community and
Council in late Q2 2023.
PolicyInitial Direction
Set aside rate what
Start low, transition slowly to higher rate that is
percentage share of units or
supported by the market conditions
floor area in a building
Appropriate set aside in each MTSA determined by
should be secured as
the financial model
affordable housing?
A maximum set aside 5% is proposed to be mandated
by the province
Set aside to increase with building height/density
Exempt smaller buildings to encourage missing
middle and midrise built forms (e.g., exempt < 50-60
units)
Depth of affordability -
Moderate affordability 80%-100% of Average Market
how much lower the rents or
Rent
prices are than the market?
In 2022 Average Market Rent was $1,454/month for
a two bedroom
Duration of affordability -
A maximum 25-year term is proposed to be mandated
how long affordability is
by the province
secured for?
Tenure of affordable units
Rental a priority in both condominium and purpose-
- are the affordable units
built rental projects
rented or owned?
Unit type/mix/design
Encourage range of unit size/types/designs
should there be unit type,
comparable to market units
size or design requirements
Require functional equivalency of market and IZ units
set on affordable units?
Offsite units - should the
Enable developers to use flexible approaches to meet
policy allow affordable units
affordability and financial feasibility objectives subject
to be located in another
to strong guarantees
building nearby?
Incentives should the city
Provide the mandatory exemptions from
provide financial or non-
Development Charges, Community Benefits Charges
financial incentives for the
and Parkland dedication
development of IZ units)?
No additional financial incentives
No parking required for IZ units
Administration who,
Exploring opportunities to shift ongoing IZ
owns and operates units,
administration away from condominium developers
and who monitors and
and boards
ensures ongoing
Regional or not-for-profit implementation
affordability?
5. C OMMUNITY E NGAGEMENT
In 2022 the partners retained LURA Consulting to facilitate community engagement on
inclusionary zoning as described in the Community Engagement section of this report and
in Attachment A.
Next steps
The partners are continuing to work together to develop a consistent policy framework
across the three cities. Each City expects to implement IZ requirements through adoption
of official planpolicies and zoning regulations in coordination with updated MTSA panning
in their respective jurisdiction.
IZ process:
Q1-Q2 2023 Additional policy analysis and key stakeholder meetings
Q2 2023 Discussion paper, recommended policy directions and draft
implementation guidelines considered by council
Q4 2023 Official Plan and zoning by-law amendment considered for approval
alongside updated planning framework for all MTSAs except for Block
Line, Fairway and Sportsworld
Early 2024 New development applications to which IZ policy applies must include
affordable units
2024+ IZ requirements for Block Line, Fairway and Sportsworld to be
considered together with updated MTSA planning frameworks
The timing of the steps outlined above is contingent on a decision by the Province on the IZ
regulation tabled in October 2022. At this time, it is unknown when IZ regulation revisions
will be in effect.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This report supports A Caring Community.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Capital Budget The IZ work is anticipated to be completed with existing resources and
approved budgets. Consultant costs were cost shared among the partners as a Joint
Services Initiative, and were supported by provincial Streamline Development Approvals
Funding.
Operating Budget The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM This report along with project materials have
with the agenda in advance of the committee meeting and on engageWR .
CONSULT The partners have engaged with stakeholders and the community at large both
online and in person since 2020. In 2022, the partners retained LURA Consulting to assist
with developing plain language communication and videos to explain the inclusionary zoning
concept. LURA also helped plan, deliver, and facilitate digital and in-person community
engagement. Details on engagement and what was heard are included in Attachment A.
Since 2020, the Inclusionary Zoning engageWR project page was visited 3,300 times with
over 1,000 engaged visitors. Four synchronous engagements, both online and in person,
were attended by over 100 people.
It is recognized that community engagement to date does not reflect the full depth of diversity
and the demographics of Waterloo Region. Households earning less than $60,000 per year,
people younger than 30,and those without post-secondaryqualifications were
underrepresented in meeting attendance and through the engageWR platform. Renters and
moderate-income households, both groups expected to benefit from IZ, were well
represented. Some engagement tactics targeted key stakeholders such as industry and
housing providers and as such were not expected to
demographics. Furthermore, the consultations were technical in nature, and policy options
fall within tight regulatory bounds. Staff identified the likelihood of retraumatizing people with
lived experience of homelessness or poverty, as well as reputational and trust risks of
engaging intensely with these populations in such technical work, and so did not proactively
or intensely engage with them. A concerted and generally successful effort was made to
engage with moderate income people who are anticipated to benefit directly from
inclusionary zoning. Nevertheless, there is significant room for improvement in pursuit of
equity in community engagement through future affordable housing work. The community
engagement results should be interpreted with this in mind.
In general, we heard broad support for an inclusionary zoning policy. Support was expressed
or unit quality. There was no consensus on how to manage the trade-offs between set-aside
rate, depth of affordability and duration of affordability. A general preference for the provision
of two bedroom or larger units was identified.
While no consensus emerged on the appropriate price or rents for affordable units,
participants expressed a desire to see an IZ program that delivers moderately affordable
units complemented by other policies and programs beyond IZ that target the creation of
many more deeply affordable units.
Participants encouraged the partners to consider additional zoning measures such as
eliminating parking minimums and allowing more low and mid-rise development within
residential neighbourhoods to help increase housing supply more broadly through variety of
built forms.
Participants expressed the desire for continued advocacy to the Province for the expansion
of where inclusionary zoning can be used, and continued municipal discretion on maximum
set aside rates and duration of affordability.
The development community indicated the need for all of society to work to provide more
affordable housing units. Many support the development industry playing a part in the
creation of affordable housing in the Region. They emphasized the need to maintain project
viability and not putting undue price pressure on market rate units. Most condominium
t align with administering units in the long term;
partnerships are needed to fill this gap.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
DSD-20-006 Affordable Housing Strategy Phase 2: Housing Needs Assessment
DSD-20-150 Inclusionary Zoning for Affordable Housing: Background and Fiscal
Impact Analysis
DSD-2022-501 Bill 23 More Homes Built Faster Act Kitchener Comments
Planning Act
REVIEWED BY: Natalie Goss, Manager, Policy Planning and Research
Michelle Lee, Senior Policy Planner, City of Waterloo
Matthew Blevins, Senior Planner - Reurbanization, City of Cambridge
Judy Maan Miedema, Principal Planner, Region of Waterloo
APPROVED BY: Justin Readman, General Manager of Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Region of Waterloo and Tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Study: Engagement
Report
Region of Waterloo and
Tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning
Study: Engagement Report
February, 2023
Prepared by LURA
Consulting Inc.
