Source: https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2009/02-25/cpsc/01%20-%20ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0242.htm
Timestamp: 2020-06-06 12:02:45+00:00

Document:
RÈGLEMENT SUR L’AFFECTATION DE TERRAINS À VOCATION DE PARC
RecommandationS modifiÉeS DU Comité des services communautaires et de protection
1. approuve le Règlement sur l’affectation de terrains à vocation de parc proposé, ci-joint en tant que Document 5 du présent rapport, et que ledit règlement soit adopté en même temps que la modification au Plan officiel.
2. enjoindre le personnel de préparer et de faire circuler, d’ici février 2009, une ébauche de modification au Plan officiel en vue d’inclure, de façon générale, les politiques en matière d’affectation des terrains à vocation de parc, tel qu’il est proposé dans le Document 4.
3. approuve la modification de la recommandation du personnel de façon à ce que l'annexe 3 du projet de Règlement sur l'affectation de terrains à vocation de parc soit remplacée par l'annexe 3 constituant l'option 3 dans la note de service du personnel datée du 3 février 2009;
4. approuve la modification suivante du paragraphe 17(1) du projet de Règlement sur l'affectation de terrains à vocation de parc, qui porte sur la répartition entre l'ensemble de la Ville et les districts des sommes versées au lieu de cessions de terrains : 60 % aux comptes des quartiers et 40 % au compte de l'ensemble de la Ville, répartition constituant l'option 3 dans le tableau des options de répartition des versements tenant lieu de cessions de terrains à vocation de parc dans la note de service du personnel datée du 3 février 2009;
5. accepte que les fonds actuels dans la « réserve pour l'ensemble de la Ville » qui ont été perçus à titre de versements tenant lieu de cessions de terrains à vocation de parc soient distribués en conséquence aux quartiers aux fins de dépôt des sommes versées à ce titre;
6. exige que le personnel des Finances présente un rapport à ce sujet chaque année avant les discussions budgétaires;
7. approuve une modification de l'alinéa 16.(1) (b), partie III, du Règlement sur l'affectation de terrains à vocation de parc de manière à permettre que les sommes attribuées aux districts puissent être, avec l'accord des conseillers des quartiers concernés, affectées à des aménagements qui chevauchent des districts;
8. approuve une reformulation de l'alinéa 14 (1) (f), partie II, de manière à exempter seulement les écoles qui répondent sur place aux besoins de loisirs extérieurs de leurs élèves au moment de l'aménagement.
RecommandationS modifiÉeS DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT
3. charge le personnel de rendre compte, selon le quartier, de l’affectation de terrains pour la création de parcs.
1. Deputy City Manager's report, City Operations, dated 27 November 2008
(ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0242).
2. Memo regarding additional information requested by Committee dated 3 February 2009.
3. Extract of Planning and Environment Committee Minutes 46, 9 December 2008.
4. Extract of Community and Protective Services Committee Minutes 37, 15 January 2009 and Minutes 38, of 5 February 2009.
27 November 2008 / le 27 novembre 2008
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Karen Currie,
Ref N°: ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0242
That the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee and the Community and Protective Services Committee recommend that Council:
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement, le Comité de l’agriculture et des affaires rurales et le Comité des services communautaires et de protection recommandent au Conseil :
1. d’approuver le Règlement sur l’affectation de terrains à vocation de parc proposé, ci-joint en tant que Document 5 du présent rapport, et que ledit règlement soit adopté en même temps que la modification au Plan officiel.
2. d’enjoindre le personnel de préparer et de faire circuler, d’ici février 2009, une ébauche de modification au Plan officiel en vue d’inclure, de façon générale, les politiques en matière d’affectation des terrains à vocation de parc, tel qu’il est proposé dans le Document 4.
Currently over 870 pieces of land totalling over 2700 hectares of land make up the City’s inventory of parks that provide for passive and active recreation needs of residents. They provide features such as: play structures, sports fields, splash pads, skating rinks, pathway systems, and include trees and shade cover and site furnishings. They come in many shapes and sizes, depending on how they are used. They become integral parts of people’s lives and provide environmental benefits to the city as a whole. The Official Plan sets targets for parkland and greenspace provision in the city. These targets are generally met in the design of new communities but are more difficult to achieve in older communities where current parkland standards did not always exist and opportunities to acquire new land are few.
Today the City acquires parkland in a number of ways but much of the new parkland is dedicated or funded through the land development process. The legislative authority to require parkland at the time of development comes from the Planning Act. The relevant Sections, 42 and 51 of the Planning Act are provided in Document 1.
In order to be able to require parkland dedication the Planning Act requires that the municipality have a Parkland Dedication By-law and appropriate supporting policies in the Official Plan in order to clarify how much land and when parkland will be required. The City currently uses the Parkland Dedication By-laws of a number of the former municipalities. Not all of the former municipalities had Parkland Dedication By-laws and those that exist:
do not necessarily utilise all of the opportunities provided by the Planning Act.
do not necessarily reflect the current City approach for parkland dedication in the Official Plan.
A table containing the provisions of the former municipal by-laws is included in Table 1, which can be found in Document 2.
This report proposes a new Parkland Dedication By-law to replace the existing by-laws and to bring clarity to the way parkland dedication is handled across the city.
Authority under the Planning Act
The Planning Act gives the authority to municipalities to require land for parks and recreational purposes at the time of the development. This requires the developer to transfer a predetermined amount to the City at no cost. The amount of land that can be requested is limited by the Act and varies depending upon the use. The City is permitted to require the payment of the cash value of the land, referred to as cash-in-lieu payments, where land dedication on the site is impractical or the City can make better use of the money to acquire parkland or improve the capacity of existing parks elsewhere in the community.
The Act places limitations on the amount of land that the municipality can request for different land uses as follows:
a maximum of two per cent (2%) of the land area developed for commercial or industrial purposes, and
a maximum of five per cent (5%) of the land area for any other development including residential uses. However, in the case of the development or redevelopment of land for residential purposes, a municipality may choose to utilise an ‘alternate rate’ that provides up to one hectare of parkland for every 300 dwelling units proposed in the development. For most new urban development this rate would provide more that five per cent of the developable land area. But, to use this ‘alternative rate’ the City must indicate when it will be used in the Official Plan.
When the Municipality requires the payment of cash instead of land dedication the cash value is assessed based upon the value of the land being developed. Because the value of the land can increase once the City gives approval for development the Act stipulates that the land value must be taken just prior to approval of the development in order to be representative of that land that would otherwise be dedicated to the City. Where cash is taken instead of land the money can be spent only for the acquisition of land to be used for park or other public recreational purposes, including the erection or repair of buildings and the acquisition of machinery for park or other public recreational purposes.
The Parkland Dedication By-law must also specify what development the City chooses to exempt from parkland dedication.
A number of issues that are common to the discussion on parkland dedication were repeated in submissions from the public and staff. A more detailed response to the public submissions is provided later in the report. The main issues are:
How much land is required for different types of development;
What land uses should be exempted from parkland dedication
When is Cash-in-lieu required and when it is paid;
1. How much land is required
As shown above, the Planning Act is specific in the maximum amount of land that can be requiring for different land uses.
a. Commercial and Industrial uses
Municipalities across Ontario commonly use the rate of two per cent of the lands that are developed for commercial or industrial uses. In some specific jurisdictions municipalities have exempted industrial or commercial development as means of stimulating employment. For example, in the past, Nepean exempted commercial and industrial land uses and now Mississauga exempts industrial uses. Most municipalities recognize employees use local parks and recreational facilities and even employment areas benefit from provision of some outdoor greenspace and these areas can be good locations for some active sport facilities. In most cases cash-in-lieu is preferred for these uses because in new communities the park locations are usually identified in the plan for the community and in older areas two per cent rarely provides enough land for a park.
The draft Parkland Dedication By-law (Document 5) recommends the continuation of the past practice of requiring parkland for land developed for commercial and industrial uses equivalent to two per cent of the gross site area being developed or cash-in-lieu thereof. The decision to accept land or cash is usually determined at the time of development approval.
The Act establishes a maximum rate of five per cent of the developed land for all other uses. This can include residential uses at low densities, institutional uses and any other non-commercial or non-industrial uses. However, the Act the permits the City to choose to apply an “alternative requirement ’ to higher density residential uses where it is advantageous to do so. Institutional and other uses will be addressed later.
The Planning Act provides two parkland rates for residential development. The five per cent rate is a fixed rate and is the common dedication that was historically used for low-density residential development that can be found in some older suburbs, in villages and anywhere in the rural area. Former rural municipalities typically took cash-in-lieu rather than land.
The cash was either used to acquire land, to improve existing facilities or to fund parkland that provided facilities in more central locations. To ensure that parkland contributions were equitable some municipalities established a payment based upon five per cent of the average residential lot size.
The approach proposed by the discussion document and which is included in the daft Parkland Dedication By-law at Document 5, is as follows: for all residential development, at densities less than 18 units per net hectare in the urban area, villages and in the rural area, the parkland requirement will be assessed as five per cent of the gross area being developed. For rural severances (outside of villages) the City will require cash-in-lieu only and the value will be based upon the average land value of a 0.8 hectares lot. The value will be determined by market appraisals and updated every six months.
The Planning Act provides an “alternative requirement” for higher density development of one hectare for every 300 units. At densities greater than 18 units per net hectare this “alternative requirement” increases the amount of parkland required as the density increases. Most urban municipalities in Ontario use this “alternative requirement”, or a variation on it. The former municipalities of Gloucester and Cumberland included this rate in their By-law while Kanata and Nepean used this rate in specific areas. Table 2 in Document 2, provides a comparison of the parkland rates for a number of other urban municipalities.
