CommunityNews N O R T H
W E L L I N G T O N
Volume 53 Issue 10
Thursday, March 5, 2020
Mapleton considers changes to bylaw for development charges JAIME MYSLIK REPORTER
Blizzard conditions - A major snowfall event that struck across Ontario last weekend landed particularly hard on northern Wellington. Some estimates indicated as much as 100mm of snow fell between Feb. 28 and March 1. Roads across the region were closed at times and the County of Wellington pulled all plows off roads in areas north of the Grand River from 8pm on Feb. 27 until about 5:15am on Feb. 28. Libraries and other municipal facilites were closed around the county for much of Friday as officials urged drivers to stay off the roads. Emergency responders dealt with numerous accidents, including a Feb. 28 incident in which a driver was taken by air ambulance to a Toronto hospital with “life-altering” injuries following a crash with a loaded cattle truck at about 4pm on Wellington Road 12 in Mapleton. ABOVE: Visibility was greatly reduced in downtown Harriston on Friday afternoon. LEFT: A car buried in snow on Elora Street in Harriston mid-afternoon on Feb. 28. Photos by Patrick Raftis
DRAYTON – A new development charges bylaw is coming to Mapleton. On Feb. 11, Peter Simcisko of Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. presented the new development charges background study to council. Development charges help municipalities recover the capital costs associated with residential and non-residential growth. Under the new proposed bylaw, developers of new residential and commercial buildings in Mapleton will be paying less in development charges than the current bylaw dictates. For example, under the new bylaw a developer will pay $13,105 for a single detached dwelling unit, whereas the current rate is $16,326. Similarly, a developer will pay $4.07 per square foot for a non-residential building under the new bylaw, while the current rate is $4.20 per square foot. There are some exemption policies that could reduce this amount, including use (eg. places of worship and farm buildings), geographic area, development type and service exemption. In rural areas the proposed total development charge for a detached and semi-detached house would be $4,802 and for commercial non-residential it would be $1.51 per square foot. These values do not include development charges for urban services like wastewater services and water services. “The act is specific in identifying that the revenue forgone (by exemption) may not be made up by increasing the [development charges] for other classes of development,” Simcisko wrote in his presentation.
“In effect, it is a loss of revenue to the municipality which will have to be funded via taxes, rates, reserves and other financial resources.” The decrease in development charge rates is a result of the More Homes, More Choices Act. Under the act, “soft services” - essentially anything but roads, water, wastewater, stormwater, fire, policing, transit, waste diversion and ambulance - can no longer be paid for with development charges. The soft services will now be included in the new Community Benefit Charge under the Planning Act. Another change to the development charges bylaw based on the More Homes, Better Choices Act is that for developments occurring within two years of a site plan or zoning bylaw amendment, development charges will be determined based on the rates at the time of the application. Whereas now, development charges are payable as soon as the site plan or zoning bylaw amendment is approved, Simcisko explained. Additionally, under the Better Homes, Better Choices Act, second units within the house, or garden suites, will not be subject to development charges. “Over the past five years, if someone came in with a building permit for a single detached home that had a purpose-built second unit, maybe in the basement, they would be paying development charges on the single detached home and the apartment unit,” Simicisko said. “With the proposed changes that second dwelling is not charged. That can be either within the principle dwelling or it can be ancillary.” SEE TOWNSHIP » 9
Off-road vehicle use remains in low gear in township MIKE ROBINSON REPORTER KENILWORTH - Wellington North council is sticking to low gear in dealing with off-road vehicles being used on township roads. On Feb. 24, clerk Karren Wallace updated councillors regarding legislative amendments to use of off-road vehicles (ORV) on municipal roads. Wallace’s recommendation was that council take no action regarding ORVs on municipal roads until such time as the regulations set out in Bill 107 are in effect in 2021. Wallace said council has considered permitting ORVs on municipal roads since at least 2015. She said it was determined, through research, an OPP information session and conversations with neighbouring municipalities, that unless neighbouring municipalities all permit ORVs on roads, enforcement becomes challenging for police as well as compliance by riders who need to know if the road is a municipal, or county road and in which municipality they are riding.
Wallace added that at the Nov. 4 open forum, ATVs on municipal roads were discussed and noted in the minutes as follows: “Wellington County previously wasn’t interested in considering permitting ATVs on roadways, citing policing issues and jurisdiction of roads, although they might ... be on board if the northern municipalities expressed interest. “The Highway Traffic Act provides exceptions for ATVs on roadways for agricultural use. There are ATV trails in Grey County that Wellington North residents could access if they were allowed to use ATVs on our roads. ATVs would need to be licensed and insured year-round, similar to snowmobiles. Snowmobiles have trails but are also are driven on roads and highways. “Municipalities in the northern part of the county have a different demographic and it was felt that it is time to more forward with this request to the county. Council directed the mayor and staff to enter discussions with the Township of Mapleton and the Town of Minto to determine com-
mon ground on permitting ATVs on municipal roads and on a consensus to approach county council.” Wallace later added that PerthWellington MPP Randy Pettapiece provided additional information from the Ministry of Transportation. Excerpts from that correspondence state: “Under the existing legislation, offroad vehicles are only permitted to travel on certain provincial highways and [are prohibited] ... on municipal roads unless the municipality passes a bylaw to allow for their use.” Wallace said, “Bill 107 includes legislation that will expand the network by allowing off-road vehicles to operate in municipalities by default, if that municipality has a default speed limit of 80km/h (as listed in Regulation 8/03 of the Highway Traffic Act).” She added, “Municipalities that do not want off-road vehicles on their municipal roads, have the option of passing a bylaw that would prohibit the operation of off-road vehicles on their roads.” Wallace agreed the legislative changes are not yet in force but it is
anticipated the new legislation and regulations will come into effect on Jan. 1, 2021, pending the necessary approvals. Until that time, the current rules remain in effect. Wallace said council could: - do nothing. Once the regulations are in place riders of ORVs may travel on municipal roads where the default speed limit is 80 km/h - a municipality does not need to do anything else to permit that use; - permit them now. To permit riders to operate on municipal roads now, the municipality would need to pass a bylaw; or - wait and see. The province is advising municipalities to wait until the proposed regulatory amendments are passed to ensure that any communication is accurate and aligned with the new rules. If a municipality impacted by this change does not want to allow these vehicles on their roads, they must pass a bylaw to continue the prohibition. This would be different from the past when municipalities had to pass a bylaw to permit ATVs, she explained. Wallace stated her report, “was
SERVING MAPLETON, MINTO & WELLINGTON NORTH
really just to keep council up to date.” Acting mayor Dan Yake asked if this means Wellington North should wait for more information on how this will work with the province. Wallace said the township still has the option of passing a bylaw allowing ATVs on municipal roads. “But you might have to revisit the issue depending on what the provincial regulations are,” she added. She said the current recommendation is to receive the report and wait until more is known. Councillor Steve McCabe asked what could happen if the township passed a bylaw permitting them on local roads. Wallace said it creates a problem for police and the riders if some municipalities permit ATVs, others don’t, the county may not and ATVs remain banned from general use on Ontario highways. “It just creates a lot of issues for the police to enforce this,” Wallace said. Yake added, “It could create a hornet’s nest if we say yes and the county says no.” Council chose to receive the report and wait for more information.