|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TO: |
Mayor and Members of Council |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
Alan Brown, Director of Engineering Valerie Shuttleworth, Director of
Planning and Urban Design |
|
|
|
|
PREPARED BY: |
same as above |
|
|
|
|
DATE OF MEETING: |
November 22, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Servicing
Allocation |
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
That the
And that Markham Council allocate
servicing capacity as noted in Appendix ‘A’;
And that the attached “Use it or Lose it”
policy (Appendix “B”), be adopted;
And that the written submissions regarding
servicing allocation, included in Appendix ‘D’ (distributed under separate
cover), be received;
And that existing communities currently on
private services, wishing to up-grade to municipal service will, not be
prohibited from doing so due to servicing allocation;
And that staff be directed to continue to work
with Regional staff to achieve additional servicing allocation capacity for
·
revised persons per unit
assumptions that better reflect forecast population by dwelling unit type;
·
monitoring of actual usage
rates;
·
additional flow control
options;
·
re-rating of the treatment
plant;
·
distribution of the regional
reserve; and
·
incentives for development projects demonstrating more efficient use of servicing
capacity and other resources, and in particular LEED certified projects.
And that staff report back
regularly to Development Services Committee, regarding the status of servicing
allocation and the ongoing discussions with the Region and affected
stakeholders.
PURPOSE:
This report recommends Council’s endorsement of
prioritizing and allocating available servicing capacity. It also includes a discussion and update on
the status of various policies related to the approval and timing of servicing
allocation for low/medium density and high density residential development, and
recommends adoption of a “Use it or Lose it” policy, as discussed in previous
reports.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Council approved the last round of servicing allocation in February,
2005, subject to Region of York confirmation of allocation to
This report recommends distribution of all remaining allocation (6,000
unit allocation from the Region, plus 406 units proposed to be re-allocated from
Staff are proposing to amend current
policies relating to residential draft plan and site plan approvals, where a
servicing allocation is not immediately available. Appropriate conditions are required, in
addition to the Town’s servicing by-law now being in place, to ensure that
approvals will not result in unauthorized sales or construction. However, revised policies and conditions related
to both low/medium density development and high rise development cannot be
finally recommended until the appropriate “triggers”, related to timing of
construction of infrastructure that delivers additional capacity, are
determined. Staff will report back to
Committee, as discussion with the Region about the appropriate “triggers”
proceeds.
Staff will also continue to work with the Region to gain additional
servicing capacity for
·
revised persons per unit
assumptions that better reflect forecast population by dwelling unit type;
·
monitoring of actual usage
rates;
·
additional flow control
options;
·
re-rating of the treatment
plant;
·
distribution of the regional
reserve; and
·
incentives for development projects demonstrating more efficient use of servicing
capacity and other resources, and in particular LEED certified projects.
We will report regularly (either in writing or through Part A
presentations) on these matters and the status of applications which have been
granted allocation.
BACKGROUND:
On
Since May, 2004 Town of
Following extensive consultation with the Region,
staff presented a report to Development Services Committee in February of 2005
which confirmed that the Town’s remaining water allocation for an additional
4732 residential units (over and above existing draft plan and site plan
approvals) could be matched with sufficient sanitary sewage capacity, subject
to Regional Council approval of a flow control option in a local sanitary
sewer. The proposed assignment of that 4732
units of sanitary sewage allocation was based on guidelines adopted by Council
in 2002 for prioritizing development as well as considerations for well
conversions, existing and future infrastructure commitments, completion of
development blocks and the developer’s ability to actually use assigned
allocation in a timely manner.
Due to the limited amount of capacity available,
staff also proposed to update the Town’s allocation policies to guide future approvals
and allocations. New policies for
allocation and timing of allocation for low/medium density residential
development, and a separate policy for high density residential development,
were outlined in the February report and
endorsed, in principle, by Committee and Council. It was noted that these policies can only be
adopted by Markham Council when the Region has finalized a 10 year
implementation program outlining additional servicing allocation to be assigned
to
Regional Council approved additional allocation
and our proposed flow control option in June of 2005. This resulted in an additional 1,268 units of
allocation to
DISCUSSION:
Partial
Re-Allocation for
Various approvals were granted to the
Allocation
Prioritization
Staff have again reviewed the guidelines for prioritizing allocation adopted by
Council on
·
Completion of key
transportation infrastructure (e.g. Markham By-pass, Box Grove By-pass,
Victoria Square By-pass, major collector roads, etc.);
·
Implementation of
·
Infill development and
redevelopment along key transit corridors;
·
Affordable housing projects;
·
Provision of development
with public benefits (e.g. community facilities and public infrastructure); and
·
Provision of development
that supports the Town’s smart growth and new urbanism initiatives, and that demonstrates
exceptional urban design.
