Requests for development charge deferrals could see Bradford's town council attempting to build a better framework in the future.
Council agreed to defer $55,280 worth of development charges to help Gwillimdale Farms, during the regular meeting of council Tuesday night.
Gwillimdale Farms is planning to create more on-farm housing for seasonal workers by constructing a 3,300 sq. ft. single-storey building with 10 bedrooms in two units on their property at 2026 Line 11.
Normally, that type of construction would come with $84,452, is development charges (DCs), with $55,280 in town levies, $20,606 in the County of Simcoe levies and $8,566 in education levies, according to a report prepared by the CAO’s office.
However, the farm owners feel those costs make the project unfeasible, so staff recommended the deferral until later in the council term, when the development charges bylaws are set to be reviewed and existing exemptions to the fees can be extended and apply to the project.
“Given that on-farm accommodations for employees are similar in nature to accessory dwelling units, staff suggest it would be reasonable to amend the DC bylaw to provide a similar exemption. This and other updates to the bylaw can be considered when the town undertakes a review of its growth-related capital plan and DC background study later in this term of council,” staff said in the report.
That would follow a similar approach to the one council used in 2015, when staff say development charges for an accessory dwelling built above a detached garage were deferred until an exemption was later implemented.
While the deferral only applies to the municipal portion of the charges, staff said they will contact the County of Simcoe and the school boards to request that they follow the same approach.
Staff acknowledged the possibility that council might decide to not add on-farm accommodations as an exemption during review of the bylaws, and in that case, Gwillimdale Farms would still need to pay the fees.
“However, staff suggest that this outcome is unlikely,” they said in the report.
Staff note the exemption could benefit farms across the town, while only having “minor” financial impacts for the town.
Council approved the deferral without any discussion, but later, during committee of the whole, another request for deferred development charges spurred some conversation.
According to a report by Ian Goodfellow, director of finance and treasurer, resident Bayne Smith wrote to Geoff McKnight, CAO, to request a deferral of the water, wastewater and roads development charges due under Sec. 53 of the Planning Act, for his newly severed property at 671 Simcoe Rd.
In his letter, Smith explains that after obtaining rezoning in December 2022 and permission for severance in January of 2023, he became responsible to pay $42,418 in charges.
That’s in addition to the $57,000 Smith said he has paid for consultants and town fees, plus the cost of installing services for the property, which he estimates will be between $15,000 and $20,000, and the construction security deposit he paid to the town of $12,972.
To be able to afford to complete the project, Smith asked to have the $42,418 in development charges deferred until he can sell the property.
Staff recommended three options:
- Option 1 — Approve the request
- Option 2 — Create a payment plan
- Option 3 — Decline the request
Ward 2 Coun. Jonathan Scott opened the conversation by recommending council choose Option 1.
“It’s severing a lot to allow for a future additional unit to be built, but that would be after the purchase of the property, so it makes sense in my mind that we do the DC collection closer to the building permit being issued,” he said.
Scott drew parallels to the deferral for Gwillimdale Farms and said the way the bylaw is written, the current process may contain oversights and fail to incentivize infill developments.
“We want agricultural housing to be part of our bylaw as if it was an accessory dwelling and I think this is a similar area where we could clarify our own rules and this could set a beneficial precedent as we want to see more infill throughout the community. The property owner should be commended for pursuing this opportunity to create a new lot in an older sector of town,” he said.
Ward 7 Coun. Peter Dykie sympathized with any home owners trying to deal with increased costs and interest rates as they go through the process of severance.
“I’ve been through this in ’95 and it was complicated in ’95, and today it’s even much more complicated,” he said, adding that he would second Option 1.
Mayor James Leduc said he was originally considering Option 3 to decline the request, as he had concerns that granting it could lead to snowballing costs for the town; however, after hearing the comments of council and taking a second look at the conditions staff included in Option 1, he decided that was the best choice.
“It is an infill opportunity for our housing targets to be met ... and if it does spur others on, maybe that’s a good thing. ... This might be something that might work,” he said.
Ward 5 Coun. Peter Ferragine felt similarly and turned to staff for advice on whether or not this would set a precedent moving forward and the potential process and consequences.
McKnight was able to clarify that the decision would not set a precedent.
“Council has full discretion over whether or not to grant a deferral for development charges, so I think it’s entirely within your hands to decide on the individual merits of the requests,” he said.
McKnight stressed that the deferral was not an exemption and the fees would still be collected by the town, just at a later date than is considered the default, and that if council wants, the default timing could be changed to encourage more infill development.
Ward 6 Coun. Nickolas Harper appreciated Smith’s letter and the clarity it provided around his intent to see through the project, and also favoured Option 1, which council’s committee of the whole endorsed.
Recommendations from committee of the whole are considered for approval at the next regular council meeting.
