Development Charges Act,…

Development Charges Act, 1997
Merge Development Charge Service Categories for Credit Purposes

The current framework under the DCA restricts developers from applying Development Charge (DC) credits across different service categories (e.g., receiving credits from the Public Works DC reserve for road works). The proposed legislative amendment would grant the province regulation-making authority to merge related service categories for DC credit purposes. This change would enable developers to utilize credits across broader categories and receive credits quicker.

• The current framework under the DCA ensures that credits are applied only to the specific service categories for which they were collected. Allowing credits to be applied across broader service categories could create administrative challenges and lead to funding misalignment, potentially limiting the Town’s ability to effectively manage reserves and plan for the timely delivery of critical growth-related infrastructure.
• It is unclear how this proposed change would apply to existing credit obligations. Retroactive application could significantly impact municipal reserve fund balances and planned capital programs. Further clarification is needed to assess the full financial implications for the Town.
Defining a Local Service in the Regulations

Local services are infrastructure that municipalities may require developers to construct and/or fund as a condition of a development approval. The DCA currently prohibits municipalities from recovering costs for local services through DC’s, but lacks a clear definition of what constitutes a "local service". In some cases, disputes have occurred between municipalities and developers over cost responsibilities, delaying development approvals in some cases. The proposed amendment would grant the province regulation-making authority to define and standardize local services for all municipalities.
• A provincially imposed definition may limit the Town’s ability to determine servicing needs based on local context. Municipalities are better positioned to assess infrastructure requirements and determine equitable cost-sharing with developers. Restricting local services could shift costs from developers to the Town, placing additional strain on capital budgets and compromising infrastructure planning.

Deferral of DC Payment for All Residential Developments to Occupancy

Under the DCA, only rental housing and institutional developments are granted a mandatory deferral of DC collection until the issuance of an occupancy permit. DCs for other types of residential development are generally determined and paid at the time of building permit issuance. The proposed change would allow all residential developments to defer payment to the occupancy stage, helping with developers’ cash flow. The proposal also removes the ability for municipalities to charge interest on deferred payments for residential developments.

• Not all developments receive occupancy permits, as occupancy permits are only issued for new residential dwelling units. With the time between building permit issuance and occupancy permits potentially extending from months to years, the collection of critical funding for municipalities would be delayed, shifting the financial burden of growth to municipalities. Clarity is also needed regarding whether the first occupancy will trigger payment of all DCs in the development.
• The removal of interest charges on deferred payments further limits municipal revenue, which could impact the funding of necessary infrastructure.
Prescribe Limits on Recoverable Capital Costs

The DCA currently outlines eligible capital costs recoverable through DCs, including land, buildings, and equipment. While existing regulation-making authority allows the province to prescribe when land is ineligible, a proposed amendment would expand this authority to allow the province to set limits and exceptions on any recoverable capital costs, including land. The intent is to enhance predictability and consistency in DC calculations across municipalities and services, addressing concerns that inflated land cost estimates can drive up DC rates.
• Limiting recoverable capital costs through regulation would reduce the Town’s ability to fund growth-related servicing costs. Reflecting actual local land values in DC background studies is essential for accurate growth-related cost recovery. Prescribed limits may result in funding gaps. Any gap must be funded from non-DC sources, i.e., tax levy and/or user rates. This could shift growth-related costs to existing development and constrain the Town’s capacity to deliver required services as growth occurs.
Enable Developments to Benefit from the Lowest Applicable DC Rate

Currently, DC rates are frozen at the time of a site plan or zoning by-law amendment application and remain in effect for 18 months, provided a building permit is issued within that period. If the permit is delayed, the prevailing DC rate at the time of issuance applies—even if it is higher. Under the proposed change, developments would be eligible to pay the lower of the frozen rate or the prevailing rate at the time of payment, if reduced. This approach aims to enhance cost predictability and reduce financial pressure on developers.
• This proposal aligns with current Town practice and supports fairness and transparency in DC administration.