Similar to recommended allocation in February,
due to the limited amount of capacity available, and keeping in mind that
additional capacity may not be available until 2011, consideration has also
been given to:
·
Existing and future
commitments for delivery of infrastructure;
·
Completion of development
blocks (filling in the holes) and giving communities a “finished” look;
·
Ability to utilize
allocation in a reasonable timeframe; and
·
Infill development ready to
proceed.
Recommended
Servicing Capacity Allocation
Based on the guidelines for prioritization of
allocation, as discussed above, staff developed a proposed distribution of the
additional 1,674 units (1268 additional units from the Region and 406 units
from Shouldice).
This proposed distribution (Appendix “A”) has also deleted the reserve
for well conversion, as the current servicing constraint is sanitary sewer, not
water, capacity. The proposed distribution was presented to Development
Services Committee on October 18th and to the development industry at a
Developers Round Table meeting held on October 20th, in a draft form for discussion and comment.
Staff received many comments (both oral and
written) on the proposed allocations and attended a number of meetings with
developers to discuss the proposed distribution. Written submissions received are available
under separate cover (Appendix ‘D’), and will be provided to each Member of
Council. It would be an understatement
to say that the current constraint on servicing capacity is a highly
contentious issue in the development industry.
A number of developers have expressed serious concern that they are
receiving very little or no new allocation at this time. Concerns are particularly acute in this
round, as there is no firm Regional commitment to additional allocation until
2011.
Staff remain of the opinion that the recommended policy for prioritizing allocations
and the proposed allocations set out in Appendix “A” are appropriate, given the
limited supply available. We also remain
committed to working with the Region and all stakeholders to pursue all
appropriate means to achieve additional capacity.
Based on the Council endorsed allocation
criteria, feedback from Committee members and the development industry, and
further consideration by staff, the table of allocations (attached as Appendix
“A’) has been finalized. The table also
includes a summary of the February distribution of 4,732 units and revised totals,
reflecting the June allocation from the Region.
The only change to the table from that which
was considered by the Development Services Committee on October 18th
is with respect to the recommended Wismer
allocation. While the total number of
units has not changed, the proposed distribution to draft plans has. These changes are a result of the Wismer Commons Developers Group reviewing our proposed
assignment and requesting changes that the group collectively supports. In proposing these changes, the group has kept
our allocation criteria and guidelines in mind.
While staff support inclusion of the requested
changes, it should be noted that 28 units proposed at
The recommended allocation leaves no units in
the Town reserve at this time. It is believed
that further capacity will be realized from revised persons per unit
assumptions (see discussion below) and other means under discussion with the
Region. As additional capacity becomes
available, it is intended to be placed in the Town reserve for allocation by
Council on a priority basis. All
outstanding requests received (Appendix ‘D’) will be considered by the Town in
determining future allocation assignments.
Allocation
Policies:
New
“triggers” to be determined and policy reviewed
As noted in the February, 2005 report, Markham’s approved allocation policy for
development where required infrastructure was to be available within two years,
but for which no immediate allocation was available, is no longer appropriate
as it was based on “triggers” that have since proven to be inappropriate (lands
acquired and the EA complete for required infrastructure). For example, the
Region’s
As well, this policy was based on a two-year
“planning for service” window. At the
time, it was thought that two years was a reasonable time frame that matched
the lifecycle of a project from draft approval to occupancy of the new home. However, we believe that due to limited market
supply arising from capacity constaints, this time
frame has become shorter. A more
appropriate time frame may be one year (for low/medium density development).
Draft
Plan/Site Plan Approval Without Allocation
Town staff have been
in discussion for some time with the Region of York, other local municipalities
and the development industry in regard to allocation policies and practises. Staff recommend that
Council consider granting draft plan/site plan approval to developments for
which an immediate allocation is not available, only subject to the following
additional conditions of approval:
·
a holding “H” symbol is
appended to the zoning until servicing capacity and allocation by the Town is
confirmed by the Town;
·
execution of an agreement
between the developer and the Town whereby the developer agrees to prohibit
pre-selling of lots until the holding symbol is lifted, such agreement to be registered
on title
·
a phasing agreement is executed;
and
·
the developer has acknowledged in writing that it shall save the Town harmless
from any claim or action as a result of servicing capacity not being available
when anticipated, satisfactory to the Town Solicitor.
In addition, the Town has enacted a By-law (2005-104)
under section 34 (5) of the
A revised policy cannot be recommended for
approval until the “triggers”, related to timing of delivery of required
infrastructure, are finalized with the Region.
