Region of Waterloo Official Plan

[plam]

As Herbert Stein said, if something can not go on forever, it will stop. "Never" is a very long time, and there are any number of things that could (eventually) put an end to suburbanization, or the civilization that creates it. Sprawl is not sustainable.

I agree with BuildingScout that the market will put an end to the pace of sprawl we have seen in the last half century. We won't be able to afford to subsidize it like we have forever, and few people would be able to afford it at its true cost. There are many benefits to living in denser areas, and young people are increasingly seeing that.

It seems to me like some Baby Boomers are just like "oh, just wait till you get older, you'll want to live in the suburbs too". I don't really believe that to be as true as they think. It's hard to generalize from one's own social group, but what I observe is some people living in suburbs and some people not. It's not like the 100% suburb rate of older generations.

Also, I think the delaying-getting-drivers'-licenses phenomenon is empirical fact. I do have friends without licenses and it seems to be more viable today than it used to be. I still find it to be useful to have a driver's license, but it's not life changing. I would be able to live without one, it would just be less convenient for my recreational pursuits. Thankfully, I'm not required to drive every day.

[BuildingScout]

I've lived in all types of housing and I'm now way into the "older" phase of my life. and having experienced all types my suggestions are: apartment downtown when single/childless, townhouse with young kids, back to downtown when kids become teenagers, downsize when teenagers leave the nest.

I'm not yet at the move-to-retirement-home stage, so I have no opinion on that yet.

[Viewfromthe42]

We won't be able to afford to subsidize it like we have forever, and few people would be able to afford it at its true cost.

Yet there are many longtime such trends. OAS and GIS, largely, should be programs which could be eradicated through better lifelong pension systems, like better CPP, etc. But instead of a cheaper cost (thanks to compounding interest over a half century), better country (thanks to half a century of this investment able to power our own growth), we rely on a system where we perpetually write cheques out of general revenues, and see this as an unquestionable system.

Similar unshakable beliefs still exist about suburbs and Canadian dreams. A third of our economy is related to the housing industry and its related elements. Entire cities and all aspects of their existence are controlled based on preserving land value, e.g. NIMBYs and the very real and all-consuming effects they have.

Maybe someday, but it's a tangled web to unravel, and we often seem to only be knotting it further.

[MacBerry]

Good compromise, but I definitely say it's a win for the Region

TVO has an interesting piece found in a blog post, " The Inside Agenda" on how the Waterloo new development boundary space decision is a precedent setting ruling for for all cities and towns in Ontario.

"The agreement could help intensify a growing trend: Ontario cities outside the Greater Toronto Area are attempting to become more compact, transit-oriented communities."

Why a court case in Waterloo helps other Ontario cities limit urban sprawl

John Michael McGrath Tuesday June 2, 2015                                                                                              

[The85]

A new OP I would imagine.

There won't be a new ROP - with this settlement it will be amended and be subsequently (stamp) approved by the OMB.

The 'planning horizon' of an Official Plan is typically 20 years - and despite being appealed and held up for 6 years now, the 2009 ROP has a horizon year of 2031.

This settlement does not mean the ROP is now in full force and effect. There are other non-growth related policies (i.e. aggregates) under appeal that still need to be resolved in another phase. Also now that the amount of new greenfield land for growth has been determined, the area(s) that this land will be allocated to needs to be determined. I would assume that southwest Kitchener (Fischer-Hallman and Plains Road area) and north Cambridge (south of Airport) are the most likely contenders.

On one hand, 455 is closer to the region's 85 than to the developers' 1,000+.

On the other hand, the amount of developable land the developers would have had in our region with their number, new and existing: ~4,500

Now, they see "only" ~4,000.

So really, it's only reducing the developable area by ~10%, not 50%+. I'm also curious if the rationing - 200 now, 255 in a few years - will add argument to make this a regular assignment of land to the developable area, that being whatever land a developer purchased at a discount on the peripheree of the region.

I wondered if it had to do with particular plots of land being approved while others being rejected

If I had to guess, I think this is likely due to servicing capacity constraints. Further to what I said above, if north Cambridge is allotted some of this new greenfield land, the servicing strategy for it likely needs to be given further consideration, through, say the Region's Master Environmental Servicing Plan for what they call the "East Side Lands".

[rangersfan]

An article talking about recent development proposals that were not approved in Waterloo even though they support the official plan.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/678625...n-waterloo

In the case of Van Mar where discussions took place about potentials for a property before buying
And then to have that same project not approved must be incredibly frustrating.

[rangersfan]

Development charges for core areas currently exempt could see charges levied before 2019.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/683854...per-growth

[Elmira Guy]

Very interesting

[MacBerry]

An article talking about recent development proposals that were not approved in Waterloo even though they support the official plan.

http://m.therecord.com/news-story/678625...n-waterloo

In the case of Van Mar where discussions took place about potentials for a property before buying
And then to have that same project not approved must be incredibly frustrating.

These types of crazy decisions by politicians, who see 2018 elections already, are what leads developers to go to the OMB. If it fits the plan I suspect that OMB will approve these if appealed.

This creates the future process of community meetings turning these into even more potentially negative shows of power* (insert the word NIMBY for power*).