The advantage of this approach is that the parkland delivery is directly tied to the number of people being accommodated. As the population density increases, the land dedicated for parkland also increases. This provides more land in suburban areas and areas undergoing intensification. In older areas it can provide more cash for land acquisition or park improvement.
The disadvantage of this rate is that for extremely dense developments, such as large apartment buildings on small lots, the parkland required can exceed the area of the lot being developed. This makes dedication impossible and the cash-in-lieu would exceed the value of the land being developed. Municipalities have tried to deal with this in a number of ways including reducing the rate for higher densities or changing the rate for different types of residential unit. The discussion document suggested a reduced rate for apartment buildings of 0.5 hectares for every 300 apartments. This approach still generates problems for very dense developments and this is why staff also suggested in the discussion document that the “alternative requirement” be capped so as not to exceed the site area or value of the land being developed for apartment buildings. One of the targets of the City’s Official Plan is that parkland in residential areas should represent approximately eight to ten per cent of the developable land. The City of Toronto also uses a cap of ten per cent for small sites (see Table 2 to Document 2). Staff is also recommending a 10 per cent cap for apartment buildings.
There has only been a limited, but negative response from the development industry to the use of the “alternative rate” because of the increased parkland that it requires and the increased cost that will be imposed on some new development. Specific industry comments are included in Document 3.
In the suburban areas outside the Greenbelt the “alternative requirement” has been used for some time and the 10 per cent limit will impact only a small number of projects. Inside the greenbelt the impact is different, particular in the central area, where the bulk of the new high-rise apartments are being constructed. Here parkland dedication was traditionally five per cent or was completely exempted from parkland contributions and the “alternative rate”, even with the cap at 10 per cent, represents a significant increase.
The approach proposed by the discussion document, has been modified in the Parkland Dedication By-law and is as follows: for all residential development, at densities greater than 18 units per net hectare parkland dedication will be assessed at one hectare for every 300 residential units with the added provision that for “Apartment Dwellings” as defined in the City’s Zoning By-law the dedication will not exceed 10 per cent of the site area or value of the site as cash-in-lieu.
The Act establishes a maximum rate of five per cent of the developed land for all other uses that can include institutional uses and any other non-commercial or non-industrial use. The discussion document included institutional uses with other uses because the former parkland dedication by-laws required five per cent of the land area to be used for other uses, which mostly include institutional-type development. A number of submissions have been received on this topic arguing that institutional uses, particularly non-profit organisations providing public services should not be required to dedicate five per cent land or cash-in-lieu. Staff agrees with this recommendation. There is more discussion on land uses exempted from parkland dedication below.
The draft Parkland Dedication By-law recommends that ‘Other Uses’ will be required to provide a parkland dedication of five per cent of the gross site area or the value of the land being developed.
2. What development is exempted from parkland dedication
Traditionally uses such as schools, places of assembly and many government uses were exempted. Many expressed the concern that parkland dedication will prejudice non-profit and not-for-profit operations. Council modified the existing by-laws in October 2004, to exempt ‘non-profit rental’ and ‘not-for profit sponsored ownership’ residential developments on the basis that these developments were funded with public money to provide affordable housing. Other non-profit and not-for-profit groups provide similar needed services and should be granted equal exemptions.
The proposed list of exempt land uses in the draft Parkland Dedication By-law is:
a. any building replaced and used for the same purpose within two years of its accidental destruction or damage leading to its demolition.
b. any addition or alteration to an existing residential building that does not result in an increase in dwelling units,
c. a place of worship,
d. a cemetery,
e. any development undertaken by a non-profit organisation providing a community service or subsidised residential development,
f. a college or university or school board use,
g. any municipal or other government use,
h. a secondary dwelling unit as defined in the Zoning By-law,
i. a home based business as defined in the Zoning By-law,
j. an addition or alteration to an existing commercial or industrial building that does not require site plan control approval as per the Planning Act or the Site Plan Control By-law,
k. a use for which a temporary permit has been issued, unless such use is made permanent,
l. any development or redevelopment of a use undertaken in partnership with the City of Ottawa as a public/private partnership.
The former City of Ottawa also provided exemptions for residential redevelopment in the Central area of the city and Kanata exempted rural severances from parkland dedication. Staff is only recommending that the uses identified above should be exempted in the future.
3. When is Cash-in-lieu required and when will it be collected
a. When cash-in-lieu may be taken
The Planning Act provides that a Municipality can choose to accept cash instead of land. This cash is to be equal to the value of the land that would otherwise be given to the City. There are four basic occasions when municipalities are likely to choose to take cash instead of land. They are:
i. Where there is no land large enough or of sufficient quality for a park and/or
ii. Where the City identifies and wants to consolidate land in a more appropriate location (e.g. identified in a Community Design Plan) and/or
iii. Where the area is already well served with parkland and /or.
iv. Where the taking of parkland from the site renders the proposed development or redevelopment unfeasible. This is usually linked to i) above.
The decision to accept cash is made at the time of development by staff. Some communities expressed the concern that this decision should be made in consultation with the community and others have suggested that if parkland cannot be provided on site development should not be approved. Opportunities already exist for public input on park provision in the consultation that accompanies most development and redevelopment proposals. There are clearly situations where sites that are being redeveloped are too small to provide for both development and a park. Also it is better to strive for a few larger functional parks than to have randomly scattered small pieces of land given to the City.
The timing of collection is an issue that will be harmonized through this new By-law. The current practice for the majority of the city is to identify the need and collect the funds at the time of development approval. Former City of Ottawa collected cash-in-lieu at the time of building permit and this practice continued post amalgamation. It is recommended that the procedure be established that the cash-in-lieu of parkland be collected at the time of development approval for all applications. The benefits of this approach will be:
- Funds will obtained by the City at the earliest possible opportunity
- Consistency of approach throughout the city
- All decision-making regarding the parkland requirements will be dealt with under One Stop Service
- The development review process is a public process
- The administration of appraisals and collection of funds will be simplified
Questions have been raised about the value of funds collected and whether they vary depending upon the decision to collect at development approvals versus building permit. In consultation with RPAM it has been found that generally the value will not change. The time differential between the approval date and the actual issuance of building permit is not substantial enough to result in a change of land value. If development does not happen for a prolonged period following site plan approval, the approval requires an extension and at that time, the value can be recalculated.
c. Using Cash-in-lieu
The Planning Act requires municipalities to deposit cash-in-lieu into a dedicated account and restricts the use of this money for the acquisition of land to be used for park or other public recreational purposes, including the erection or repair of buildings and the acquisition of machinery for park or other public recreational purposes.
To date the former municipalities and the City have used a single account for these moneys. Departments access the cash when the Council approves a project and a budget that sources all or part of funds from the cash-in-lieu account. Staff are recommending a change in this accounting process. It is proposed that the cash-in-lieu funds be accounted for in 11 accounts related to the districts identified on the map shown at the end of the Parkland Dedication By-law and one citywide account.
Staff recommend that 60 per cent of all cash-in-lieu payments made in a district will be dedicated to parkland purposes in the district. The balance, 40 per cent, of the cash collected will be directed to a citywide account and will be used to contribute to park projects that serve multiple districts or the city as a whole. The community can contribute to determining how these funds are used within districts by contributing to the identification and prioritization of City projects through the annual budget process.
The draft Parkland Dedication By-law includes this approach. Notwithstanding this, where community wide plans identify the park needs these plans should take priority.
d. Monitoring cash-in-lieu
Finance staff have advised that a quarterly financial report can be provided detailing cash-in-lieu for parkland by district and Citywide. This report, called the "Operating Status Report" will contain projected year-end reserve and fund balances. This report will provide continuous accounting of the status of district and citywide funds. This report will be provide to members of Council.
The Planning Act requires that certain policies be included in the City’s Official Plan to support the use of the ‘alternative provisions’ for parkland dedication. The discussion paper included a draft text for this purpose. An Official Plan amendment to modify policies for parkland dedication has been initiated by staff. The revised text for this amendment is detailed in Document 4 and it is anticipated that the Official Plan amendment will be presented to Committees in early 2009. Staff proposes to bring the Parkland Dedication By-law for adoption by Council concurrently with the adoption of this amendment.
A document that identified a proposed approach to Parkland Dedication was circulated to all registered Community Associations, the following Advisory Committees, Ottawa Forests and Greenspace Advisory Committee, Environmental Advisory Committee, Parks and Recreation and City Departments Advisory Committee, and the Rural Issues Advisory Committee. Copies were also sent to architects and developers including the Greater Ottawa Home Builders Association. A Table of Submissions, which includes staff responses, is shown in Document 3.
Document 1- Sections, 42 and 51 of the Planning Act
Document 2- Table 1 - Provisions of the Former Municipal Parkland Dedication By-Laws and Table 2 - Other Municipal Parkland Dedication Policies
Document 3- Table of Public Submissions and Committee Responses
Document 4- Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Document 5- Revised Parkland Dedication By-law No. 2009-XX
That the Department of Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability be instructed to include the draft text, included in Document 4, into a stand-alone Official Plan amendment.
That Legal staff prepare the By-law at Document 5 for adoption by Council upon adoption of the Official Plan amendment.
The City’s Real Estate Services be requested to bring forward an area-based Parkland Cash-in-lieu rate for rural severances for inclusion in the City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges in January 2009.
