|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
February 15, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Servicing
Allocation |
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
That the
And that York Region be requested to approve
Markham’s proposed flow control option and additional sewage allocation for
4099 residential units, as outlined in this report, at their March 2, 2005, Regional Transportation and Works Committee Meeting;
And that, Markham Council assign servicing
allocation for 4732 residential units as noted in Attachment ‘C’, upon Regional
Council approval of the additional allocation to Markham;
And that the principles for servicing allocation
policies related to low/medium and high density residential development, as outlined
in this report, be endorsed in principle with recommended policies to be
presented to Markham Council for adoption once York Region has confirmed the
amount and timing of future servicing allocation;
And that the principles for a “Use it or Lose
it” policy, as outlined in this report, be endorsed;
And that staff report back to Development
Services Committee when the next round of servicing allocation is available
from the Region for assignment by Markham Council;
And that the Region be requested to
exempt severance applications (3 new lots or less) from servicing allocation restrictions;
And that the cost to implement, monitor and
maintain the flow control option be assessed to the benefiting residential
units;
And that staff be authorized under Part II,
section 7, subsection 1 (h) of Purchasing By-law 2004-341, to sole source
Clarifica Consulting Ltd. for consulting services related to design, tender,
contract administration and monitoring for ± 5 years of the flow control option
at an upset limit of $70,000;
And that staff, in consultation with Clarifica
consulting, be authorized to pre-qualify up to three contractors for the
installation and 5 year maintenance of the flow control option;
And further, after review of the three
proposals, that the Manager of Purchasing and Director of Engineering be
authorized to negotiate and award the installation and maintenance to a
contractor at an upset limit of $230,000;
And further that the Engineering Department’s 2005
Capital Budget be revised to include the flow control project at a cost of
$300,000 to be funded by the pre DCA Engineering Reserve and subsequently
recovered from the development industry;
And that this report and its
recommendations be forwarded to Bryan Tuckey, Commissioner of
PURPOSE:
Staff are seeking Council’s endorsement of
prioritizing and allocating sewage and water capacity for 4732 units; endorsement
in principle of policies related to the approval and timing of servicing
allocation for low/medium density and high density residential development; and
a “Use it or Lose it” policy to monitor progress of developments having
assigned or approved allocation. The
recommended additional assignment of capacity is subject to Regional
Council approval of the additional
allocation to
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Markham staff have consulted with Regional
staff and have confirmed that the Town’s remaining water allocation for an
additional 4732 residential units (over and above existing draft plan and site
plan approvals) can be matched with sufficient sanitary capacity, subject to
Regional Council approval of a flow control option in a local sanitary sewer. The proposed assignment of this allocation (as
outlined in this report) is 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 allocation
available, staff have also reviewed and propose to update the Town’s allocation
policies to guide future allocations.
New polices for allocation and timing of allocation for low/medium
density residential development, and a separate policy for high density
residential development, are outlined in this
report. These policies can be adopted by
Markham Council when the Region has finalized a 10 year implementation program outlining
additional servicing allocation to be assigned to
BACKGROUND:
Through adoption of Town of
The June 2001 water agreement between the
Regions of York and Peel outlines the staged delivery of additional water from
Peel to the year 2031. In addition, York
Region has been negotiating with the City of
Sanitary allocation was not a consideration for
residential draft plan/site plan approval, until the spring of 2004, when the
Region advised of pending constraints in the York/Durham sanitary trunk system
(YDSS).
On
Since
May, 2004 Town of
DISCUSSION:
Water
Currently
Sanitary
The Region, advising of constraints in the YDSS,
undertook an analysis of the regional system using a Static Model. The Static Model made conservative
assumptions with respect to Region wide storm events and peaking characteristics
of flow in the YDSS. The model indicated the potential of surcharging in
certain areas of the YDSS into basements or water courses during a 25 year
storm event. Notwithstanding the
conservative assumptions of the model, the result of this analysis provided
The Region subsequently undertook a more
refined analysis of the YDSS using a Dynamic Model which makes more realistic
assumptions of the characteristics of flow and storm events in the YDSS. The Dynamic Model indicates that in the YDSS
section through
York Region Staff, through the above analysis,
has confirmed (Attachment ‘A’ – letters dated January 11 and 20, 2005) that
Markham sewage allocation can match the Town’s current water allocation of 4732
units, subject to Regional Council approval confirming additional sewage allocation
of the additional 4099 units (633 units current sewage allocation plus 4099
units equals water allocation of 4732
units).