[Pheidippides]

Development Charges for Transit and Waste Management

Recommendation:
1. That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo approve the Development Charge
Background Study dated August 15, 2016 as amended, including the capital
program contained in the study, for the purpose of complying with Section 10 of the
Development Charges Act, 1997, as amended;

2. That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, having considered the input provided
by the public and stakeholders regarding the development charge rates as
calculated in the Background Study, and regarding various policy and
implementation matters, take the following action with respect to Regional
Development Charges and incorporate such action in the amended Regional
Development Charges By-law as applicable as set out in Report COR-FSD-16-32,
dated November 22, 2016:

a. Approve the residential development charge rates for Waste Management
in the amended Development Charge by-law at the rates set out in Table A1
in Appendix A on a Region-wide basis;

b. Approve the non-residential development charge rates for Waste
Management in the amended Development Charge by-law at the rates set
out in Table A2 in Appendix A on a Region-wide basis;

c. Approve the residential development charge rates for Transit in the
amended Development Charge by-law at the rates set out in Table A1 in
Appendix A on a Region-wide basis;

d. Approve the non-residential development charge rates for Transit in the
amended Development Charge by-law at the rates set out in Table A2 in
Appendix A on a Region-wide basis;

e. Apply the existing downtown core exemption to Transit and Waste
Management development charges provided that the lower-tier municipality
provides for the same exemption until January 1, 2018, at which point such
charges shall become payable;

f. Approve the proposed amending By-law, as set out in Appendix C with an
effective date of January 1, 2017;

3. That Regional Council determine that no further public meeting is necessary in
order to consider the changes made to the proposed amendments to the
Development Charge by-law, pursuant to Section 12 of the Development Charges
Act, 1997; and

4. That staff be directed to prepare amendments to the preliminary 2017-2026 Waste
Management and Transit capital programs and the preliminary 2017 Tax
Supported Operating Budget as required in accordance with the above noted
recommendations, and submit such proposed amendments to the Budget
Committee for consideration as part of the Region of Waterloo’s 2017 Budget
deliberations.

[tomh009]

Thanks, Pheidippides.  I encourage anyone interested in the topic to read the actually committee report and recommendations.  

The proposed development charge change increase the regional development charges by about 15% in the cities and 20% in the townships (the impact is less when you also consider the relevant city or township charges).  On a 2000 sq ft house, the impact is maybe $4500 in the cities (1.5% of house price?) and $6000 in the townships.

A few key points from the rationale for the recommendation:

• The capital projects included in the DCBS are all included in the Region’s approved 2016 - 2025 capital program. Imposing the maximum calculated rate provides the appropriate level of funding for capital projects from development charges as prescribed by the DCA and calculated in the DCBS. If the maximum calculated development charge rate is not imposed and collected, the property tax budgets must absorb the foregone RDC revenues and/or capital projects must be deferred.
  
  
• This follows, to the greatest extent possible, the principle of “growth pays for growth.”
  
  
• The investment and expansion of Transit related infrastructure provides benefits Region wide including, but not limited to, the protection of farmland, limiting urban sprawl, protecting groundwater sources, reducing future capital and operating requirements for Roads, and reducing traffic congestion.
  
  
• Staff are of the opinion that a uniform Region-wide development charge for transit would be the most likely charge to be upheld if challenged at the Ontario Municipal Board. A number of other municipalities, with both urban and rural areas, impose a municipality-wide transit development charge in which transit is not directly serving every property (e.g. Regions of York and Durham, Cities of Burlington, Niagara Falls, Mississauga, Brampton and Guelph as well as the Town of Milton.)
  

I agree with the overall approach of funding infrastructure investments using development charges rather than property taxes, and the committee's rationale looks reasonable (there is no option to which everyone will agree to anyway).

But this needs to be approved by the regional council yet anyway, so we'll see what the final outcome is.

[darts]

“growth pays for growth.”

Except when it is in a downtown.

[DHLawrence]

Or when you run out of land (Mississauga).

[tomh009]

“growth pays for growth.”

Except when it is in a downtown.

Indeed the downtowns have a temporary exemption for now.  The committee report has pros and cons of aligning the new fees with the existing core development charge holiday.  I could see it either way.

[Pheidippides]

Waterloo Region Home Builders Association (WRHBA) is challenging the development charges by-law:
http://calendar.regionofwaterloo.ca/Coun...df#page=42

" The Region’s RDC By-law is in full force and effect including the new rates unless and until the OMB orders otherwise. Staff believe the calculations that support the by-law have been
prepared in accordance with the legislation."

The Waterloo Region Home Builders’ Association Appeal
On December 21, 2016, the Region received a Notice of Appeal from the Waterloo Region Home Builders’ Association, a copy of which is attached as Appendix A to this Report.
The grounds of the appeal are summarized as follows:
 The level of detail provided relating to the Asset Management Plan for Transit Services and Waste Management Services do not meet the requirements of the Development Charges Act
 The allocation of benefit to existing for Transit Services is not fair and reasonable
 The post period benefit for Transit is not correct
 The Cities-only Transit development charge subsidizes development in the Townships
 Some light rail transit capital costs and waste management contract costs should not be included in the calculation

The deadline to file an appeal was January 9, 2017 pursuant to the Development Charges Act. There were no further appeals of the Amending By-law.



If anyone cares to summarize the legalese the full text of the notice of appeal is found on page 45:
http://calendar.regionofwaterloo.ca/Coun...df#page=45