Approval of this By-law will result in the Finance Department needing to create a series of new reserve accounts to receive the funds collected. As well information on the reserves will be provided through the “Operating Status report.” Funds within the existing cash-in-lieu of parkland reserve fund will be placed into the city-wide cash-in-lieu reserve.
SECTIONS, 42 AND 51 OF THE PLANNING ACT DOCUMENT 1
Section 42 Parkland Dedication
42. (1) As a condition of development or redevelopment of land, the council of a local municipality may, by by-law applicable to the whole municipality or to any defined area or areas thereof, require that land in an amount not exceeding, in the case of land proposed for development or redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes, 2 per cent and in all other cases 5 per cent of the land be conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 42 (1).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (3),
“dwelling unit” means any property that is used or designed for use as a domestic establishment in which one or more persons may sleep and prepare and serve meals. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 42 (2).
(3) Subject to subsection (4), as an alternative to requiring the conveyance provided for in subsection (1), in the case of land proposed for development or redevelopment for residential purposes, the by-law may require that land be conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes at a rate of one hectare for each 300 dwelling units proposed or at such lesser rate as may be specified in the by-law. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 42 (3).
Official plan requirement
(4) The alternative requirement authorized by subsection (3) may not be provided for in a by-law passed under this section unless there is an official plan in effect in the local municipality that contains specific policies dealing with the provision of lands for park or other public recreational purposes and the use of the alternative requirement. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 42 (4).
Use and sale of land
(5) Land conveyed to a municipality under this section shall be used for park or other public recreational purposes, but may be sold at any time. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 42 (5).
Payment instead of conveyance
(6) The council of a local municipality may require the payment of money to the value of the land otherwise required to be conveyed under this section in lieu of the conveyance. 2006, c. 23, s. 17 (1).
No building without payment
(6.1) If a payment is required under subsection (6), no person shall construct a building on the land proposed for development or redevelopment unless the payment has been made or arrangements for the payment that are satisfactory to the council have been made. 2006, c. 23, s. 17 (1).
Redevelopment, reduction of payment
(6.2) If land in a local municipality is proposed for redevelopment, a part of the land meets sustainability criteria set out in the official plan and the conditions set out in subsection (6.3) are met, the council shall reduce the amount of any payment required under subsection (6) by the value of that part. 2006, c. 23, s. 17 (1).
(6.3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (6.2) are:
1. The official plan contains policies relating to the reduction of payments required under subsection (6).
2. No land is available to be conveyed for park or other public recreational purposes under this section. 2006, c. 23, s. 17 (1).
(6.4) For the purposes of subsections (6) and (6.2), the value of the land shall be determined as of the day before the day the building permit is issued in respect of the development or redevelopment or, if more than one building permit is required for the development or redevelopment, as of the day before the day the first permit is issued. 2006, c. 23, s. 17 (1).
Where land conveyed
(7) If land has been conveyed or is required to be conveyed to a municipality for park or other public purposes or a payment of money in lieu of such conveyance has been received by the municipality or is owing to it under this section or a condition imposed under section 51.1 or 53, no additional conveyance or payment in respect of the land subject to the earlier conveyance or payment may be required by a municipality in respect of subsequent development or redevelopment unless,
(a) there is a change in the proposed development or redevelopment which would increase the density of development; or
(b) land originally proposed for development or redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes is now proposed for development or redevelopment for other purposes. 1994, c. 23, s. 25.
(8) Despite clauses 74.1 (2) (h) and (i), subsection (7) does not apply to land proposed for development or redevelopment if, before this subsection comes into force, the land was subject to a condition that land be conveyed to a municipality for park or other public purposes or that a payment of money in lieu of such conveyance be made under this section or under section 51 or 53. 1994, c. 23, s. 25.
(9) If there is a change under clause (7) (a) or (b), the land that has been conveyed or is required to be conveyed or the payment of money that has been received or that is owing, as the case may be, shall be included in determining the amount of land or payment of money in lieu of it that may subsequently be required under this section on the development, further development or redevelopment of the lands or part of them in respect of which the original conveyance or payment was made. 1994, c. 23, s. 25.
(10) In the event of a dispute between a municipality and an owner of land on the value of land determined under subsection (6.4), either party may apply to the Municipal Board to have the value determined and the Board shall, in accordance as nearly as may be with the Expropriations Act, determine the value of the land and, if a payment has been made under protest under subsection (12), the Board may order that a refund be made to the owner. 1994, c. 23, s. 25; 2006, c. 23, s. 17 (2).
(11) In the event of a dispute between a municipality and an owner of land as to the amount of land or payment of money that may be required under subsection (9), either party may apply to the Municipal Board and the Board shall make a final determination of the matter. 1994, c. 23, s. 25.
(12) If there is a dispute between a municipality and the owner of land under subsection (10), the owner may pay the amount required by the municipality under protest and shall make an application to the Municipal Board under subsection (10) within 30 days of the payment of the amount. 1994, c. 23, s. 25.
(13) If an owner of land makes a payment under protest and an application to the Municipal Board under subsection (12), the owner shall give notice of the application to the municipality within 15 days after the application is made. 1994, c. 23, s. 25.
(14) The council of a municipality may include in its estimates an amount to be used for the acquisition of land to be used for park or other public recreational purposes and may pay into the fund provided for in subsection (15) that amount, and any person may pay any sum into the same fund. 1994, c. 23, s. 25.
(15) All money received by the municipality under subsections (6) and (14) and all money received on the sale of land under subsection (5), less any amount spent by the municipality out of its general funds in respect of the land, shall be paid into a special account and spent only for the acquisition of land to be used for park or other public recreational purposes, including the erection or repair of buildings and the acquisition of machinery for park or other public recreational purposes. 1994, c. 23, s. 25.
(16) The money in the special account may be invested in securities in which the municipality is permitted to invest under the Municipal Act, 2001 or the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be, and the earnings derived from the investment of the money shall be paid into the special account, and the auditor in the auditor’s annual report shall report on the activities and status of the account. 1994, c. 23, s. 25; 1996, c. 32, s. 82 (5); 2002, c. 17, Sched. B, s. 15; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 47 (10).
Section 51.1 Parkland
51.1(1)The approval authority may impose as a condition to the approval of a plan of subdivision that land in an amount not exceeding, in the case of a subdivision proposed for commercial or industrial purposes, 2 per cent and in all other cases 5 per cent of the land included in the plan shall be conveyed to the local municipality for park or other public recreational purposes or, if the land is not in a municipality, shall be dedicated for park or other public recreational purposes.
(2)If the approval authority has imposed a condition under subsection (1) requiring land to be conveyed to the municipality and if the municipality has an official plan that contains specific policies relating to the provision of lands for park or other public recreational purposes, the municipality, in the case of a subdivision proposed for residential purposes, may, in lieu of such conveyance, require that land included in the plan be conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes at a rate of one hectare for each 300 dwelling units proposed or at such lesser rate as may be determined by the municipality.
(3)If the approval authority has imposed a condition under subsection (1) requiring land to be conveyed to the municipality, the municipality may, in lieu of accepting the conveyance, require the payment of money by the owner of the land,
(4)For the purpose of determining the amount of any payment required under subsection (3), the value of the land shall be determined as of the day before the day of the approval of the draft plan of subdivision.
(5)Subsections 42 (2), (5) and (12) to (16) apply with necessary modifications to a conveyance of land or a payment of money under this section. 1994, c. 23, s. 31.
Table 1 Provisions of the Former Municipal Parkland Dedication By-Laws DOCUMENT 2
Cash-in-lieu calculation
By-law 98 of 1996
By-law 4 of 2000
2% land or cash on subdivision, site plan, road openings, condos and consents
Sites with area of 1000m2 or less
5% land or cash singles & semis,
1 hectares /300 units for multiples
Subdivision and Site Plan, road openings condos and consents.
Non Profit housing projects
5% land or cash
Deferred until permanent zoning is sought
The day before building permit
By-law 255 -2000
2% land or cash
Exempted land located within area defined by By-law and any development downtown other than Lebreton Flats portion of downtown or development of more than 50 units
5% land or cash and where such is an addition the amount is prorated to the increase in gross floor area
Exempted are: College or universities
CAHDCO leasehold project
Not addressed in by-law
By-law 195-88
Exempted severances in the rural area
Some Community Specific Park requirements applied
Not addressed in by-law but by resolution of Council the valuation was based upon a two acre lot only
By-law 54/92
2% on Subdivision
5% on urban and rural subdivisions
$ 1000 cash per lot for Rural Estate lot or Village lot severances.
$ 500 cash per Farm related rural severance
Day before approval of subdivision or severance
By-law 66-91
for Subdivisions, consents, development and redevelopment
$2500 cash plus $1500 per 0.4 hectares to a maximum of $7000
5% on urban and rural subdivisions.