It is recognized that the timing of “Hold”
removals, permit issuance and construction, in relation to the agreed upon
triggers are different for high rise construction. A discussion of appropriate principles for
policies for low/medium and high rise development was included in the
Two separate policies will be presented to
Development Services Committee for adoption when the “triggers” are finalized.
“Use
It or Lose It”
In February of 2005
Council endorsed principles of a “Use It or Lose It” policy. As capacity continues
to become constrained, and as additional capacity may not be available until
2011, the policy should now be adopted (see Appendix “B”). To date, assignments to Secondary Plan areas
have been reviewed and in some circumstances revised. As well, specific allocations to draft
plan/site plans have been reviewed on a regular basis, and in several instances
units have been withdrawn and reallocated.
Staff will continue to closely monitor projects to ensure progress
toward agreements, registration, permits and construction. Staff will report to
Development Services Committee regularly on this matter.
It is important to note that staff would not
recommend withdrawal of specific allocation previously granted at the draft
plan or site plan stage, without first notifying the developer/owner involved
and advising of the date that the matter will be considered by Council. It should also be noted that when rescinding
allocation from a specific project and amending “hold” provisions and
conditions of draft approval, such amendments may be appealed to the Ontario
Municipal Board.
Gaining
Additional Allocation for the Town
Staff believe there are a number of options to pursue to achieve additional
allocation for the Town. They include,
but may not be limited to,
·
revised persons per unit
assumptions that better reflect forecast population by dwelling unit type;
·
monitoring of actual usage
rates;
·
additional flow control
options;
·
re-rating of the treatment
plant;
·
distribution of the regional
reserve; and
·
Incentives for development
projects demonstrating more efficient use of servicing capacity and other
resources, and in particular LEED certified projects.
Persons
per Unit Assumptions
The staff presentations to Development Services
Committee on October 18th and to the development industry on October
20th included a discussion of the person per
unit (p.p.u.) assumptions. It was noted that, to date, the Region has
been using an average person per unit assumption of 3.2 to 3.4 for purposes of
servicing capacity assignments.
Appendix “D” is a table that includes
population calculated relative to the unit type allocations included in table
“A”. The table demonstrates that should
we use p.p.u.’s by unit type from 2001 census and
apply them to the unit types recommended for allocation in Appendix “A”, an
additional 985 units of allocation would be available for assignment. Similarly, if p.p.u.
assumptions from
Next
Steps
As additional servicing capacity becomes
available, it is intended to be placed in the Town reserve for allocation by
Council on a priority basis. In
considering future allocation, the Town will have regard for the allocation criteria
endorsed by Council, and all submissions received from stakeholders, including
the Appendix ‘D’ submissions.
Staff will also report back to Committee
regarding progress with the Region and finalization of allocation policies for
low/medium density and high density development,
as discussed in this report.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Potential financial implications of a gradual
reduction in the Town’s supply of residential units will be monitored and
reported on regularly.
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The Legal Department has reviewed this report.
APPENDICES:
Appendix ‘A’ –Summary of Assignment
Appendix ‘B’ – Use It or Lose It Policy
Appendix ‘C’ – Persons Per
Units Assumptions Table.
Appendix ‘D’ – Written Submissions (distributed
under separate cover)
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Brown, C.E.T. Director of ___________________________________ Jim Baird, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Commissioner of Development Services |
|
Valerie Shuttleworth, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of |
Q:\development\allocation\reports\servicing
allocation final report 112205
APPENDIX “B”
Where a specific development proposal has received draft plan or site plan approval and servicing capacity has been assigned, staff will monitor progress of the development through to construction. Where servicing capacity has been allocated to a Secondary Plan area, staff will review progress of assignment to and approval of allocation specific projects.
Where no “reasonable progress” has been made in moving an application forward, the servicing allocation to that development and/or Secondary Plan area may be reduced or withdrawn at Council’s discretion. In the case of an approved development, a “hold” may be placed on the approval, and conditions of draft plan/site plan approval amended.
“Reasonable progress” related to a specific development is considered to be:
·
subdivision agreement/site
plan agreement requested within six months of draft plan/site plan approval
being issued; and
·
agreement executed within one year of draft plan/site plan approval.
“Reasonable progress” related to a Secondary Plan area is considered to be:
·
first draft plan/ site plan approval within six months of assignment to area
and continued and on-going progress of each individual draft plan.
This policy does not apply to an allocation of
capacity to a Secondary Plan area where the allocation has been made in return for delivery of
specified infrastructure, and where conditions related to that assignment have
been met.