Further analysis is ongoing to verify, with the
implementation of certain capital projects (including 16th Avenue
Phase II sewer and the South East Collector sewer) and storage options in both
municipal and Regional trunk sewers, the amount and timing of future sewage
allocation for
Flow
Control Option
The cost to install, monitor and maintain the
flow control option in the Hwy 48 sanitary sewer is estimated at ±
$300,000. As this project is not in the
development charges background study, staff recommend that these costs be
assessed against the benefiting residential units (4099 units). Staff will finalize the timing of the
collection of the funds to enable the flow control works to be installed by mid
2005.
As these works are required to be implemented
in advance of development, staff recommend the works be temporarily financed by
the Pre DCA Engineering Reserve, and be subsequently recovered from the
development industry. In addition, staff
request authority under clause 7 (h) of the purchasing by-law to retain
Clarifica Ltd as the sole source supplier who has provided technical support to
engineering staff on the Flow Control Option to complete the design, prepare
tender document, undertake a ± 5 year monitoring program, at an upset limit of
$70,000 (exclusive of GST) to be negotiated with staff.
Likewise, given the unique and time sensitive nature
of the proposed works, staff request authority with consultation with Clarifica
Consulting Ltd to pre-qualify and negotiate with up to three contractors for
the installation and 5 year maintenance of the flow control option without
going through a public tender process to an upset limit of $230,000 (exclusive
of GST).
Allocation
Prioritization
Staff recommend that the guidelines for
prioritizing allocation adopted by Council on
As well, due to the very limited amount of
allocation available, consideration has also been given based on:
Based on the above criteria an updated ranking
of each Secondary Plan area is listed in the table attached as Attachment ‘C’.
Servicing
Allocation Assignment
Based on the guidelines for prioritization of
allocation, as discussed above, staff developed a proposed distribution of the
4732 units. This proposed distribution
was presented to Development Services Committee on January 25th and
to the development industry at a Developers Round Table meeting held on January
26th, in a draft form for discussion
and comment.
Staff recommends servicing allocation be
defined as being both water and sanitary allocation and the value of such be
based on the lower value of either water or sewage.
Development
Services Committee and Development Industry Consulted
Based on feedback from Committee members and
the development industry and further consideration by staff, the table attached
as Attachment ‘C’ was again reviewed and finalized. Attachment ‘B’ summarizes changes, conditions
and requests. It should be noted that in
reconsidering and recommending assignments, staff continued to keep the
allocation prioritization and considerations discussed above in mind. The Attachment ‘B’ table also includes a
brief explanation of each recommended assignment and why it may now be different
than that proposed on January 25/26. Staff received many comments on the
proposed allocations (both verbal and written attached as Attachment ‘E’). If all requests were granted, the Town
reserve of unassigned capacity (intended for strategic use by Council until
additional capacity is available from the Region) would be eliminated. Therefore, only minor adjustments were made
in the proposed assignments.
A number of developers have expressed concern
that they felt they are receiving no or very little new allocation at this
time. However, there is a general
recognition by the development industry that we simply do not have enough
allocation to go around. Industry
representatives have generally been complimentary to
Staff believe that the recommended allocations
are appropriate, given the limited supply available and the allocation prioritization
and considerations discussed above. Further
distribution of allocation from the reserve may be available subject to an
individual review of the merits of the development proposals and Council
approval.
Allocation
Polices:
It is important that a distinction be made
between available allocation at the draft plan/site plan approval stage versus
actual capacity in the watermain system or the YDSS to accommodate population
growth.
The Region’s Attachment ‘D’ chart shows the
relationship between actual population versus sanitary and water capacity in
However, at issue is the timing of development
approvals in relation to the timing of infrastructure delivery. The number of “in process” residential
dwelling units shown on active plans of subdivisions and site plans not yet
approved nor allocated full servicing (some 21,431 units as shown on Attachment
“C”) is greatly in excess of current servicing capacity available to Markham
from the Region of York.
When the Town grants residential draft plan
approval under the
Principles to develop more specific policies related
to approval of low/medium density and high density development, where a
servicing allocation is not immediately available, are discussed below. It should be noted that until the Region has
committed to a ten year implementation program outlining the extent and timing
of future servicing allocation, these policies cannot be finalized. The success of implementation of these
policies in practice is dependent on the Region’s ability to deliver
infrastructure required to support additional allocation on time.