Exempt Long-Term Care Homes from Municipal DCs
Currently, long-term care (LTC) homes benefit from a DC deferral structure, with payments made in six annual installments beginning at building occupancy. Interest may be charged on these deferred amounts. The proposed amendment would exempt LTC homes, both non-profit and for-profit, from municipal development charges entirely. This exemption aims to remove financial barriers, support increased LTC home construction, and help the province meet its commitment to deliver 58,000 new LTC beds by 2028.
• The Town is supportive of increasing long-term care capacity to meet the needs of an aging population. However, the shortfall in DC collections from exempting LTC facilities must be funded from non-DC sources, i.e., tax levy and or user rates.

Prescribe Methodologies for Calculating the Benefit of New Infrastructure to Existing Development
The DCA requires municipalities to deduct the portion of infrastructure costs that benefit existing development, referred to as the "Benefit to Existing" (BTE), from the total capital costs recoverable through DCs. Currently, municipalities determine this deduction based on local context and professional judgment, without a prescribed methodology in the legislation. The proposed change would enable the province to create regulations prescribing a standardized BTE calculation methodology.
• The ability for municipalities to determine BTE based on their own circumstances is critical to ensuring the costs of growth are being borne by the development creating the growth. Prescribing a methodology will limit the Town’s ability to assess infrastructure benefits fairly and accurately, resulting growth-related costs being borne by existing development.
Changes to Annual Reporting Requirements

As introduced by the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23), municipalities are required to allocate or spend at least 60% of DC reserve funds annually for select services—specifically water, wastewater, and roads. The proposed changes would expand this requirement to include all DC-eligible service categories (e.g., recreation, fire, libraries). The province is also considering regulatory amendments to standardize DC background studies and improve public accessibility of annual treasurer statements. These measures aim to increase transparency around DC collection and spending and enhance public confidence in infrastructure planning and investment.
• Expanding the 60% annual allocation requirement to all DC service categories may pose challenges for long-term financial planning. Some services, such as recreation or roads, involve major capital projects that occur infrequently but require substantial funding when they do. Limiting reserve funds to 60% annually for these services could result in insufficient reserves when large-scale projects arise, potentially leading to debt financing or funding shortfalls. The Town encourages the province to allow municipalities to consider service-specific spending requirements to maintain flexibility in financial planning and ensure responsible, needs-based infrastructure delivery.

Enable By-laws to be Amended to Reduce DC Rates Without Certain Procedural Requirements
Currently, municipalities must undergo a lengthy process to amend a DC by-law to adjust rates, introduce exemptions, or implement rate phase-ins. The proposed change would allow municipalities to amend DC by-laws for the purpose of reducing rates in force or to introduce exemptions without the need for a new background study or public consultation. This would enable municipalities to make changes such as removing annual indexing, phasing in DCs, or offering discounts without procedural delays, saving time and costs.

Enable Use of the Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index for London
Currently, only the Toronto and Ottawa-Gatineau Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index (NRBCPI) from Statistics Canada may be used to index DCs. The proposed change would allow the use of the London NRBCPI, offering municipalities in Southwestern Ontario an index that better reflects local construction costs. This proposal has no impact on the Town, as it does not fall within the affected geographic area.

 
Planning Act

Bill 17 proposes to amend the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to establish a more consistent and standardized planning process:

Complete Application Requirements:
In the context of planning applications, municipalities will only be able to require studies and reports that are already identified in their official plans. Written approval from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the “Minister”) will be required before a municipality can adopt an official plan amendment making changes to the list of information and material that needs to be filed for a complete application.

Municipalities will be required to accept studies prepared by certain certified professionals. The list of certified professionals is to be prescribed by a future regulation, which the Province is presently consulting on (ERO No. 025-0462).
The type of information and material that municipalities are able to require for a complete application is proposed to be restricted by regulation (ERO No. 025-0462).