Table of Contents
Project Background 3
Engagement Summary 4
Engagement Methods and Participation 5
Engagement and Reach 6
Who Participated 7
What We Heard 10
Engage Digital Consultation Summary 11
Inclusionary Zoning Beneficiaries Workshop Summary 13
Online Survey Summary 16
Development Industry Meeting Summary 21
Public Meeting Summary 26
Conclusion and Next Steps 35
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 2
Project Background
In 2019 the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge and the Region of Waterloo started to
investigate the development of an inclusionary zoning policy in each of the tri-cities within the
framework of the Official Plan for Waterloo Region.
Inclusionary zoning allows cities to require private developers to include a certain percentage of
affordable units within new, multi-unit housing developments of ten units or more. The tool can be
applied to areas around ION stations -called Protected Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs.)
Figure One: Map of ION route where intensification is planned.
In partnership, the tri-cities and the Region contracted N. Barry Lyon Consultants Ltd. (NBLC), a land
economics firm, to carry out an assessment of the economic feasibility and financial impact of a potential
inclusionary zoning framework for selected MTSAs throughout the region. The results of the NBLC
financial impact assessment, a peer review of the NBLC report, and a summary of stakeholder feedback
was then presented to respective city councils between Fall 2020-Spring 2021.
In Fall 2022 the project shifted to begin consideration of Official Plan and Zoning by-law
amendments to implement inclusionary zoning. The tri-cities retained LURA Consulting to develop
and implement a public engagement strategy. The goal of the engagement was to seek specific
feedback on policy direction questions from a variety of perspectives. Participants included those
who could potentially benefit from an inclusionary housing policy, not-for-profit and for-profit
housing providers, and the community at large. This report presents a brief overview of earlier
engagement activities and a detailed review and synthesis of the feedback gathered since Fall
2022.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 3
Engagement Summary
The engagement process identified a general, broad level of support for further developing and
implementing an Inclusionary Zoning Policy. It identified a strong desire to create a flexible policy to
achieve the goal of providing more affordable units as soon as possible. Engagement participants
suggested limits to the height and density trade-offs that might be allowed to secure affordable units
through the tool, while at the same time indicating a willingness to be flexible in support of the goal
of new affordable homes.
Early Awareness and Beneficiary Preferences
One engagement challenge was to ensure that participants understood that the level of affordability
offered by an IZ program without additional incentives was not the deep level of affordability required
for those receiving social assistance. This challenge was met by providing additional context,
guidance and explanation in on-line postings as well as at in-person meetings.
Builder Comments
The development community was concerned about the effect of the policy regulations on the
financial impact to future projects. In particular, impacts on project viability, impacts on the price of
market rate units, financing horizons, aligning with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
(CMHC)’s Rental Construction Finance Initiative, and CMHC average market rent definitions were
highlighted as areas to review. The development community indicated a strong preference for
flexibility to deliver requirements off-site and encouraged the tri-cities to have a unified approach to
the policy for the administration of IZ units.
Priorities and Flexibility
Through the on-line survey and the in-person feedback, some policy preferences were clear with
more nuance and lukewarm support in other policy areas.
The following priorities were clearly indicated in engagement with the general public:
A general preference that the policy focus on the provision of two bedroom or larger
units
Support for IZ units to be incorporated into the new buildings along the corridor
A high degree of support for financial incentives to off-set development costs where
the incentives helped meet the goals of additional affordable units or increased
duration and affordability of the units
Support for targeting rental units within the policy
Participants were not united in their support for additional height and density allowances.
Some identified little concern for allowing additional heights to meet the end goal of additional
affordable units, while others were more hesitant to make too many trade-offs in built form. As
well, no clear consensus emerged with regards to recommendations on the appropriate
price/rental point for the IZ units.
A slight preference for prioritizing the greatest level of affordability in new units was identified
over duration of affordability and set aside rates.
Feedback from all sources outlined concerns about the limitations of Inclusionary Zoning as a
policy to address affordability. This new policy tool was identified as a further option alongside
more established tools and supports such as social housing. An additional common thread was
the idea that partnerships and flexibility are needed to ensure a successful program.
Developers, affordable housing providers, regulators and the community at large will need to
seek out new partnership opportunities in order to meet the goal of providing additional
affordable housing in the region.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 4
Engagement Methods and Participation
In order to reach a broad spectrum of the public in Waterloo Region, a variety of methods were used
throughout the project lifecycle. The use of multiple engagement tactics lowers barriers to
participation and recognizes different preferences and opportunities for citizen engagement. The
following are the methods of engaged used during the project. Engagement-specific summaries can
be found in subsequent sections.
Digital Engagement: EngageWR (https://www.engagewr.ca/inclusionary-zoning). The project page
was housed within the Engage Kitchener Hub on the regional EngageWR site, but was also available
directly through a link on each of the area municipalities’ Engage hubs.
Interest Group Sessions: The project team held listening-based facilitated meetings, both-in person
and virtual, focused on generating dialogue from not-for-profit housing providers, the development
industry community and future beneficiaries of an IZ policy.
Online Survey: An online survey was posted on the Engage project page.
Public Meeting: A broad community meeting was hosted at a location accessible to residents from
any of the three municipalities.
Email/Phone: Contact information for the project team was posted on the Inclusionary Zoning
Engage page. Names and photos of project team members were included.
Figure Two: Screen shot from Eventbrite Public Notice
Educational Videos
Given the complexity of the subject matter and technical language involved in the work, the tri-cities
also commissioned the development of two educational videos for posting online. The theme of the
first video was affordable housing and it included an introduction to Inclusionary Zoning as a tool
within the spectrum of policies to create affordable housing.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 5
The second video focused on the specific meaning and facets of the Inclusionary Zoning policy is
forthcoming.
Figure Three: Still from Video #1
Engagement and Reach
The following tables summarize the reach, or participation rates, of the various methods of
engagement used.
EngageWR Inclusionary Zoning Page
The EngageWR portal served as an active driver of participation in the project with over 3,300 visits
to the site. In addition to serving as a source of information about the project, the site generated
active engagement from over two hundred participants who left comments or filled out a survey on
the site as of January 31, 2023.
EngageWR IZ Project Pages March 24,2020-January 31, 2023
Website visitors who viewed at least one page 3,330
Ideas Page Visits 267
Ideas Page Commenters 109
Online Survey Page Visits 175
Online Survey Responses 89
Guest Book Page Visits 341
Guest Book Commenters 22
Document Downloads from the site 924
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 6
The primary sources of traffic to the EngageWR page are indicated below. Search engine
inquiries and links to the page generated through the EngageWR electronic newsletter drove most
traffic to the site. Social media also generated considerable traffic to the site with a lower number
of traffic coming from the municipal web page and traditional news media website.