$1000 cash per urban consent
$750 cash per rural consent
By-law 53-88
urban and rural subdivisions, site plan
2% land or cash urban and rural subdivisions, site plan
5% land or cash for rural residential subdivisions
5% as land or cash for urban residential subdivisions or site plan or an alternative requirement of
1.2 Hectares /1000 population or
$1000 cash per lot for rural severances
$164.04 per metre of frontage for severance of urban lots
$500 cash per lot for Farm Retirement purposes
5% of land or cash
No by-law found
Table 2 Other Municipal Parkland Dedication Policies
Alternative requirement of 0.4 hectares /300 or cash with
§ a 10% limit for sites <1 Hectares
§ a 15%limit for sites 1- 5 Hectares
§ a 20% limit for sites >5 Hectares
Also collect cash-in-lieu at Building Permit
5% land or cash for densities sites less 15 units per net Hectares
1 Hectares per 300 units for densities greater than t 15 units per net Hectares
Cash in lieu is calculated as:
§ the land value the day before building permit for low density development
§ the lesser of land value or $6500 per unit for medium density development
§ the lesser of land value or $5500 per unit for high density development
1 Hectares per 300 units for densities between 20 - 75 units per net Hectares
0.6 Hectares per 300 units for densities > 75 units per net Hectares
5% land or cash except for some specific exemptions
5% land or cash for densities under 17.5 units per net Hectares
otherwise the alternative requirement calculated as follows:
§ 30 sq m per unit for one or two unit dwellings
§ 33 sq m per unit for row or townhouses
§ 17.5 sq m per unit for multiple dwellings
or 1 hectares per 300 units
Collect cash-in-lieu at Building Permit stage only
§ 5% land or cash for development < 50 units per net Hectares
§ 7.5 % for development between 50 - 100 units per net Hectares
§ 10% for development > 100 units per net Hectares
Table of Public Submissions and Committee Responses DOCUMENT 3
3. Resident -The rate for institutional are too and will prejudice non-profit organizations developing institutional uses. The discussion paper did not provide justification for the increase in the contribution for these uses being raised from 2% to 5% when these uses provide vital public services Applicants often request and are given exemptions.
a. Table 2 Document 2 attached to this report identifies the parkland rates for a number of other municipalities.
a. The City’s Official Plan states that cash-in-lieu “…will be for the acquisition of new parkland or the improvement of existing local park and recreational facilities accessible to the area being developed.” As communities grow, they all generate the need for recreational space.
9. Ottawa Catholic School Board -
The Board supports the exemption fro parkland dedication given to schools.
The proposed by-law does not require parkland dedication from schools
b. Policies to this effect are proposed in the Official Plan Amendment at Document 3
c. The ability to meet this objective varies depending upon where development is occurring and the availability of lane in the vicinity. If parkland cannot be provide on the site it is often difficult to guarantee that parkland will be provided in the immediate vicinity. It is the city policy to attempt to provide parkland or enhance facilities that can be used by the residents of the development.
h. .acknowledging a credit for existing development is not understood.
a. Disagree. The City does not want to be in the position of being required to accept woodland as parkland. The draft By-law at Document 5 states that the General Manager or delegate retains the right to not accept these lands as parkland. This does not preclude exceptional circumstances where this land would not be considered and such consideration would include the evaluation of the recreation needs of the community.
Comité consultatif sur les forêts et les espaces verts d'Ottawa
Subject : Proposed Approach to Parkland Dedication - Discussion Paper
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Proposed Approach to Parkland Dedication. We found that there were many excellent components in the proposal, but have some major concerns overall and suggestions for several modifications.
Firstly, it would be helpful to know how the City defines “parkland” for the purposes of this by-law. There should be a definition provided. OFGAC’s position would be that within that definition should be both specific and overall biodiversity considerations, as well as human uses. Parkland greenspaces, even small sites, are important for creating biodiversity oasis and networks within the urban area. Pollinating insects, for example, can make use of very small areas with appropriate vegetation as long as there are several of these areas within a relatively close distance to provide enough habitat. Trees help to clean and cool the air, both desirable functions in an urban environment. Any designation of parkland must include biodiversity considerations to be relevant and responsible. The definition of parkland should also be creative to take advantage of many situations. For example it could include green roofs, and living fences and thickets along back alleyways in older parts of the city.
In addition, the components of this by-law should be coordinated with other documents currently being prepared for and by the City including the Urban Tree Conservation By-law (Forestry Department), the Climate Change Strategy (Environment Department) and the Biodiversity Strategy (Environmental Advisory Committee). All four have relevance to each other and should be mutually supportive in their intent and language.
Another concern is that there is absolutely no mention of the acquisition of forested or field areas and their use for passive parks. This component has been completely ignored. We are referring to un-manicured spaces or open areas not cleared for soccer fields and other active use, but spaces for residents of Ottawa to enjoy for passive recreation. Passive parks play an important part in the recreational framework. Acquisition of forested areas, and other ecosystems, in the urban and rural areas is too often overlooked: The time has come to incorporate it in all future approaches to Parkland Dedication and to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
We find that the percentages of required parkland per specified use are low and should be increased by at least 2-3% overall (5% would be preferred). Parkland (green areas) is becoming increasingly more important in the era of climate change, and urban areas especially will require more heat and air quality mitigation as time goes on. Planning now for more green area will show responsible foresight. As well, it is important with the City’s emphasis on intensification to include as much required greenspace/parkland as possible in the by-law so that in the future both human and other species inhabitants will have many natural and semi-natural areas to ensure quality of life, including both physical and psychological health, and well-being.
The OFGAC’s specific modifications to the discussion paper are as follows:
Section 2. Parkland Dedication
Item d. Condition of Land for Conveyance
To add vii. Any land less than 30 meters from riparian borders.
Section 3. Dedication Requirements
Item a. Amount of Land
We recommend that a copy of Sections 42(3) and 51.1(2) of the Planning Act be added as an Appendix.
Table 1. Dedication Rates
Except Apartment Dwellings
A minimum requirement should be added under “Consents – Flat rate (to be determined)”.
Item a. Development Exempted from Parkland Requirements
We do not understand why items ii, vii and viii are included in this category.
For item ii. we believe that greenspace is much needed in these developments for the benefit and welfare of the inhabitants.
For items vii. and viii., in the case of institutions such as churches and universities, etc., it should be a public responsibility to incorporate greenspace into their development. If traditional greenspace and parkland is not viable, then other options such as green roofs, courtyards with trees and gardens, etc. should be required.
This would be a missed opportunity otherwise
Item b. Credit for existing development
Reference to “a credit will be given” is unclear on two fronts: First, how this would be done and; why a credit would be provided when “some or no parkland contribution has previously been made”. We believe that further clarification is required.
Section 5. Cash-in-lieu Requirements
This cash-in-lieu provision should be made a “last resort” option, seldom used, the priority being to ensure adequate parkland and greenspace within the City of Ottawa.
We find that there are many undefined and indeterminate references in this section that need to be better spelled out. The decision-making process is unclear. Who will actually make the decision to allow cash-in-lieu. We request that the OFGAC should be included in this determination process. The process should be transparent with decisions readily available to the public.
Item a. Guidelines when Cash-in-lieu may be considered
In item i. how will it be determined that “there is no land that is usable or functional “? What are the guidelines/definition for this? The definition of parkland should be broad enough to cover almost any situation and allow the developer to meet at least some requirement. We also recommend that “parkland purposes” be defined as including not only buildings for recreational purposes and active parkland but also passive parkland.
In item ii. who will determine when the development or redevelopment is unfeasible and what does unfeasible actually signify?
In item iii. how is “more appropriate or accessible” defined and who will decide on this criteria?
In item iv. who will decide and using what criteria that “ an area….is already well-served with parkland”? This should include both active and passive parkland areas.
An additional Appendix that includes this information would be helpful.
Item d. Market Valuation
In the second paragraph “Where land sales…in the form of Development Charges or cash-in-lieu payments that influence those sales or comparable sales.” We recommend that clarification on how this could unfold needs to be described here.
Item a. Managing Cash-in-lieu
“The Council will allocate funds…process.” We recommend adding the following: for the purpose of acquiring parkland for active and passive use throughout the city. And reiterating it in the next paragraph “It is Council’s Policy that these funds will be used for the acquisition of new parkland”, we recommend adding for active and passive use.
Under Item a. Managing Cash-in-lieu
i. Citywide sub-account, and ii. District sub-account
We understand the need for the two sub-accounts, however, there are no measures stipulated that would prevent utilizing the majority of the funds for purchasing lands to build recreational buildings on, while leaving empty coffers for the acquisition of greenspace. Accountability for a balanced distribution of funds for all uses is lacking in the proposed approach.
Item b. Other Contributions to Cash-in-lieu Accounts
For clarification purposes, we recommend identifying what is permitted by the Planning Act in an Appendix.
Item c. Use of land conveyed
“Land conveyed…used for park…” We recommend adding the words active and passive before the word park.
Item d. Other Agreements
We recommend to provide the “other agreements” on the city’s website for residents to see, and be updated twice a year.
Attachment 3 – Proposed Changes to the Official Plan
Amend section 2.5.4 A Strategy for Parks and Leisure Areas, as follows:
Policy # 4
“As a condition of approval….in conformity with the provisions of the Planning Act and in a manner that best meets the park and leisure needs of the community” We recommend the following: including passive recreation.
Policy # 7
“The City may identify development that is exempt from parkland dedication requirements in the Parkland Dedication By-law.” We believe that this proposed policy leaves it wide open and unfavorable. As stated earlier, we object to the exemptions noted in section 4. Exemptions, a. Development Exempted from Parkland Requirements. Greenspaces are beneficial to residents in these areas and this is an opportunity to introduced additional vegetated areas in the form of parkettes and green courtyards.
In addition to the “a.” to “f.” items, we recommend adding another item which states the following: any land less than 30 metres from riparian borders.
