Archive

Town council tuning development charges bylaw

September 19, 2024   ·   0 Comments

Written By JAMES MATTHEWS

Orangeville council gave residents a look into its development charges background study.

The study is necessary in order to update what the municipality charges to developers building in the town. It’s a means for the town to recoup some of the capital expenditures from taxpayers money as part of the development.

Nancy Neale, a manager at Watson and Associates Economists, walked council and the public through the study during a meeting Sept. 16.

Councillor Debbie Sherwood said regarding development charges (DCs) approved in council’s last term, she remembers an effort to give a reduction in DCs to such builds as long-term care facilities.

“Was that grandfathered in this?” she said. “Has there been some legislative changes in order to give those breaks for people that are actually going to be doing those types of developments?”

Giving full or partial DC exemption for what would be a private for-profit facility would be at the discretion of council,” Neale said.

“Non-profit would be fully exempt,” she said. “For-profit, that’s up to you as to whether or not you want to discount or exempt them. Right now we have not phrased that in the proposed bylaw but it could certainly be added in if council wants.”

Sherwood asked how the updated DC bylaw would affect previous DCs and their use to attract development, either for-profit or non-profit, to Orangeville.

David Smith, the municipality’s CAO, said that is something that can be taken into consideration when the proposed bylaw comes before council in October for approval.

Alan Thoms wondered if the DCs from residential build would cover the installation of sound barriers between mixed-type residential units.

Neale said the town may require such barriers as a condition of the development agreement if they’re on private property where there’s an adjacent development occurring.

If the barriers are desired to quell the noise of increased traffic nearby, then those barriers could be folded into the capital costs of the road’s expansion.

“So it depends if it’s on municipal land or if it’s on private property,” Neale said.

“Let’s assume then for a moment it’s strictly on private property,” Thoms said. “A barrier between the multi-dwelling buildings, i.e. townhouses, and separate individual housing.”

“(It would be the) planning staff to determine whether or not that is something that they would require that developer to put in place as a requirement of that development,” Neale said.

Tim Kocialek, the town’s infrastructure services general manager, said such barriers would indeed be part of the site plan agreement for the particular development.

Thoms said that fine, but he alleged there was a development agreement “years ago” that required privacy fencing that has yet to be installed.

“Now the residents are very upset because those fences don’t seem to be forthcoming,” Thoms said.

“I’m not familiar with the location you are talking about,” said Kocialek. “Maybe we can talk after.”

Thoms referred to a development on First Street.

“What we’re trying to do tonight is talk about a bylaw that’s going to come in,” Deputy Mayor Todd Taylor said. “If you’ve got something specific we’d be happy to take that offline.”

Smith said he was familiar with the property to which Thoms referred.

“I think Ms. Neale answered the questions specific to development charges, which is why we’re here tonight. The property Mr. Thoms is referencing specifically would be best dealt with offline,” Smith said.

Readers Comments (0)