Inclusionary Zoning Engage Page: Top Sources of Traffic
Google 972
Engage Newsletter 579
Twitter 187
Facebook 148
Kitchener Citynews.ca 69
Kitchener.ca/MyKitchener.ca 49
Members of the public demonstrated confidence in the capacity of the EngageWR page to serve as
a source of official documents and a repository of project information. Over 900 documents were
downloaded from the site as outlined in the table below.
Document Name Downloads
Kitchener staff report to council -September
303
2020
Inclusionary Zoning stakeholder engagement
226
session presentation -March 2020
Evaluation of potential impacts of an
203
affordable housing inclusionary zoning policy
Frequently asked questions 105
Waterloo staff report to council Dec 7, 2020 103
Total 940
Who Participated
As outlined in the Engagement Methods and Participation section above, the tri-cities Inclusionary
Zoning engagement strategy used several techniques to reach different audiences. To lower
barriers to participation-such as time constraint challenges, or the need to secure childminding-both
digital and in-person engagement were part of the program. Other intentional actions taken to seek
out and encourage feedback from different audiences included:
Specific meetings with interest groups, including individuals with moderate incomes who might
benefit from an inclusionary zoning program
Invitations worded to provide context for the outreach and with an invitation to ask questions about
the event from the organizers
!Direct invitations to participate to agencies and associations serving:
Students
Participants with accessibility needs
Age friendly city proponents
Indigenous community members
Newcomers and refugees
Multicultural groups
Renters
The project team also made sure to host meetings within an MTSA to reduce reliance on car travel
and reduce the need to have home access to the internet.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 7
These efforts were made to support the goals of broad awareness and participation from a
population reflective of the residents of the tri-cities. They were also taken out of an awareness that
in general, organized civic associations and participants in public meetings tend to over-represent
citizens with higher levels of education, more leisure time, higher incomes and with better access to
technology. Participation is always voluntary and, as reflected in the gap between the number of
respondents who indicated that they would participate (took actions to register or RSVP) and the
lower number of attendees, municipal engagements compete for attention with the other activities,
obligations and realities of citizen participation. Intentional outreach and deliberate care can yield
benefits over the longer term as a message from the municipalities that all are welcome and different
points of view are wanted.
The Inclusionary Zoning team also collected demographic information from respondents to the
online survey as well as attendees at the December 2022 and January 2023 Meetings. Completion
was not a requirement of participation. However, it did provide some data to measure against the
goal of an inclusive engagement process. The collection of demographic information supports the
goal of identifying which individuals and groups were represented through the engagement process
thereby allowing an evaluation of methods and lessons learned for future engagement efforts by
the municipalities in Waterloo Region. The charts below indicate self-declared responses from three
data sets: participants at the public meetings in December 2022 and January, 2023, online survey
respondents and 2021 Canada census data for the Region of Waterloo. Unfortunately, not all
variables in the City of Kitchener’s standard demographic questionnaire used for this project are
comparable to variables used in the census. Additional information collected in the participant
surveys included: language, race/ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and disability but
are not reported here.
The age of participants in the engagement process indicates a lower participation rate in the online
survey for people in the lowest age category and 40-49 year old category. An overrepresentation of
responses from participants over aged 60 is indicated. Age distribution for the public meeting was
underrepresented for 30-39 year olds and 60-64 year olds. As a whole, there was a general
distribution of ages in participants.
What is your age?
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
18–29 years old 30–39 years old 40–49 years old 50–59 years old 60–64 years old 65 years and Prefer not to
above answer
In person meetings Online survey Region of Waterloo (2021 Census)
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 8
Despite deliberate efforts to facilitate participation from a reflection of the population of the tri-cities
area, there was an over representation of residents with higher levels of education. Further attempts
to rectify this could include a campaign to promote the videos to ensure broad awareness and help
underrepresented communities better understand the relevance of IZ to their issues and concerns.
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Apprenticeship or High Schoool Diploma College Certificate or University University Post-
other Trades or equivalent Diploma Undergraduate Graduate Degree
Qualification Certificate, Diploma or (Masters or PhD)
Degree
In person meetings Online survey Region of Waterloo (2021 Census)
The feedback indicates an underrepresentation in online participation from those with household
incomes of $60-$89,000. However, this cohort was well-represented at the public meetings. Specific
effort was made during the outreach period ahead of the in-person events to identify interested civic
groups who serve potential future beneficiaries of the IZ policy and encourage them to promote
participation. In general, the income distribution of participants indicates fair participation in different
categories. Moderate income households, who are likely beneficiaries of IZ, were well represented.
This is a positive finding for the engagement. Incomes under $60,000 were underrepresented across
online and in person engagement.
What was your total family income before taxes last year?
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
$0 to $29,000 $30,000 to $60,000 to $90,000 to $120,000 to $150,000 to $200,000 or Prefer not to
$59,000 $89,000 $119,000 $149,000 $199,000 more answer
In person meetings Online survey Region of Waterloo (2021 Census)
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 9
As outlined above, an effort was made to create awareness of the policy and program development
in newcomer communities in the region; despite these efforts, participation in both the online survey
and the in-person meeting indicates low participation among first generation immigrants. Additional
connections with agencies serving newcomer communities can be pursued to address this gap as
the process moves forward, building on the outreach done during the engagement phase.
Were you born in Canada?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes Prefer not to answer No
In person meetings Online survey Region of Waterloo (2021 Census)
Affordable housing is needed in both ownership and rental tenures; however, renters were slightly
under-represented in the engagement. Additional efforts to increase awareness for renters should
continue to be made. The previously identified public advertising could be part of this effort.
Is your current home rented or owned?
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Owned Rented Other
In person meetings Online survey Region of Waterloo (2021 Census)
What We Heard
The following section provides detailed summaries of the feedback received during each phase of
engagement for the project. Feedback is summarized based on themes pulled from responses. The
summaries are not intended as verbatim accounts but rather a synopsis of the major takeaways from
the engagements.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 10
EngageWR Digital Consultation Summary
Summary:
The project team collected public feedback through a virtual engagement platform. The platform was
hosted through the Kitchener Engage website and linked from the engage pages of the other
municipal partners. It collected feedback around the question, “What do you think about Inclusionary
Zoning?”
The platform collected public feedback from March 24, 2020 to January 31, 2023 with the highest
traffic to the site occurring in September 2020, coinciding with the Kitchener staff report to Council.