Nicole Parent, Chair Heather Hamilton, Vice-Chair
OFGAC OFGAC
Chair and Members of Council / Président et membres du Conseil
ACS2008-CCV-PRA-0002
C. Zwierzchowski, A/Advisory Committee Coordinator, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee / Coordonnateur du Comité consultatif intérimaire, Comité consultatif sur les parcs et les loisirs
Christopher Zwierzchowski, A/Advisory Committee Coordinator / Coordonnateur du Comité consultatif intérimaire
580-2424 Ext. 21359
Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee - Motion on Proposed Parkland Dedication Policies / Comité consultatif sur les parcs et les loisirs - Motion sur les politiques proposées relativement aux terrains à vocation de parc
Date: 27 November 2008 /
At its meeting of 28 October 2008, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee considered a motion regarding proposed parkland dedication policies speaking to amending a City bylaw discounting woodlots for parkland dedication. Following Committee discussion, the following motion was carried by the Advisory Committee (an extract of minute is attached to this memo).
Whereas the City has produced a discussion paper on a proposed approach to parkland dedication and,
whereas the parks and recreation advisory committee has been requested to review and provide input in the discussion paper and,
whereas the discussion paper proposes that the city may not accept woodlots retained for conservation purposes as dedicated park land and,
whereas the discussion proposes that non-profit rental or not-for-profit sponsored ownership residential development be exempted for the provisions of the parkland by-law,
Be it resolved that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee request that the final By-Law reflect the following:
1. That Section 2 subsection d) ii) be amended to delete “woodlots retained for conservation purposes”.
2. That Section 4 subsection a) ii) be deleted.
Due to an oversight, this motion was forwarded only to a member of Planning staff, but was not widely circulated to the appropriate standing Committees which were to consider a report dealing with this matter (Update - Parkland Dedication By-Law Review, ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0239). This report was considered by the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) on 20 November 2008, by the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) on 25 November 2008 and is to be considered by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) at its meeting of 27 November 2008.
The final report has not yet proceeded to Council for final consideration and/or approval, but is to return for fulsome discussion and consideration by all three bodies again in December / January prior to the adoption of the related By-Law by City Council in January, 2009. This memorandum is being forwarded for your information and to ensure that the motion and views of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee will be considered prior to the adoption of this By-Law by Ottawa City Council.
C. Zwierzchowski
cc. B. Finlay, Planner, Community Planning & Design, ISCS
K. Currie, Manager, Development Approvals (East/South), ISCS
Coordinator, Community and Protective Services Committee
Coordinator, Planning and Environment Committee
Coordinator, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee
Chair, Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee
PRAC COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED PARKLAND DEDICATION POLICIES
COMMENTAIRES DU CCPL SUR LES POLITIQUES PROPOSÉES RELATIVEMENT AUX TERRAINS À VOCATION DE PARC
Member Perry Marleau spoke to two motions he and member Pierre Grandmaître had drafted regarding proposed parkland dedication policies, one speaking to amending a City bylaw discounting woodlots for parkland dedication, the other speaking to off-site parkland dedication within a development district, failing which, cash-in-lieu (CIL) payments may be considered to benefit the areas within the development district itself. Following Committee discussion, the following motions were considered:
Moved by P. Marleau
WHEREAS the discussion paper on proposed parkland dedication policies item 3b states “Generally land dedicated for parkland will be allocated within the land being subdivided, developed or redeveloped. However, the City may consider the dedication of land that is not part of the development as parkland. The decision to accept off site dedication will be made at the time of development approval”
“When considering off site dedication, the City must be satisfied that the parkland provides a benefit to the residents of the land being developed”
AND WHEREAS the above policy provides the City the right to approve off site parkland dedication to other districts within the city, other than the developing district area.
AND WHEREAS it would not serve in the community’s best interest to dedicate parkland outside the development district.
Let it be resolved that PRAC recommend the following amendment to Paragraph 1 above as follows:
“The city shall first consider the allocation to parkland dedication within the land being subdivided, developed, or redeveloped. However, should there be no parkland available within the land being subdivided, developed, or redeveloped, the city shall only consider off-site land dedication within the development district. Failing to secure off-site dedication parkland within the developing district, the City shall then take cash-in-lieu payment.”
Action: Coordinator to forward motion carried by PRAC to the Community and Protective Services Committee.
Amend policy 3 Section 2.5.4 - A Strategy for Parks and Leisure Areas by adding at the end the following:
“d. designed to be engaging and useful spaces for people across a wide spectrum of age, and socio-economic demographics and recreational interests.”
Amend Section 4.10 Greenspace requirements to read as follows:
Section 4.10 - Parks and Greenspace Requirements
1) The City shall require parkland dedication in an amount not exceeding 2% for industrial or commercial purposes.
2) The City shall require parkland dedication in an amount not exceeding 5% for all other development except that the City will calculate parkland dedication for residential development at densities that exceed 18 units per net hectare using the ‘alternative rate’ of 1 hectare for every 300 dwelling units as provided in the Planning Act or some lesser amount based upon this rate. The City’s parkland dedication by-law will identify circumstances when a lesser amount will be considered.
3) Notwithstanding policy 2 above the parkland dedication for development in:
a) South Nepean Town Centre Secondary Plan will be determined by policies in that Secondary Plan
b) Land in Kanata Lakes that is subject to the legal agreement to provide 40% greenspace. Parkland will be determined based upon that agreement.
4) Generally land dedicated for parkland will be located within the land that is being subdivided, developed or redeveloped. However, the City may consider the dedication of land that is not part of the development where it is satisfied that the parkland provides a benefit to the residents of the land being developed and the community as a whole.
5) The City may require payment-in-lieu of the parkland dedication where there is insufficient land within the development, where the lands to be dedicated are not the right kind of land, or are not located in the best place, or where open space and parkland targets have already been met. Where payment-in-lieu is taken, it will be for the acquisition of new parkland or the improvement of existing local park and recreational facilities accessible to the area being developed.
6) Where a payment pursuant to policy 5 is required, no person shall construct a building on the land proposed for development or redevelopment unless, the payment has been made or arrangements that are satisfactory to the City, for the payment have been made.
7) The City will determine the parkland dedication for mixed-use development on the basis of the proportion of the site or building occupied by each type of use, or some other proportionate basis, and will implement these and the other provisions above through a parkland dedication by-law.
DRAFT PARKLAND DEDICATION BY-LAW DOCUMENT 5
BY-LAW NO. 2009-XX
A by-law of the City of Ottawa regarding, the conveyance of land for park or other public recreational purposes or in lieu of the conveyance of land the payment of money, as a condition of development or redevelopment of land.
“Building Code” means the Building Code Act, the Regulations made under the Act, and a by-law enacted by Council under the Act, all as amended or re-enacted from time to time;
“building permit” means a building permit issued under the Building Code;
“develop” means the construction, erection or placing of one or more buildings on land or the making of an addition or alteration to a building that has the effect of substantially increasing the size or usability thereof or creating dwelling units, and redevelop, development and redevelopment have a corresponding meaning;
(a) a unit that,
(iii) contains kitchen and bathroom facilities that are intended to be exclusive to the unit; or
(b) a unit within a rooming or boarding house;
“existing dwelling units or existing non-residential floor space means dwelling units or non-residential floor space that existed legally on the land within the previous 24 months prior to planning approval or the issuance of a building permit for redevelopment whichever occurred first;
“grade means the average of the finished level of the ground adjoining all the walls of a building.
“gross floor area” means the total area of each floor whether located above, at or below
grade, including floor area occupied by interior walls but excluding: floor area occupied
by mechanical, service and electrical equipment that serve the building; steps and landings; motor vehicle parking facilities that serve the building; laundry facilities that serve the building; play area accessory to a principal use on the lot; living quarters for a caretaker of the building; amenity space; and accessory uses located below grade;
“ rural severance’ means a consent granted under section 53 of the Planning Act for land located on Schedule B of the Official Plan and which his not within a Village identified on that schedule.
“temporary permit” means a restricted permit for a temporary building within the meaning of a building by-law of the City of Ottawa passed under the authority of the Building Code Act;
“unit” means a dwelling unit;
“university” means a place of higher education, which has a body of teachers and students on the premises, and that offers instruction at the undergraduate level, post-graduate level, or both, and which is empowered by law to grant a degree upon the successful completion of a prescribed course of study;
“use” means a use of land for any purpose; and used and using, and other such forms of the word, have a corresponding meaning.
2. (1) This by-law includes the schedules annexed hereto and the schedules are hereby declared to form part of this by-law and enact the regulation, the description or the map they contain.
(5) It is declared that if any section, subsection or part thereof be declared by any Court of Law to be bad, illegal or ultra vires, such section, subsection part or parts shall be deemed to be severable and all parts hereof are declared to be separate and independent and enacted as such.
PART III - CONVEYANCES AND PAYMENTS
3. (1) No person shall develop land within the City unless the owner of the land has either, conveyed or agreed to convey to the City the amount of land in Table 1 that corresponds to the type of development:
Parkland requirement calculated as 2% of the gross land area of the site being developed.
Residential Development at densities of 18 dwellings per net hectare or more
Parkland requirement calculated as:
- 1 hectare for every 300 dwelling units, but for Apartments Dwellings as defined by the zoning by-law this parkland conveyance will not exceed a maximum of 10% of the land area of the site being developed
Residential Development at less than 18 dwellings per net hectare
Parkland requirement calculated as 5% of the gross land area of the site being developed.
4. (1) Parkland conveyance is not required for development, redevelopment, subdivisions or consents where it is known, or can be demonstrated that, the parkland requirements have been previously satisfied in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, unless;
i. there is a change in the proposed development or redevelopment which would increase the density of development; or
ii. land originally proposed for development or redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes is now proposed for development or redevelopment for other purposes.
