Schedule 12 – Amendments to…

Schedule 12 – Amendments to the Planning Act

Bill 108, as proposed, touches on numerous land use planning policies. Below is a summary of some of the proposed changes, based on information known at this time:

• Additional Residential Unit Policies: Bill 108 proposes to require official plans to allow an additional residential unit in an ancillary building (e.g. garden suite), in addition to the two residential units that are allowed in the main building. While garden suites are suitable in a number of circumstances and could be part of the solution of improving housing choices, there are some contexts (e.g. extremely small urban lots or underservices areas) where it may not work. The province is urged to allow municipalities to regulate the context of where garden suite are permitted as long as the regulations are justifiable on technical grounds and not prohibitive.

• Inclusionary Zoning: This tool currently allows municipalities to require developers to incorporate a certain percentage of units in a housing project as affordable housing. Currently, this tool is broadly enabled across the province but has yet to be implemented; probably due to the fact that the process is extremely onerous to establish and requires dedicated resources to administer. Bill 108 would limit its application to Major Transit Station Areas (such as Kitchener’s ION Station Areas) and Development Permit Systems areas. Although directing more affordable housing to major transit areas aligns with Kitchener’s planning objectives, this change limits the ability to deliver affordable housing more broadly. The City of Kitchener encourages the province to simplify the inclusionary zoning process and maintain its broad application beyond Major Transit Station Areas.

• Parkland Dedication: Currently, parkland is acquired through development in two ways: (1) in plans of subdivision, where up to 5% of the land is dedicated to the City; or (2) as is most often the case for infill residential development, at a rate of up to 1 hectare per residential 300 units. This parkland can be taken as land or as “cash-in-lieu” to purchase parkland or other recreational infrastructure offsite. The cash-in-lieu value is tied to land value. If a Community Benefit Charge system is enacted, it would replace the second tool, but the first tool requiring 5% of land requirement through subdivisions would remain. In sum, outside of plans of subdivision, the acquisition of parkland will become one of many competing demands on community benefit funds.

Fundamentally, acquiring parkland through the development process is different than funding other community infrastructure. Outside of the subdivision process, the City would no longer have the option to acquire lands through the development approval. Instead, it must use community benefit funds to purchase lands at high market value established by the surrounding proposed development. These changes would likely hinder the City’s already challenging task of acquiring sufficient park spaces that add value and support communities. The proposed changes appear that they may further reduce the ability to procure land and deliver soft services as the funding tool may be combined. This appears that it would risk financial capability to acquire and develop land for recreational purposes. Any proposed changes should ensure that local municipalities are made whole when funding new services that are driven directly by new growth.

• Density Bonusing: Municipalities can currently allow an increase in permitted density beyond what is usually permitted in its zoning by-law in exchange for the developer providing community benefits. The province has eliminated this tool and integrated development related benefits into the new Community Benefit Charge framework with the objective of being more predictable than the current density bonusing framework in the Planning Act.

City staff agree that predictability in the use of bonusing is important and that “let’s make-a-deal planning” is problematic. Accordingly, through Kitchener’s comprehensive zoning by-law review (CRoZBy) the city developed a transparent set of rules for higher densities in the Downtown where the community benefits and the bonus values are pre-defined. This approach is unique to Kitchener, aligns with provincial objectives, is largely supported by the development community, and is fundamentally different than the “let’s make a deal” approach to bonusing used in some other municipalities. City staff are concerned, however, that Schedule 12 may disable the use of an important city building tool even though Kitchener’s approach aligns well with stated provincial objectives. Kitchener’s bonusing model is suggested to the Province as a reasonable mechanism to ensure transparency. Further, this approach requires a lot less process and ‘red tape’ than what is being proposed through Bill 108.

• Mandatory Development Permit System: Bill 108 proposes to give the Minister the authority to establish a mandatory development permit system, a development approval system which more or less integrates site plan and zoning approvals. While this tool could be helpful with improved regulations, having it imposed reduces local level decision-making. It is cumbersome to establish and operate a development permit system with the current regulations.

• Future regulations: Staff will continue to monitor additional details as they become available. If Bill 108 becomes law, many regulations would be required for implementation. Regulations can have a significant impact on the implications of regulations.