Objectives:
!Introduce the Inclusionary Zoning project and policy concepts
!Invite members of the public to connect with project team members
!Encourage participants to share their ideas around the development of the policy
and comment on the ideas and comments of others
Participants:
Between March 2020-January 2023 period, 608 visitors reviewed the “Ideas” and “Guest Book”
pages of the site. Here, a total of 131 contributors left comments, responses and guest book
entries.
Key Themes:
The following is a summary of the main themes that emerged through an analysis of the ideas,
comments and guest book entries received through the virtual engagement platform. The majority
of ideas and responses received (over 90%) date from the early part of the project in 2020 and 2021.
The comments reflect a reaction to the initiation of the project and a desire to understand the
specifics of the project better.
1. The development community has a role in affordable housing.
Many commenters expressed their desire to have more strict requirements for developers (such as
increasing the percentage of units that must be affordable and a call for those units to remain
affordable permanently.)
An opinion was conveyed that the public paid for the development of the ION through taxes, and
developers who benefit from the increased land value should be obligated to provide a public good.
Some participants expressed that putting excess pressure on developers regarding affordable
housing could lead to development companies not investing in the region and cautioned not to lose
sight of the goal to create the greatest number of units possible.
2. Taking steps to drive down cost pressures by encouraging development
Participants indicated that parking minimum requirements were a financial burden for developers
and supported their elimination in order to support opportunities to build affordable housing.
Some participants expressed support for the concept that increasing the permitted density of
developments can be a tool to accommodate more affordable units.
A number of commenters wished to refocus the conversation toward other planning priorities. Many
noted the elimination of Exclusionary Zoning as a goal; these commenters called for the removal of
single residential zoning and outlined that such a policy would positively impact regional housing
supply and affordability.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 11
Some participants commented that development in the region is booming, and intensification efforts
within existing residential neighbourhoods should be prioritized, rather than a focus on units in higher
built forms along the ION route.
3. IZ should advance city-building goals beyond affordability
Many participants expressed that an Inclusionary Zoning policy should include regulations around the
size of affordable units. Affordable family sized units or units for individuals sharing larger units would
provide opportunities for rent sharing making further affordability more likely.
Several participants called for new developments to be mixed-use to support walkability in the
community. Non-profit agency tenancies, grocery stores and other community needs as well as
ground floor retail were identified as preferences.
Some concern was expressed by participants about the focus of Inclusionary Zoning on providing
housing affordability for moderate income households rather than low-income households with deep
affordability needs.
Concern was expressed by some participants about whether the potential number of units that could
be delivered by the program would be too small to have a meaningful impact on the shortage of
affordable units.
4. Clarifying the meaning and intention of Inclusionary Zoning
Likely owing to the majority of the comments and feedback received through the virtual engagement
platform being received during an early stage of the engagement, several participants expressed
confusion about the level of affordability that could be offered through an Inclusionary Zoning
program and the type of housing it offered within the wider affordable housing spectrum.
Many comments indicated an assumption that the affordable housing units provided through IZ would
be deeply affordable subsidized housing units. Continued explanation of the concept in plain
language as a tool for the provision of moderate level affordability is encouraged.
The video resources developed as part of the engagement can be used to further support clarification
and education in this regard.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 12
Inclusionary Zoning Beneficiary Group Workshop Engagement Summary
December 13, 2022
6:30-8:00 p.m. City of Kitchener Downtown Community Centre, 35B Weber St W
Summary:
Members of the project team hosted an in-person focus-group style discussion with individuals
associated with groups that could benefit from an IZ policy. The session was held at a centrally
located venue in Downtown Kitchener. Fifty-one invitations were issued by email on December 2,
2022 with 27 RSVPs received through a designated EventBrite page issued to invitees. Invitations
were issued to a list of groups drawn from the Affordable Housing master contact list with a focus on
groups whose clients/users could ultimately benefit from the policy. Care was taken to draw
awareness to groups serving middle-income clients since any IZ program is anticipated to be of
direct benefit to moderate income households. Groups who received the invitation were encouraged
to share the invitation with their networks.
The meeting began with a presentation by Tim Donegani, Senior Planner-City of Kitchener who
introduced the project and gave an overview of the Inclusionary Zoning project process to date. A
video was shown that explained how housing has become less affordable in recent years and how
IZ is one option to increase the amount of affordable housing. Following this, LURA facilitated two
break-out group discussions with participants and members of the tri-cities project team that invited
meeting participants to provide feedback and ask questions.
Project Team:
Tim Donegani
Senior Planner-City of Kitchener
J. Matthew Blevins
Senior Planner Reurbanization-City of Cambridge
Judy Maan Miedema
Principal Planner-Region of Waterloo
Michelle Lee
Senior Policy Planner -City of Waterloo
LURA
Liz McHardy, Partner
Franca Di Giovanni, Senior Engagement Specialist
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 13
Objectives:
The objectives of the meeting were to:
Introduce the Inclusionary Zoning policy concept
Reach community members through the process who will benefit from such a policy but who
may not have awareness of efforts and dialogues established to date
Promote awareness of the concept and the potential it has to provide new options for
creating affordable housing for residents with moderate incomes
Identify next steps
Participants:
There were 13 participants in the focus group style session.
Questions:
The discussion focused around thoroughly explaining the concept of inclusionary zoning and getting
feedback on the specific themes and questions noted below.
Seeking Affordable Housing: How many units, for how long and for what cost of housing?
Affordable rental or affordable ownership: Should the cities target securing affordable rental
units or ownership units or a mix?
Ensuring a viable program: What are the trade-offs, such as heights and densities that are
needed to encourage a viable program? Should the cities use financial and/or non-financial
incentives to further advance affordability objectives?
Location trade-offs discussion: Should developers be permitted to provide the affordable
units in other buildings within the area?
Key Themes:
The main themes that emerged from discussions with stakeholders at the session included:
1. A preference for larger units (2 or more bedrooms)
Participants expressed a wide variety of opinions around the need for or uses of three-bedroom units.
It was acknowledged that the cost of larger units in new multi-unit buildings is high, both for the
builders, renters and buyers, compared to one-bedroom units. However, newcomers and post-
secondary students with families coming to the tri-cities to study or work were cited as needing larger
homes and therefore benefiting from larger affordable units.
Other participants from the real estate and supportive housing fields identified inconsistencies in the
desirability of three-bedroom units citing that they are either highly coveted or languish on the market.
The concept of three-bedroom units as shared space for a larger number of people, but not
necessarily from one family or household, was discussed. The question of whether offering larger unit
sizes through the program could support the greatest number of people was posed.