(2) In the case of redevelopment of land that results in less non-residential floor area
or less dwelling units or both, no credit or refund will be given.
5. For development or redevelopment, the parkland conveyance requirements will be determined at the time of development review and the amount of land will be identified as conditions of approval.
6. The General Manager retains the right not to accept the conveyance of land she /he considers not suitable including;
a. hazardous or flood prone lands,
b. wetlands and woodlots retained for conservation purposes;
c. steep or unstable slopes;
d. any land having unsuitable or unstable soil conditions for intended recreational facilities;
e. hydro rights-of-way or easements; and
f. any land containing an easement, encumbrance, or right-of-use that limits or restricts the City’s use of the land.
7. Any land that has been or is to be conveyed to the City for stormwater management facilities, for flood plain or conservation purposes, for roadways, walkways or any other non-parkland purpose, will not be credited against the required parkland conveyance or cash-in-lieu of parkland conveyance.
8. (1) Where conveyance of land for park purposes is not feasible within the site being developed, the City may consider the conveyance of land outside of the site being developed if the City is satisfied that the land provides a benefit to the residents of the land being developed.
9. Notwithstanding Section 2, the rates described in Table 1 do not apply to that area of Kanata shown on Schedule 1 of this by-law where there is an agreement between the developer and the City to provide 40% of the total land area being developed as open space.
10. Notwithstanding Section 2, the rates described in Table 1 for residential development do not apply to land contained within the South Nepean Town Centre Secondary Plan shown on Schedule 2 of this by-law where parkland shall be dedicated for residential purposes at the rate of 5% of the gross land area being developed.
11. Despite Sections 3, 9 and 10 above the City may, in the following circumstances, require the payment of money in-lieu of accepting a conveyance of land:
(b) where the conveyance of parkland from the site would reduce the number of dwelling units or the floor space of a development or redevelopment to the extent that the development or redevelopment is unfeasible;
(c) where the City has identified land in a more appropriate or accessible location and that has been or is to be acquired by the City; or
(d) where the area being developed or redeveloped is already well served with parkland
(e) for a ‘rural severance.’
12. The decision whether or not to require a conveyance of land, payment of money in lieu of accepting a conveyance, or combination therein, will be made by the General Manager at the time of granting of a planning approval.
13. (1) Where payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland conveyance is required;
(iii) by market appraisal approved by the City;
(b) No person shall construct a building on the land proposed for development or redevelopment unless the payment of cash-in-lieu has been made or arrangements, that are satisfactory to the City, have been made for the payment.
14. The conveyance of land for park purposes or the payment of money in-lieu of accepting the conveyance is not required for development, redevelopment, subdivisions or consents where it is known, or can be demonstrated, that the required parkland conveyance or cash-in-lieu thereof has been previously satisfied in accordance with the Planning Act, unless
(a) there is a change in the proposed development or redevelopment that would increase the density, or
15. (1) No conveyance of land or payment of cash-in-lieu under this by-law is required in the case of the development or redevelopment of:
(a) a building that was accidentally damaged or demolished where:
(i) the building is repaired and re-occupied before the expiry of two
(ii) the building continues to be used for the same purpose after it is
repaired or rebuilt; and
(iii) there is no increase in number of dwelling units or floor area.
(f) a college or university or a school as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act;
(h) a secondary dwelling unit as defined in the Zoning By-law;
(k) a use for which a temporary permit has been issued, unless such use is made permanent; or
(l) any development or redevelopment of a use undertaken in partnership with the City of Ottawa.
(2) No conveyance of land or payment of money under this by-law is required for:
(a) a change of use from residential to commercial or industrial, or for the alteration of an existing building resulting in a change of use from residential to commercial or industrial; or
16. This by-law is to be jointly administered by the General Manager of Planning and Growth Management and the Treasurer of the City.
17. (1) The payment of money in-lieu of conveyance imposed by this by-law will be paid into City accounts and used based upon the following distribution:
(a) 40% of all monies paid will be directed to the Citywide Cash-in-Lieu Account and will be used for the acquisition of new parkland or the improvement of existing citywide parks and recreational facilities; and
(b) 60% of all monies paid within a district identified on Schedule 3 will be directed to the appropriate District Cash-in-Lieu Account and will be used only within the district in which it is collected for the acquisition of new parkland or the improvement of existing local or district parks and recreational facilities.
(2) The City may add additional funds to one or more of the Cash-in-Lieu Accounts and any person or organization may pay any sum into one or more of the Cash-in-Lieu Accounts for the acquisition of parkland or for recreational purposes permitted by the Planning Act.
(3) Where cash-in-lieu is levied as a flat rate, such as for rural consents in Table 1, the General Manager shall use a current land evaluation, based upon an average vacant land value as determined by the Director of the Real Property Asset Branch of the City, which shall be updated at no greater interval than every 6 months. The amount owing for a specific development shall be calculated as at the time of the granting of the rural consent.
18. The General Manager, is authorized to determine the specific combination of land and/or money-in-lieu of land on a site specific basis in accordance with this by-law, the Delegation of Authority by-law and the City’s Official Plan policies.
19. The provisions of this by-law shall apply to all applications for development that are received after the date of passing of this by-law.
20. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this by-law to the contrary, this by-law does not negate any previous written undertaking, regarding the provision of parkland, land that will be conveyed or payments of money in-lieu of conveyance between a landowner and the City, that may be contrary to this by-law.
21. By-law Number 255-2000 of the old Corporation of the City of Ottawa entitled “A by-law of the City of Ottawa respecting a condition of development or redevelopment of land.” as amended, is repealed.
22. By-law Number 59-85 of the old Corporation of the City of Nepean entitled “Being a bylaw to require that land in the amount of five percent of land to be developed or redeveloped for residential purposes be conveyed to the Corporation of the City of Nepean for park purposes or in lieu thereof a payment of money”, as amended, is repealed.
23. By-law Number 98-1996 of the old Corporation of the City of Gloucester entitled “A By-law to establish parkland dedication requirements for the development or redevelopment of lands within the City of Gloucester”, as amended, is repealed.
24. By-law Number 195-88 of the old Corporation of the City of Kanata entitled “Being a By-law to establish the authority to require the conveyance of land for Park purposes” as amended, is repealed.
25. By-law Number 53-88 of the old Corporation of the City of Cumberland entitled “Being a by-law to establish a site plan control area, to exempt certain classes of development from approval of plans and drawings and to require the conveyance of land for park purposes”, as amended, is repealed.
26. By-law Number 54-92 of the old Corporation of the Township of Goulbourn entitled “Being a bylaw of the Corporation of the Township of Goulbourn, to provide for the conveyance of parkland or cash-in-lieu thereof under chapter P.13 Sections 42, 51 and 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990”, as amended, is repealed.
27. By-law Number 66-91 of the old Corporation of the Township of Rideau entitled “Being a by-law to provide for the conveyance of parkland or cash in lieu pursuant to the Planning Act, 1983”, as amended, is repealed.
ENACTED AND PASSED this **[ITS1] day of **[ITS2] , 2009.
File/N° de fichier
D10-99-05-CILBL
Additional information requested by Committee
On January 15, 2009 the Community and Protective Service Committee received the staff report (ASC2008-ICS-PLA-0242) on the proposed Parkland Dedication By-law. After discussions of the staff recommendation members of the Committee deferred the matter to its meeting of February 5th in order for staff to respond to the following directions.
The Committee gave direction to staff to re-work Schedule 3 with 2 options:
1) Have larger districts outside the Greenbelt and smaller districts or wards within the Greenbelt
2) Only the ward based model.
The Committee gave direction to staff to re-work the allocation of funds from cash-in-lieu as well. One example was 50% to the ward, 25% citywide and 25% district wide but to provide a variety of options.
In response the first direction staff have developed three additional District Options for the Cash-in-lieu accounting, which are shown on the attached maps together with the original staff recommended Districts as modified by Planning and Environment Committee.
The District Options are:
1 This Option is a variation of the staff recommended districts. On the first Schedule marked as Option 1 recommended Districts 2 and 3 have been divided into two smaller districts 2a and 2b and 3a and 3b to create a total of 13 Cash-in-lieu districts. This option separates urban, suburban and rural districts, maintains large districts of approximately the same population, provides for a mix of stable and changing communities within each district and will provide greater opportunity to acquired land and accumulate acquisition funds over time.
2 This Option configures cash–in-lieu districts based upon ward boundaries inside the greenbelt and larger districts, similar to those recommended by staff, outside the Greenbelt. Some variation of the district boundaries have been made to incorporate Greenbelt lands in the east. This option identifies more and smaller districts inside the greenbelt. Smaller districts limit options for land acquisition and may reduce the potential to amass sufficient funds over time. This option still permits the separation of urban and rural districts.
3 This Option reflects wards only. This Option results in the similar limitations as Option 2 and also mixes urban and rural areas with differing parkland needs.
Fund Allocation Options:
The response to the second motion, related to the distribution of the funds, is illustrated in the table below. Staff recommended that the Cash-in-lieu funds collected within a district be allocated to two purposes. Sixty percent (60%) of all cash-in-lieu collected in the district to be used to provide parkland or recreation facilities within that district while the remaining forty percent (40%) is to be used to fund land acquisition or the provision of recreation facilities that serve a citywide role. This approach is shown as the staff recommendation in the table below. The other Cash-in-lieu distribution Options flow from the Committee discussion and request for other funding options including keeping a portion of the funds in wards within districts, but still allocating portions to district and citywide use. Options considering different approaches set out in the following table.
