Municipal input on Bill 73 - Flexibility needed

NRU
June 3, 2015
By Edward LaRusic

As the province proposes changes to the Development Charges Act and Planning Act, GTA municipalities are pushing the province for greater flexibility in how they plan and pay for growth.

As Queen’s Park considers the second reading of Bill 73, Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, the consultation period closes. This government bill presents a long list of amendments to both the Development Charges Act and Planning Act.

Development Charges Act

Municipalities continue to ask the province to increase the range of eligible growth-related costs of development. They also want to continue to be allowed to request voluntary payment from developers for items outside of those listed in the Development Charges Act. Additionally there is broad opposition to proposed changes to when municipalities may collect DCs.

Most municipalities commented that the current act doesn’t allow them to recover the full costs of growth and want the list of eligible capital costs expanded as well as the list of costs subject to a mandatory 10 per cent discount. Proposed changes to the act would increase the charge that municipalities could collect for transit by eliminating the 10 per cent discount. They also would permit charges for waste management by adding it to the list of eligible services.

A change that would prohibit voluntary payments requested by municipalities to developers outside of those listed in the Development Charges Act is drawing municipal concern. While not all municipalities ask for such payments, many said that voluntary payments are sometimes needed to advance capital projects that a municipality would not be able to afford in a timely manner.

Pickering, in its comments to the province, said it had grave concerns about this change. “It is widely recognized that development doesn’t pay for itself. If the amount of financial contributions which the city can collect is limited strictly to development charges allowed under the [Development Charges Act], then the city will be deprived of the ability to collect from developers the real infrastructure costs associated with their development proposals.”

Finally, there is concern about a proposed change that requires municipalities to collect all development charges when the first building permit is issued, even if the application requires multiple building permits. Currently, municipalities have some flexibility as to when all or part of a development charge is payable, which they don’t want to lose.

“If the development spans multiple years, this provision restricts the ability to recover the cost escalation brought about by inflation and any significant revisions to the charges brought about by a new background study that may occur in the interim,” commented Brampton’s submission to the province.

Planning Act

Municipalities are generally supportive of proposed provincial amendments to the Planning Act, but are asking the province to remove revisions that would impose a two-year freeze on private amendments to newly approved official plans and comprehensive zoning by-law amendments. Also at issue is the reduction in the maximum amount of parkland cash-in lieu that may be collected from developers. Another proposed change which gives the ministry and upper-tier municipalities the capacity to impose a development permit system on lower tier municipalities is giving area municipalities angst.

While the intent of the freeze is to allow municipalities time to assess the implementation of new official plans and zoning by-laws, Vaughan suggests it may unnecessarily delay positive developments that the municipality wants to see happen. Also, Pickering commented that it was unclear how the freeze would impact holding and interim control by-laws.

The proposed change to the alternate rate for parkland cash-in-lieu from 1 ha per 300 residential units to 1 ha per 500 units is being panned by most local municipalities. Municipalities say that this change would impede their ability to provide parkland for their residents. No change is proposed to the alternate rate for land conveyance.

“The proposed change would impact both high-density and medium-density sites and poses a challenge in terms of realizing the needs set in Richmond Hill’s parks plan,” the Richmond Hill submission stated. “Additionally, this amendment may result in increased resistance to land conveyance, even though the legislation clearly gives municipal councils the decision making power as to whether to accept [cash-in-lieu] of a land dedication.”

An alternative to zoning, lower-tier municipalities argue they should be the ones to decide whether to implement a development permit system or not.

“Although it is being considered as an efficient method of managing costs into the future, the choice of whether to use a DPS should be at the discretion of each municipality,”Whitby’s submission noted.

For expert comment on changes to the Development Charges Act, see the March 18 edition of NRU. For comments from legal experts on changes to the Planning Act, see the March 11 edition of NRU.