In general participants agreed that while it was difficult to identify the ideal unit size for the program,
more than one bedroom was the preferred unit size.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 14
2. Ownership or rental
There was a general consensus on the need to prioritize rental units as the form of tenure supplied
through an Inclusionary Zoning program.
3. Incentives and trade-offs
Participants in this group did not express a great amount of concern for the financial impact of IZ
requirements on new developments. A general feeling that sufficient profit margins could still be
attained was expressed.
There was no specific consensus reached on the trade-offs to be provided. Participants expressed
a variety of opinions around the concept of forgiving development charges. Flexibility around
development charges was supported if the charges stood in the way of getting something built. Some
support for eliminating parking minimums and being more flexible in terms of height was expressed,
citing the example that “a 24 storey building versus the 27 storey building doesn't make a difference.”
One participant expressed a strong desire not to waive the fees for inclusionary zoning and instead
supported redirecting fees toward other housing programs. Another cited empty units in downtown
Kitchener as evidence that “it's not true that every one bedroom unit is needed”. While another
conveyed that “being flexible might dilute what we get”. Although the intention was to seek feedback
on what cost of housing should be targeted through the policy, no strong discussion and no clear
preference was articulated in this regard.
Questions of Clarification
Question: Do we have good numbers on how many units are actually required at each price
point?
Answer: Many low and moderate income households are experiencing housing affordability issues. The
need is greatest at the lowest incomes. The information we do have is provided in the Housing Data
and Needs assessments completed or being completed by each area municipality.
Question: How long will it take to get IZ in place?
Answer: The policy is expected to be in place by 2023 with implementation in 2024.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 15
Inclusionary Zoning Consultation Online Survey Summary
Summary:
An online survey was added to the IZ Engage page on December 19, 2022. The survey remained
online from December 19, 2022-January 31, 2023.
Objective:
The survey focused on collecting feedback about preferences in response to questions about:
!Overall support for an IZ policy
!Preferences for on-site requirements versus flexibility for off-site units
!Opinions about the trade-offs around financial incentives
!Feedback on additional flexibility in height and density allowances
!Priorities in terms of depth of affordability, length of affordability and number of units
created
Participants:
Over the timeline previously indicated, the survey had 175 visitors to the page with 89 contributors
completing the survey.
Survey Questions and Responses:
1. Do you think the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge should require
private developers to include some affordable housing within new, multi-unit housing
developments near ION stops?
Survey respondents indicated a high level of support for the development and implementation of the
policy.
Require Affordable Units?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Yes 69
No 21
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 16
2.How important is it that affordable housing units are located only within a mixed
income building rather than in a building that contains all affordable units?
Survey respondents expressed a strong preference for the affordable housing units delivered through
the program to be located within the new mixed income building(s.)
Located within new mixed-income buildings
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Extremely important 39
Somewhat important 22
Neither important nor unimportant 12
Somewhat unimportant 6
Extremely unimportant 11
3.Under what circumstances should financial incentives (such as waiving fees or
charges) be considered as a way to support an inclusionary zoning program?
Survey respondents indicated a high degree of support for the allowance of financial incentives to
off-set development costs where affordable units were being provided above and beyond what
would be required in base inclusionary zoning requirementswould be required in base inclusionary zoning requirements.
Financial Incentives
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
No circumstances warrant municipal financial
23
incentives
Incentives should be considered if they can help
26
ensure the delivery of affordable units within…
Incentives should be considered if they are used
41
to increase the number of required affordable…
Incentives should be considered if they are used
31
to help make affordable units more deeply…
Incentives should be considered if they are used
36
to help increase the duration that affordable…
Other (please explain) 12
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 17
4.Recognizing that enabling developers to build more units on the same site could help
them offset the reduced revenue they receive for the affordable units-do you think the cities
should allow more height and density if it means more affordable units can be provided?
Despite indicating a strong desire for flexibility regarding financial off-sets to support an IZ program,
survey respondents were not united in stating their support for additional height and density
allowances.
Height and Density
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Yes 54
No 18
Not sure 19
5. What is the most important to you when considering the various policy
requirements and tradeoffs? Rank the following from most important to least important.
(Where 1 is most important, 3 is least important)
Survey results indicated a slight preference for providing the greatest level of affordability in new
units. However, the margin between depth of affordability, length of affordability and number of
affordable units was less than half a percent. Respondents are seeking a balanced approach to
these three policy objectives.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 18
Requirements and Trade-offs
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Greatest number of units that are affordable (i.e.,
1.8
higher percentage of affordable units is required)
Longer time frame that units remain affordable before
1.98
being released to market rate
Greatest level of affordability (providing the most
2.2
affordable level of housing)
Affordability Stories:
The survey also included an open text component for participants to write four or five sentences
outlining their current experience, or that of someone close to them, affected by housing
affordability in Waterloo Region.
The following is a summary of the key themes emerging from the open text section as well as some
direct quotes.
1. High proportion of income being spent on rent
Contributors noted the challenges faced by their family members, and reflected on what their own
circumstances would be if faced with current housing costs.
Some expressed concern for what the near future would bring should there be a change in
circumstances:
I work a full time job and two part time jobs…my mother shares our rental to help offset high
prices…we can still barely afford the rent we pay
My partner and I recently moved to Kitchener and were unable to find appropriate housing within
our financial means without relying on help from our families. Because we don't drive, it was vital
for us to live near an ION station and within walking distance of our daily necessities (grocery,
pharmacy, etc). Fortunately, we were able to find a place near downtown that met our needs, but
the majority of our combined income is going to housing costs now.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 19
2. High levels of regional demand
A few contributors self-identified as employers or landowners and highlighted the demand for
housing and the lack of affordable supply.
I am a landlord and even with recent turnovers in my units (wherein the rent was increased) I was
overwhelmed with demand. I feel for the many who are seeking affordable housing.
I’m struggling to hire professional employees because they can’t afford to move to the region.
3. Housing costs limiting mobility
Several contributors outlined that, despite a desire for new housing, they felt stuck due to the fear
of losing an existing affordable arrangement.
For some this meant the prolonged presence of adult children at home or the need to share
housing with multiple generations of the family.
Our 3 generation family is underhoused in a reasonably priced 2 bedroom…to move…will not be
possible for us.
My daughter is a university graduate with a full time job, unable to afford moving out on her own.
My daughter is currently living in off campus housing that was opened up for rent when COVID shut
down the Universities. She continues to lease (one room with bathroom) but is not a student.