Cash-in-lieu distribution Options
Option 1 (Committee suggestion)
Option 2 (variation on Committee suggestion)
Option 3 (no districts)
Option 4 (equal share no wards)
Option 5 (equal share no districts)
Option 6 (equal share)
Option 7 (districts only)
Option 8 (wards only)
Option 9 (city only - continue current practice)
1. Revised Schedule 3 Option 1- Smaller districts
2. Revised Schedule 3 Option 2- Ward based and District based
3. Revised Schedule 3 Option 3- Ward based
4. Draft Motion
cc: Aaron Burry, Director, Parks & Recreation
Minutes 46 - 9 december 2008
ProcÈs-verbal 46 - 9 dÉcembrE 2008
ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0242 CITY WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Bruce Finlay, Planner III, provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation. He and Karen Currie, Planning Division, responded to questions from members, clarifying the following points:
· Most of the community design plan communities are already assessed at one hectar of land for every 300 dwelling units. Old Ottawa only levied a five per cent requirement; furthermore, for a long period of time, large parts of the downtown did not have any parkland dedication requirements, as they were exempt. The vast majority of cash-in-lieu collected over the past two years has been in the central area.
· High rise projects would be capped at 10 per cent of the value of the property. The cap applies to all apartment buildings that achieve those densities anywhere in the city.
· The Official Plan states that the City is striving to achieve a parkland target of between eight and 10 per cent for communities.
· Larger districts were selected to allow a better aggrigate and more choice in terms of the provision of parkland. Areas that are developing faster and at denser rates are going to generate more money. The districts will reflect the urban area and ward boundaries (e.g. inlcusion of the Fernbank lands).
· There is virtually no cash-in-lieu of parkland with suburban development as land is typically provided by the developer for parkland. High density sites in the suburban context are captured through the subdivision process.
· The 40 per cent allocation to the city-wide fund was determined in discussions with Parks and Recreation, to be allocated for major projects that benefit the entire city. The expenditures in the city-wide reserve are subject to Council discretion through the annual budget process. Changes to the Delegation of Authority By-law would be required to allocate and approve funds in a different manner.
· If ultimate development does not meet the estimated density, the City will compensate the landowner in the same manner it does now. Adjustments occur at final build out through land exchange or compensation. With regard to development of designated school sites, cash-in-lieu would be required.
· Exemptions are provided for non-profit organisations that provide public facilities or services. Organizations wrking in partnership with the City (i.e. public-private partnerships).are also exempted.
· Growth related costs of providing buildings and other major infrastructure can be funded through development charges. Cash-in-lieu of parkland funds can be used to aquire land or develop or augment facilities, such as a park.
· With respect to land value, it is based on the ability to acquire land. Under the Planning Act, evaluation is set as the date before development approval. Funds should be collected at the first available opportunity at the development approval phase. The estimated requirement for parkland could be changed at a later date when an additional approval is required.
· The rates for residential development do not apply to land contained in South Nepean Town Centre Secondary Plan, where parkland is dedicated in the Official Plan at a rate of five per cent of gross developed land area.
· The by-law could not come into effect in 2001 because the new comprehensive Official Plan was not in place (earliest September 21, 2006). The changes will generate approximately $300,000-400,000 additional funds per year.
· The status quo is not a viable option as the existing by-laws have questionable legal authority. Harmonization, equity and admistrative efficiency are important factors for the implementation of a new by-law.
· Staff reviewed the Toronto variable cap but could not see the applicability of the changing scale depending on size because most of Ottawa’s downtown development is small.
Councillor Doucet sought to introduce a motion to encourage the development of mid-rise development, which he characterized as the most sustainable and community supported form of development. Ms. Currie responded that an exemption would seriously jeopardize the ability to provide parkland within those communities. The by-law is a mechanism to achieve parkland and is not meant to be an incentive program. She added that the by-law is set up to recognize the planning framework under the Planning Act. She added that the 10 per cent cap will be achieved fairly quickly even for mid-rise development.
Jim Burghout, Claridge Homes, spoke from a written submission, which is held on file with the City Clerk and Solicitor. Mr. Burghout outlined a serious problem with the 10 per cent cash-in-lieu cap that will be applied to apartment dwellings. In former Ottawa, the dedication was previously five per cent or completely exempt. The change represents a significant increase for the most expensive land in the City. He suggested it to be unfair and unjustifiable given the value of the land downtown can be 25 times greater than in the suburbs. He added that proponents would be significantly penaltized for trying to follow the Official Plan in order to build downtown and in intensification areas. He stated that Claridge Homes aquired several properties for re-developemnt in the downtown in the last year under the existing conditions and policy environment of the Official Plan, Section 3.6.6. He suggested the parkland dedication rate be reduced from 10 per cent to zero percent for apartment dwellings downtown (central area, plus neighbouring residential neighbourhoods).
In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Burghout indicated that the Pinnacle project was exempt from parkland dedication fees. Ms. Currie confirmed that the area of exemption for the downtown area was reduced in 2006.
Doug Kelly, Soloway Wright, on behalf of Urbandale Corporation and the Greater Ottawa Home Builders Association, spoke of the feedback provided by GOHBA members as included in the staff report. He noted that parkland for community design plan areas is currently being calculated based on the one hectare per 300 units model; however, in Centrepointe, the projected density was not achieved. In suburban mixed use areas, such as the Kanata Town Centre, 700 units would require the dedication of over five acres of land, almost as much land as set aside for development. He objected to the 10 per cent cap, noting any cap should be clearly set out in the Official Plan Amendment.
In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Kelly suggested the cap should be five per cent or less to encourage intensification.
Following public delegations, discussion occurred on the Doucet motion below, which was referred to staff.
That the Doucet motion be referred to staff for a more fulsome review on incentives to encourage midrise/mixed use development on mainstreets.
Whereas four and five storey intensification is the preferred form by communities but the most difficult to achieve.
Be it resolved that a mid-rise exemption for cash-in-lieu of parkland be accorded for buildings constructed to four or five storeys.
That reporting of parkland dedication be by ward.
WHEREAS on December 9, 2008 Planning and Environment Committee will consider the Report Recommendations contained in Report - Reference No. ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0242;
AND WHEREAS Document 5 of the said Report, being the Parkland Dedication By-law, has been reviewed and amended by the City’s Legal Branch and modified to include map schedules 1 and 2 previously not available.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Committee approve the replacement of Document 5 of the said Report with the version of Document 5 attached.
That the Community and Protective Services Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend that:
1. Adopt the proposed Parkland Dedication By-law attached as revised Document 5 to this report, reviewed and amended by the City’s Legal Branch and modified to include map schedules 1 and 2 previously not available, and that this by-law be approved at the same time as the Official Plan amendment.
Minutes 37 -15 JANUARY 2009
Comité des services
communautaires et de protection
ProcÈs-verbal 37- 15 janvier 2009
ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0242 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
A copy of a memorandum from the Planning and Environment Committee dated 6 January 2009 was received and is held on file with the City Clerk.
Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals and Bruce Finlay, Planner, provided a detailed PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Finlay stated that this draft by-law is to replace 7 existing by-laws from the former municipalities and will provide more clarity to cash-in-lieu. Some points raised in the presentation were:
Ø Many of the community design plan communities are already assessed at one hectar of land for every 300 dwelling units.
Ø The former City of Ottawa had only levied a five per cent requirement and large parts of the downtown did not have any parkland dedication requirements, as they were exempt. The vast majority of cash-in-lieu collected over the past two years has been collected in the central area.
Ø High rise projects would be capped at 10 per cent of the value of the property. The cap applies to all apartment buildings that achieve those densities anywhere in the city.
Ø The Official Plan states that the City is striving to achieve a parkland target of between eight and 10 per cent for communities.
Ø Larger districts were selected to allow a better aggrigate and more choice in terms of the provision of parkland. Areas that are developing faster and at denser rates are going to generate more money. The districts will reflect the urban area and ward boundaries.
Ø There is virtually no cash-in-lieu of parkland with suburban development as land is typically provided by the developer for parkland. High density sites in the suburban context are captured through the subdivision process.
Ø The 40 per cent allocation to the city-wide fund was determined in discussions with Parks and Recreation, to be allocated for major projects that benefit the entire city. The expenditures in the city-wide reserve are subject to Council discretion through the annual budget process. Changes to the Delegation of Authority By-law would be required to allocate and approve funds in a different manner.
Ø Exemptions are provided for non-profit organisations that provide public facilities or services. Organizations working in partnership with the City (i.e. public-private partnerships) are also exempted.
Ø The changes will generate approximately $300,000-400,000 additional funds per year.
Ø The status quo is not a viable option as the existing by-laws have questionable legal authority. Harmonization, equity and admistrative efficiency are important factors for the implementation of a new by-law.
Ø Staff reviewed the Toronto variable cap but could not see the applicability of the changing scale depending on size because most of Ottawa’s downtown development is small.
In response to Councillor Leadman’s question with regards to the district system, Bruce Finlay stated that Planning and Parks staff developed it approximately 12 months ago and refinements have been done since that time. It was developed for this proposal only.
With regards to cash-in-lieu, Ms. Currie stated that it has been collected on a citywide basis and there is one reserve or account. Should the new by-law be adopted, 11 districts accounts would be created to track monies.
Councillor Leadman expressed concern regarding the size of the districts and the balance of distribution of the funds within those districts. Ms. Currie stated that the creation of districts was not for balance but for planning purposes. Many of the new subdivisions being developed have parks set through the community design plans. The inner-city areas is where most cash-in-lieu is raised since few parks can or will be created.