Low/Medium
Density Residential Development:
In December of 2003, Markham Council approved an allocation policy
for development where required infrastructure was to be available within two
years, but for which no immediate allocation was available. That policy included the following
principles:
Where lands were
acquired and the EA complete for required infrastructure a development was
approved subject to the following:
·
a holding “H” symbol was appended
to the zoning until water servicing capacity is confirmed;
·
an agreement shall be
registered on title between the developer and the Town whereby the developer
agrees to prohibit pre-selling of lots until the holding symbol is lifted;
·
a phasing agreement shall be
established; and
·
the developer shall be
required to acknowledge in writing that it shall save harmless the Town from
any claim or action as a result of water capacity not being available when
anticipated.
Where
the lands were not yet acquired and/or the EA was not complete:
·
Council was to
approve the development in principle;
·
final approval
was delegated to staff (through a site specific delegation by-law);
·
all
requirements, as noted above.
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 allocation restrictions, this time frame will become
shorter. A more appropriate time frame
would be one year.
Staff had also considered implementing the
second approach (the “two-step” approach) in instances where required
infrastructure was not going to be available within two years. This approach would allow applicants to
proceed through the public process, obtain appropriate zoning of the lands,
subject to “hold” provisions, and obtain certainty with respect to development
proposals in order to finance front ending commitments.
Upon further thoughtful and detailed
consideration, staff believe the policy should be updated to include the
following principles.
As well, the “triggers” previously endorsed
(eg. lands acquired and EA complete) are no longer considered to be appropriate.
For example, the Region’s
It should be noted that, although this policy
has been in place since 2003, it has only been used in a couple of instances
(generally where assigned allocation is transferred). It remains staffs’ preference to draft
approve/site plan approve developments together with servicing allocation, thus
providing the greatest certainty.
However, we recognize, as allocation becomes more constrained, we need
to finalize these policies and put them into practice.
High
Density Development (apartments):
At the time the existing allocation policies
were adopted by Council (December 2003) no distinction was made between
low/medium density development (singles, semi’s and townhouses) and high
density (apartments) development. It has
become clear that, due to a much longer pre-sale and building schedule for high
density development, a distinction should be made between low/medium density
and high density developments. Principles
to include in this policy relate to:
Where servicing allocation will not be
available within two years, a similar “two-step” approval to that discussed
above could be followed. Under this process Council would approve the
development in principle with final approval being delegated to staff, to be
“issued” when allocation will be available within two years.
“Use it or Lose it” and Council’s ability to
modify are also principles to be included in the allocation policy for high
density development.
“Use
It or Lose It”:
As allocation continues to become constrained
it also becomes more important that those developments having assigned
allocations actually do proceed. To date
assignments to Secondary Plan areas have been reviewed and in some
circumstances revised. However, specific
allocations to approved draft plan/site plans have not. Staff now propose to carefully review both assignments
to Secondary Plan areas and allocation to specific developments, in relation to
progress of a development proposal, bi-annually. We recommend that where no “reasonable
progress” has been made in moving an application forward the servicing
allocation/assignment to that development may be withdrawn and in the case of
an approved development, a “hold” may be placed on the approval, at the
discretion of Council. “Reasonable
progress” is considered to be:
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.
Land
Severances
Since Council instituted the moratorium on new
residential approvals, staff have recommended that the Committee of Adjustment
defer all applications for residential land severance. It would seem reasonable to now request the
Region to exempt residential severances from allocation restrictions. Severances involving three new lots or less
normally represent an infill situation and would have little impact on
servicing capacities.
Next
Steps
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
As of
BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The Legal Department has reviewed this report
and their comments have been incorporated.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment ‘A’ – Region of York – January 11
and 20, 2005 letters re Sewage Allocation Attachment ‘B’ – Summary of
Assignment
Attachment ‘C’ – Assignment of Allocation
Attachment ‘D’ – Graph – Allocation versus
Population
Attachment ‘E’ – Letters from Development
Community
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Brown, C.E.T. Director of Engineering ___________________________________ Jim Baird, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Commissioner of Development Services |
|
Valerie Shuttleworth, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of Planning and Urban Design |
Q:\Development\Allocation\Reports\Water
and Sewer Allocation 021505.doc
.