Additional Comments for the Project Team
Respondents were also given the opportunity to leave text comments for the project team. Below is
a short summary of the main themes of comments.
1.Inclusionary Zoning is part of the solution, but other programs are also needed
Several participants noted support for the policy but expressed concern about the number of units
that could be delivered through the program. Participants offered their support for other affordable
housing solutions in addition to IZ. A general sentiment was expressed that delivering the maximum
number of units was the goal.
Inclusionary zoning is a very much imperfect solution to this problem…However, it is the best tool
we have at the moment within the framework provided by the province, and should be used.
2.IZ holds strong possibilities for partnership opportunities
One respondent expressed enthusiasm for the opportunity to develop new partnerships with not-for-
profits to deliver the maximum number of units.
If two projects like this pooled their off-site resources and provided them to a non-profit, the $5 million
in revenue could also be leveraged with funds from CMHC and/or the Region, and could reasonably
be expected to bring 40 to 50 new units.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 20
Development Industry Meeting Summary
Thursday January 19, 2023 10-11:30 Via Zoom
Summary:
Members of the project team hosted a virtual meeting with individuals in the development industry.
The virtual focus group session was held using the Zoom meeting platform and forty-seven
invitations were issued by email Friday January 6, 2023. The list was drawn from the tri-cities
Affordable Housing Interested Parties Master List that included all known development industry
stakeholders operating within the tri-city area.
The meeting began with a presentation by Michelle Lee, Senior Policy Planner -City of Waterloo. It
consisted of an overview of the Inclusionary Zoning work carried out by the cities to date, including
some detail from the NBLC study of 2020 and an acknowledgement that this work is being updated.
Following this, LURA facilitated a group discussion that invited meeting participants to provide
feedback and ask questions. The presentation was circulated to participants after the meeting.
Project Team:
Tim Donegani
Senior Planner-City of Kitchener
J. Matthew Blevins
Senior Planner Reurbanization-City of Cambridge
Judy Maan Miedema
Principal Planner-Region of Waterloo
Michelle Lee
Senior Policy Planner -City of Waterloo
Franca Di Giovanni, Senior Engagement Specialist
Sesvin Josarosa, Community Engagement Specialist
Objectives:
The objectives of the session were to:
Re-introduce the Inclusionary Zoning project to the development community
Identify the current direction of policy guidelines
Solicit feedback from the development community around the following questions:
What is an appropriate initial set aside rate for strong markets? (between 1 and 5%)
What would be an appropriate unit number/building size to exempt from IZ (with a view to
removing disincentives for missing middle)?
Do you have any preferences for a mandatory vs voluntary vs hybrid program?
Do you want to share any thoughts on the possibility of offsite units?
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 21
Participa
Participants
There were 33 participants in attendance, representing approximately 25 development firms.
Key Themes:
The discussions with stakeholders identified concerns about impacts on project feasibility as well
as impacts on the price of market rate units. These concerns were captured under the following
themes.
1. Importance of the average market rent definition
Several participants remarked on the discrepancy between the average market rent figures seen by
looking at rental listings in the tri-cities and the CMHC definition of average market rent for the area.
The fact that the CMHC Average market rent definition was so much lower was cited as a significant
discrepancy leading to a much too low definition of affordable from a developer point of view.
The project team identified its use of the CMHC-posted average market rent as required by the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, noting that these numbers take into consideration the
global supply. This averaging results in a number that looks lower than typical rents for new rental
units.
Several participants offered suggestions for how to address the gap or shortfall between these figures.
Suggestions included capital investments and funding from senior levels of government, and tax
levies specifically geared toward Affordable Housing.
Several participants noted a shared responsibility between developers, municipalities, and
taxpayers.
The project team cited that the 2020 NBLC study used a model of residual land value and also
outlined that the Region has invested a significant amount of tax dollars into developing the LRT.
This in turn has had the effect of pushing up land values. The idea of the IZ policy is to capture some
of that increased land value and redirect it toward affordable units. Local, regional, provincial and
federal governments investing capital for affordable housing will be part of the solution but the
development industry and existing landowners will also need to be part of the solution.
The project team acknowledged that if there is too much burden on developers, the viability of
certain projects will be at risk. That is why the tri-cities have done the updated financial impact
analysis. Parkland dedication at the municipal level and Development Charge exemptions at the
municipal and regional levels are now mandatory. Reductions in parking requirements were
identified as a helpful incentive for affordable units and could also be considered a form of subsidy.
In response to suggestions that the cost of affordable housing should be borne by the whole of society
through a tax levy, it was noted that the Region of Waterloo currently has a 1.4% tax levy specifically
earmarked for Affordable Housing. One participant noted that the question of a portable market
rent definition is critical because banks are not going to support financing for projects without
CMHC involvement.
2. Limitations of IZ as a policy to address affordability
Concern was expressed about meeting the targets for affordable housing development within
Waterloo Region during a period of uncertainty and high costs for the development industry . With
immigration and local population
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 22
increases expected, a participant issued a caution to not lean too heavily on Inclusionary Zoning for
the delivery of affordable units.
The project team indicated an awareness that if market economics don't support new builds the
delivery of both market and affordable units will certainly be affected. The team acknowledged that it
might be necessary at times to adjust the parameters to reflect evolving market conditions and move
between different policy tools.
3.Rent to Own and fractional ownership programs
A few participants wondered where rent-to-own or other programs that fall in between rental and
ownership fit into the equation. It was expressed that CMHC is actively encouraging rent-to-own;
however, Inclusionary Zoning appears to recognize only rental tenancies or ownership and nothing
in between. Other ownership models such as fractional ownership should be considered.
The project team expressed a position that this is something that warrants further conversation in
order to better understand how such programs could fit into the IZ policy.
4. Purpose-built rental
One purpose-built rental developer expressed a general opposition to Inclusionary Zoning as a
concept to address affordability because it increases rents and prices of market units. It was cited
that CMHC financing with a 10 year horizon as opposed to the 25 year affordability horizon for IZ
units leads to an inconsistency between financing and the horizon of the IZ financial model.
Differences in the quality of finishes as well as maintenance and restoration costs for the units were
cited as additional financial concerns.
Tri-city project staff stated that the financial modeling that had been carried out did identify that
purpose-built rental is financially more challenging to achieve than condo development. I n
recognition of the different site economics, IZ policy in Toronto has identified different rules for
purpose-built rentals and condos. The possibility of lower Inclusionary Zoning requirements for
purpose-built rentals is being considered. The alignment with CMHC financing was identified as a
situation that would have to be considered.