Specifically, it is proposed that the following topics could not be required as part of a complete planning application:
o Sun/Shadow: information and material related to the impact of shadows cast by a proposed development on the subject land and on surrounding lands including streets.
o Wind: information and material related to the potential impacts of a proposed development on wind conditions in surrounding areas.
o Urban Design: information and material concerning the urban design of a proposed development, including how a proposed development aligns with municipal urban design guidelines or policies.
o Lighting: information and material related to lighting and lighting levels on the site, including the location and type of lighting fixtures proposed on the exterior of the building and on the site.

• Sun/Shadow, wind, urban design and lighting studies and evaluation are important factors to the development review process. The evaluation of these elements does not slow down the speed of development review, yet the impacts to poor sun/shadow, wind, urban design and wind are well documented within the Ontario context and internationally. Staff are strongly advocating for the retention of these topics as potential components of a complete planning application.

“As-of-Right” Variations to Minimum Setbacks: Proposed buildings in certain areas will be permitted to deviate from minimum setback requirements (up to a percentage to be prescribed in regulation, e.g., within 10% of setback requirements) “as-of-right,” without the need to obtain a minor variance (ERO No. 025-0463).

Minister’s Zoning Orders (“MZOs”): The Minister will have the authority to impose conditions upon MZOs (including the requirement for an owner to enter into an agreement that is registrable on the land and binding upon subsequent owners).
o Schools on Residential Lands: Elementary or secondary schools of a school board (or any ancillary uses) will be permitted “as-of-right” on urban land zoned for residential uses. Any official plan policies or zoning by-laws contrary to this permission will be of no effect.

Building Code Act, 1992

Clarifying Municipal Jurisdiction Over Construction and Demolition
Bill 17 proposes amendments to the Building Code Act, 1992, clarifying that municipalities do not have the authority to pass by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings, whereas currently, certain municipalities have construction requirements that go beyond the Provincial standards established under the Ontario Building Code. The effect of this amendment would be that municipalities will no longer be able to rely on their general powers to regulate in respect of construction or demolition to create local requirements that differ from the BCA or the Building Code.
o Bill 17 may directly impact our municipal TGDS update, especially regarding embodied carbon, energy efficiency, and GHG emissions which are cornerstone elements of our municipal green standard update.

• Municipal green standards form an integral component of a municipalities ability to choose for themselves a path towards lowering green house gas emissions. Increasingly residents of our community and Council show great interest in “green” initiatives within their community. They want to have the choice to set a green standard path most suitable to their municipality. Taking this choice away from a community is counter to the democratic voice of residents within our community to choose to be proactive through municipal green standards.

Limit Authority of Building Materials Evaluation Commission

First, the bill proposes to limit the authority of the Building Materials Evaluation Commission, which plays a role in authorizing new and innovative building materials, systems and designs. At present, manufacturers of innovative construction products must apply to the Commission for an authorization before they can be used in Ontario. In addition, the Commission may, of its own initiative, research and examine construction materials, system and building designs. Bill 17 proposes to remove the Commission’s ability to exercise these powers where the Canadian Construction Materials Centre of the National Research Council of Canada has examined or has expressed its intention to examine an innovative material, system or building design.

Remove the Minister’s Authority

Second, and in a similar vein, the bill proposes to remove the Minister’s authority to, by Minister’s ruling, approve the use of innovative materials, systems or building designs that have been evaluated by an entity designated in the Ontario Building Code. At present, the only evaluation body designated in the Building Code is the CCMC. While the CCMC’s approvals are valid for many other provinces, in Ontario at present, an approved product may not be used in construction without a Minister’s ruling.

These changes would remove the need for manufacturers to obtain a secondary approval of new and innovative building materials, thereby saving time and money and enhancing the private sector’s ability to introduce new and innovative construction techniques in Ontario. Regulatory changes to the Building Code itself are anticipated to follow to speed up this approval process, including removing application fees for Canadian manufacturers.