Councillor Leadman inquired how the funds are allocated. Mr. Aaron Burry, Director, Parks and Recreation, stated that the process is formalizing what has been done on an informal basis for some time. He stated that an assessment would be necessary in those collection areas with the ward Councillors affected to hear what the opportunities might be as they are limited in those areas. He noted that in the past and what will be done in the future is to put money back into redevelopment of existing parks and to add amenities. This does include recreational facilities.
Mr. Finlay, in response to Councillor Leadman’s question on the latest evaluation of parkland ratio stated that the last evaluation was done in 2006 in the Green Space Master Plan. This evaluation is not quite ward based either.
Councillor Holmes requested examples on high-density amounts. Mr. Finlay stated that he did not have the chart available at the present time but stated that under the present rules, the City was receiving 4 to 5 times the value of the land. For example, a piece of property which was valued at $1.2 million would net $4 to $5 million for parkland dedication. Councillor Holmes was concerned that under the new by-law where the City would now get 10% of the value, that would result in only $100,000 for parkland and wondered if that was enough. Mr. Finlay stated that they reviewed other municipalities such as Toronto to see how they dealt with this issue and they use the cap of 10%.
A discussion took place regarding the districts and that as an example, District 1 would take in approximately 3 wards with areas that have virtually have no development such as the Glebe being subsidized by the downtown core where development takes place.
Councillor Holmes asked if the concept of districts was done by population. Mr. Finlay stated they were based on the density of development and by physical barriers such as a river.
In response to Councillor Holmes’ question on whether he was in favour of districts, Mr. Burry responded by stating that it was a workable concept and would need discussion with the Councillors within those districts.
Councillor Holmes inquired why the ward-based system was not used as originally requested. Ms. Currie stated that it became clear during the report writing that there would be difficulties as wards would be collecting such small amounts of money and in fact some wards over the past few years have collected $0 amounts. The creating of districts was seen as a middle ground from an administrative perspective with the most convenient being a citywide reserve. As an example, District 1 has collected approximately $700,000 over the past 2 years. She stated that in most scenarios there are no large pots of money. Councillor Holmes stated that with the proposed by-law the downtown area (her ward) would seem to subsidize those wards where there is little or no development, stated differently, the urban high-density areas subsidizing the suburban or low-density areas. Ms. Currie stated that the creation of the citywide reserve for a percentage of the cash-in-lieu would allow for some of those funds to be allocated to those areas that receive little or no cash-in-lieu funds. Ms. Currie does not regard it as subsidization since the population of the City as a whole uses many of the facilities.
Councillor Bédard questioned the district concept as well stating that Area 2 covers wards 10, 11, 12 and 13 and appears daunting and heavily urbanized. Ms. Currie stated that there is development taking place in all of those wards with the exception of the greenbelt area and has collected about $700,000 over the past 2 years. In response to the Councillor’s question regarding exemptions, she stated that many exempted areas would no longer be exempted under the new by-law.
Councillor Bédard stated that with present prices as they are, the $700,000 in the reserve would be used up very quickly in any acquisition of land in the downtown area. He asked if staff had accounted for that fact. Ms. Currie replied that monies would take a long time to accumulate since there has to be some restriction on the amount that can be charged. She commented that it would be necessary to determine what the long term needs are and plan accordingly.
In response to Councillor Bédard’s question regarding the distribution of funds already collected, Ms. Currie responded by saying that the present funds are not separated according to ward and any figures would not be precise, however, with the new by-law they would be placed into separate accounts by district..
The amounts she has are rough estimates. She stated that the amount for the citywide reserve in November was approximately $8 million.
Chair Deans stated that she did not like the idea of districts as well. She considered them too large and would create a situation where Councillors are quarrelling over small pools of money within districts representing 3 or 4 wards and gave examples of possible conflicts. She inquired as to how the report could be amended to reflect the ward system and not huge districts? Ms. Currie stated that there would have to be a motion to amend Schedule 3 of the document that they could prepare.
Due to an emergency Council meeting taking place at 11 a.m, the Committee agreed to continue the discussion on this matter at their next meeting of February 5, 2009.
The Committee gave direction to staff to re-work Schedule 3 with 2 options: 1) Retain the larger districts outside the Greenbelt and smaller districts or wards within the Greenbelt and 2) Only the ward based model.
The Committee gave direction to staff to re-work the allocation of funds from cash-in-lieu as well. One example was 50% to the ward, 25% citywide and 25% district wide but was asked to provide a variety of options.
Councillor Chiarelli stated that when staff was requested to develop the report, they were told to develop it based on the ward model and this is the request of the Committee.
Ms. Currie stated that with direction from Committee wanting a ward based system they will bring back a new map and a motion with a new Schedule 3 attached. They will also check with Legal to see if this would be required to return it to Planning and Environment Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee.
Moved by R. Chiarelli
That this item be deferred to the next meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee on February 5, 2009.
The following motions were tabled:
1) Moved by G. Bédard
That the existing funds in the “City Wide Reserve” that has been collected for “Cash-in-Lieu of Park Land” be distributed in accordance with the Districts for the purpose of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Deposits.
2) Moved by D. Holmes
WHEREAS the Planning Act provides that a municipality can choose to accept cash rather than a parkland dedication at the time of development
AND WHEREAS the Planning Act requires municipalities to deposit cash-in-lieu into a dedicated account
AND WHEREAS the new Parkland Dedication By-Law proposes that, sixty percent (60%) of the payments be directed to one of the eleven (11) identified Districts, to be used only within the district in which it is collected
AND WHEREAS the Official Plan amendment section 4.10 (5) states the acquisition of new parkland or the improvements of existing local park and recreational facilities is to be accessible to the area being developed
AND WHEREAS there will be developments abutting two different districts where cash in lieu is desirable to service both Districts
AND WHEREAS clarity between the two documents is essential
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Parkland Dedication By-Law, Part III 16. (1) (b) be amended to allow for district monies to be allocated to support developments that overlap districts with the concurrence of the affected ward councillors.
3) Moved by D. Holmes
WHEREAS parks play a vital role in meeting the outdoor recreational needs of all Ottawa residents, including students
AND WHEREAS students and the associated school curriculum have a requirement for outdoor recreational space as the benefits of physical activity are well known
AND WHEREAS the Parkland Dedication By-law Report (ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0242) automatically exempts all schools, colleges and universities
AND WHEREAS private schools do not necessarily provide for outdoor spaces for their students as do public schools, colleges and universities
AND WHEREAS in the absence of having their own outdoor play spaces, private schools access and place a strain on the city’s existing parks and assets
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Part II, Exemptions 14 (1) (f) be re-worded to exempt only those schools meeting students’ outdoor recreation needs on-site at the time of development.
4) Moved by D. Holmes
WHEREAS Planning and Environment Committee considered the Parkland Dedication By-Law (ACS2008-ICS-PLA-0242) on December 09, 2008
AND WHEREAS the Committee approved a motion to “direct staff to undertake reporting of parkland dedication by ward”
AND WHEREAS the summary will provide Ward Councillors with a comprehensive report on new investments in their wards with newly acquired lands and/or park improvements in existing parks with the use of cash-in lieu of parkland dedication
AND WHEREAS such a report will be of assistance in preparing the City’s annual budget requirements
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be required to report back each year prior to annual budget discussions.
to February 5, 2009
Karen Currie, Manager, Development Approvals and Bruce Finlay, Planner, referred to a memorandum sent to all Committee members by email by the Committee Coordinator on Wednesday, February 4, 2009 outlining the additional information requested by the Committee at its meeting of January 15, 2009. A copy of the memorandum is held on file with the City Clerk’s office.
The memo identifies three different options for Cash-in-lieu collection:
1) Option 1 recommends Districts 2 and 3 broken into two smaller districts 2a and 2b and 3a and 3b to create a total of 13 Cash-in-lieu districts. This option separates urban, suburban and rural districts, maintains large districts of approximately the same population, provides for a mix of stable and changing communities within each district and will provide greater opportunity to acquired land and accumulate acquisition funds over time.
2) Option 2 configures cash–in-lieu districts based upon ward boundaries inside the greenbelt and larger districts, similar to those recommended by staff, outside the Greenbelt. Some variation of the district boundaries have been made to incorporate Greenbelt lands in the east. This option identifies more and smaller districts inside the greenbelt. Smaller districts limit options for land acquisition and may reduce the potential to amass sufficient funds over time. This option still permits the separation of urban and rural districts.
3) Option 3 reflects wards only. This Option results in the similar limitations as Option 2 and also mixes urban and rural areas with differing parkland needs.
Ms. Currie then stated that page 2 of the memorandum outlines a table giving the various options for distribution of the cash-in-lieu funds.
Councillor Holmes stated that she would like to move acceptance of Option 3 which is 60% ward and 40% citywide which is worth trying and in one years time do a review to see if this is working. Ms. Currie wanted to confirm that the general consensus of the Committee was to accept Option Map 3 (ward based) and Option 3 of the allocation table, that being 60% ward and 40% citywide. The Committee confirmed this.
Discussion took place regarding the exemption of Non-Profit Housing and senior levels of government and a recreational component of a “Tot Lot” or garden but provided by the senior levels. However, it was felt this was not necessary to deal with at this time.
[ITS1]insert day of month going to Council
[ITS2]insert name of month going to Council

References: § 30

§ 33

§ 17

§ 5

§ 7

§ 10