Richmond Hill's parkland plan falls short at OMB

Yorkregion.com
Jan. 24, 2015
By Kim Zarzour

Richmond Hill councillors are expected to decide Monday what the next step will be in their battle for parkland after a decision last week by the Ontario Municipal Board fell short of what they’d hoped for.

The much-awaited ruling on Richmond Hill’s attempt to demand more from developers to retain parkland was issued by the board Jan. 15.

The decision by OMB vice-chairperson Jan De Pencier Seaborn sets a 25-per-cent cap on the amount a developer would pay, in order to support parkland acquisition for the town.

While it is being hailed as a win by the development industry, Richmond Hill planning commissioner Ana Bassios said it could present a hindrance to the town’s ability to realize its parks plan.

In an attempt to preserve greenspace, the town has been battling for the right to set the rate developers must pay for parkland.

Developers had challenged Richmond Hill’s proposed parkland dedication policies that would require them to set aside park space, or cash-in-lieu for parks, at a rate of one hectacre per 300 units.

Councillors and town planners believed the 1:300 rate, higher than other municipalities, but in keeping with the Ontario Planning Act, was especially important with intensification and denser development moving into Richmond Hill, to ensure neighbourhoods are supported with recreation and places to play. The cash-in-lieu provision would help the town purchase some of the high-value land for parks.

The town had argued the parkland rate would ensure future generations have enough green space as the town grows and would uphold the town’s detailed parks plan, developed with input from residents, which determined how much parkland the town required and where it was needed.

But the building and development industry warned costs would be passed along to homebuyers, resulting in higher prices for new homes. Developers at the board hearings argued that setting an elevated rate would make certain developments unviable, Bassios said.

While Seaborn understood and recognized the town’s need for the 1 in 300 parkland dedication, she was persuaded by the developers’ argument, Bassios said, and instituted a cap that a developer would pay in order to support parkland acquisition.

“She supported, in general, all of the positions of the town and the town’s approach, but decided a cap was necessary and set the cap as she saw fit.”

Bassios said town planners are still assessing the implications of the ruling, but it appears the decision will have a significant impact on the town’s ability to realize the objectives of the parks plan.

She expects to present on Monday a report detailing what the decision will mean if it stands. It is up to council whether or not to appeal.

Other municipalities are watching to see what steps the town takes next, she said, as the ruling could set a precedent for how other towns and cities are able to manage and preserve parkland.