5. Challenges around the administration of affordable housing units
Several participants discussed administration of the units. Citing the usual process of closing a
condominium development company down at the close of the build-out, participants identified
challenges related to any continued responsibility of condominium developers to monitor, administer,
and maintain affordable units within the buildings.
It was suggested that the administration and oversight of the affordable units should be the purview
of the Region and its not-for-profit partners.
Tri-city project staff expressed the importance of working out administration details early on in the IZ
policy development process.
With regards to providing units off site, developers expressed that while on the one hand integration
of affordable units through the community is beneficial, from a practical point of view it would be
easier to create specific buildings where the units could be centrally administered.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 23
One participant suggested that in developments that happen over a longer period of time,
consideration could be given to phasing. At a certain point a critical mass would develop and a
purpose-built “missing middle” sized affordable housing building could fulfill the IZ requirement.
A preference for flexibility in the policy to allow off-site provision of units was a common theme.
Participants saw value in encouraging the Provincial government to allow IZ in areas other than
MTSAs.
6. The need for effective and innovative partnerships
One nonprofit developer participant expressed an openness to new opportunities for partnership with
the for-profit development community in order to meet IZ requirements. Developers expressed the
desire for flexibility around the development of affordable units outside of the MTSAs and flexible
partnerships to maximize affordable housing .
Partnering between different developers in a specific area was also cited as an easier way to
administer and build the units. If a purpose-built affordable rental building was constructed in
partnership with a not-for-profit provider, the affordability factor could be retained forever.
Questions of Clarification
The following are questions of clarification that the project partners provided responses to during the
meeting.
Q1: Will the Inclusionary Zoning policy be implemented at the regional or municipal level?
A: Inclusionary Zoning will be a municipal by-law.
Q2: According to Bill 23, the Regional Official Plan has to get downloaded to the various
municipalities-including the defined MTSA areas. Wouldn't that happen first before this
process would be implemented?
A: Yes, we are planning any inclusionary zoning policy framework at the same time as updates to
various Official Plans that incorporate the new MTSA requirements.
Q3: What is the proposed parking ratio for the units?
A: Staff are contemplating a variety of options to offset the impact of inclusionary zoning, and one of
these options could be a reduced parking ratio or the elimination of a parking requirement for IZ
units. Our hope is to bring forward a parking ratio of 0 although that must be vetted and approved
through the various municipalities. This recognizes the high cost of creating parking structures.
Q4: Can we get a copy of the NBLC modeling and the presentation from today?
A: The presentation from today will be shared. The updated NBLC model will be shared once it has
been completed.
Q5: Everyone is waiting for the specific regulations on Affordable Housing within the new Bill
23 which will have an impact on this program. Can the cities arrange an updated meeting of
this sort when all of the regulations have been identified?
A: Further points of contact can be arranged.
Q6: With regards to landholdings held by the municipality and the region, will they be
rezoning their own land for the purpose of inclusionary zoning?
A: The Region has an existing program for using Regionally-owned lands for affordable housing.
The City of Waterloo has done some initial work looking at its land holdings to meet various
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 24
community objectives including how best to use surplus lands for affordable housing. The Region
and the tri-cities are likely to want to maximize their land offerings for more deeply affordable units.
Surplus public lands that are redeveloped will need to meet certain requirements.
Policy Questions
A question was also posed by the facilitator and project team within the chat box of the meeting and
elaborated on by the senior planner from the City of Waterloo. One participant provided a specific
response.
Q: Do you have any preferences for a mandatory/voluntary/hybrid program?
Voluntary means if you are asking for additional height and density, IZ requirements would set in.
The hybrid approach would be a sliding scale, the higher the height and density, the higher the set
aside rate.
A: There is an understanding that there is a gap between what zoning currently allows and what the
industry thinks should be allowed in terms of density. The request for increased density is practically
a given on any site that will be redeveloped. Figuring out these numbers is likely to be complicated.
Other than increased expenses, the development industry does not like uncertainty and calculating
the requirements is likely to be very difficult. A mandatory system could be preferred to voluntary or
sliding scale type of approach from a complexity and certainty perspective.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 25
Inclusionary Zoning Public Meeting Engagement Summary
Monday January 23, 6:30-8pm
Waterloo Memorial Recreation Complex, 101 Father David Bauer Drive
Summary:
Members of the project team hosted an in-person public meeting at a community centre in Waterloo,
accessible to residents from the region and in a different municipality than the December, 2022
meeting in Kitchener. Invitations were issued by email to both subscribers of the Inclusionary Zoning
Engage page, and a contact list assembled over time by the project team. The event was promoted
on the Engage project page and also listed as a public event on EventBrite.
The meeting began with a presentation by Michelle Lee, Senior Policy Planner -City of Waterloo who
gave an overview of Inclusionary Zoning and the work done by the project team to date. A short
question and answer session with attendees was arranged followed by small group question answer
sessions directly with project team members. Participants could also leave comments and feedback
on posterboards affixed to the walls. Stickie dots and notes were distributed.
The presentation from the meeting was subsequently posted on the Engage page.
Project Team:
Tim Donegani
Senior Planner-City of Kitchener
J. Matthew Blevins
Senior Planner Reurbanization-City of Cambridge
Judy Maan Miedema
Principal Planner-Region of Waterloo
Michelle Lee
Senior Policy Planner -City of Waterloo
LURA
Franca Di Giovanni, Senior Engagement Specialist
Sayan Sivanesan, Community Engagement Specialist
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 26
Objectives:
The objectives of the Public Meeting were to:
!Share the latest information on the status of the Inclusionary Zoning policy development project
!Present an overview of the benefits of the project
!Create opportunity for reaction and discussion
!Seek feedback on priorities for depth of affordability, duration of affordability and set-aside rates
!Explain the concept of trade-offs in new builds
Participants:
Approximately fifty (50) residents attended the session with forty-two (42) signing in and leaving
demographic information.
Dotmocracy responses
The following is a summary of the responses collected on the posterboards displayed in the two
adjacent rooms. Project team and engagement team members circulated through the rooms to
ensure that participants understood the questions and had the supplies necessary to participate.
1. Do you think the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge should require private
developers to include some affordable housing within new, multi-unit housing developments
near ION stations?
Respondents at the public meeting indicated strong support for the policy concept.
Yes No/Unsure
12 1
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 27
Notable Comments:
One participant encouraged the definition of major transit station areas to include bus routes.
2. How important is it that affordable housing units are located only within a mixed
income building rather than in a building that contains all affordable units?
In response to this question, the single option with the highest number of responses was the
preference for IZ units to be incorporated into the new build.
Extremely unimportant 2
Unimportant 0
Neither important nor unimportant 5
Somewhat important 2
Extremely important 9
3. Do you think the cities should allow more height and density on a site if it means
more affordable units can be provided?
A strong consensus response to this question indicated comfort with flexibility in height and density
allowances in order to increase the number of units provided.
Yes 18
Other 1
No 0
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 28
Notable Comments:
Two respondents identified that the elimination of parking requirements would support cost off-sets.
One respondent identified limited support for off-site flexibility, depending on the off-site location.
4. Under what circumstances should financial incentives (such as forgiveness of
development charges) be considered as a way to support an Inclusionary Zoning program?
A slight preference from respondents supported the prioritization of incentives to support units with
deeper levels of affordability (compared to market rent). Support for incentives to increase the
duration of affordability ranked second and some support for incentives to support a higher number
of affordable units was also indicated.
If they are used to help make 9+3 that are shared with duration of
affordable units more deeply affordability
affordable
If they are used to help increase the 6+3 that are shared with affordability
duration that affordable units remain level
affordable
If they are used to increase the 7
number of affordable units
No circumstances 2
If they can help ensure the delivery 0
of units in weak markets
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 29
Notable Comments:
One respondent expressed that new provincial regulations provide enough financial incentives
through waived fees and that additional incentives are not required.
One participant identified parkland fees as requiring safeguarding against incentive trade-offs.
5. Which typical two bedroom rents should the program target for affordable units?
A lower number of respondents supplied a response to this question, with a mild preference for
supporting units in the $1001-$1200/month rental range and incomes in the $44-$48,000 range. The
lower number of responses indicates a lack of consensus on an appropriate rent rate at which to focus
the program.
$900-$1000 2
$1001-$1200 4
$1201-$1400 1
$2000-$2100 1
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 30
Notable Comments:
A participant identified that the rents and incomes indicated on the chart did not appear to match up
to existing market and income ranges.
6. When considering the balance needed to ensure the project remains viable for the
builder, which consideration is most important to you?
The vast majority of responses to this question fell on the side of the pyramid listing delivery of the
greatest number of units and the longest period of affordability as the most important considerations.
The single most important consideration was the number of affordable units.
Greatest number of units that are 7
affordable
Combination number-period 11
affordable
Units remain affordable for longest
3
period possible
Combination period affordable-
0
depth affordable
Most affordable versus market rent 0
Combination number-depth 2
affordability
Equal Importance 1
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 31
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 32
Notable Comments:
Multiple respondents encouraged the municipalities to advocate for the 5%+ set-aside rate as a
minimum,
Questions of Clarification
The following is a synopsis of the questions and responses given during the Q and A portion of the
meeting . It is not intended as a verbatim record but to capture the main themes and responses
given.
Q: It’s very disappointing that Bill-23 changed the definition for affordability. Would
like to see the region push-back more. Would like to see a duration increase in the future –
start with 25 years for now but increase it in the future. There is still a significant percentage
of people that can’t afford 80% of market rate.
A: The tri-cities have individually submitted comments to the Province. We do have the opportunity
to review in 2 years and see if the Province can give greater flexibility to municipalities.
Q: Targeting middle-income earners does not address the needs of low-income
residents. What is being done for those with low-income?
A: Inclusionary Zoning is only one approach of many that the cities have implemented or are
considering with regards to affordable housing. Inclusionary Zoning would help out those with
moderate incomes, which would help free up more deeply affordable units to those who need them –
the goal is to move people up the spectrum.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 33
Q: How does this program work for rent control?
A: Affordable units would be governed by a legal agreement that will include additional requirements
beyond the Residential Tenancies Act’s rent-controls.
Q: What protections are in place to protect affordability for the duration of the tenure
and ensure that units are designed equitably?
A: During the implementation phase the program will develop agreements and parameters for
building design standards.
Q: How does off-site unit provision work – is it possible for all affordable units of a
development to be in one building?
A: An Inclusionary Zoning program would set out rules and conditions for the provision of off-site units.
This means that the program could enable units to be provided within a single building.
Q: How do unhoused people living in encampments fit within the concept of
affordable housing?
A: The Region receives funding from the Federal Government specifically geared towards
addressing the housing needs of the unhoused. Inclusionary Zoning is one tool to provide a level of
affordability and it does not replace the need to also provide deeply affordable housing. We are still
working to address deeply affordable housing needs.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 34
Conclusion and Next Steps
The engagement identified overall support from engaged citizens within the municipalities of
Waterloo Region for the implementation of an Inclusionary Zoning Policy. Participants expressed
support for flexibility within the policy as long as the flexibility did not result in a ‘watering down’ of
the standards that would affect the quality of the future affordable homes.
Moving forward, additional educational opportunities should be considered to continue to help
members of the public distinguish between Inclusionary Zoning affordable units operating with no
on-going subsidy, as opposed to social housing programs geared toward lower income earners. The
desire to see the IZ tool complemented by other policies geared toward the creation of many more
deeply affordable units should be kept in mind as the cities continue to advance, or begin to develop,
their Affordable Housing Strategies.
Participants in the engagement also sought reassurance that additional planning by-laws changes,
such as the elimination of parking minimums and continued efforts to implement upzoning, would
continue. Therefore, as IZ is implemented in MTSAs, care should be taken to broadly identify and
engage on other intensification policies and plans. The engagement feedback expressed a position
that affordability concerns in Waterloo Region were best addressed by maximizing the use of all
tools available for supporting the supply of additional housing stock in a variety of built forms. A
base of support for growth in the Waterloo Region is evident.
A summary of engagement participation indicates that the efforts made during the engagement
phase to seek out participation and input from the newcomer community, renters, diverse
perspectives and a spectrum of ages should continue. Additional feedback from these segments of
the population can provide additional insight that could benefit the end users of the policy.
The development community indicated support for playing a part in the creation of affordable housing
in the Region while emphasizing the primacy of partnerships. Concern was expressed about being
able to deliver the units without adversely affecting typical project viability with resulting reduction in
new supply. A preference for allowance of off-site purpose-built residences was expressed by this
group. Joint advocacy with the province to expand the allowable areas for Inclusionary Zoning can
be considered. Future developer focused meetings should be convened when specific details
emerging from Bill 23 are available and when the specifics of the IZ policy are determined.
Following this phase of the project, the tri-cities intend to draft a Discussion Paper for their respective
City Councils expected in Spring. Following this, the policy regulations could be developed for
implementation in 2024.
Region of Waterloo and tri-cities Inclusionary Zoning Engagement Report 35