The Blue Mountains council has significantly reduced a parkland dedication fee a local couple would have had to pay in order to build their dream home in the community.
At its committee of the whole meeting on April 9, council voted 3-2 in favour of reducing the parkland dedication fee – estimated to be upwards of $50,000 – to just $650 for a local couple who are severing their property at Camperdown Road and Highway 26 to build a new home.
The issue divided council, prompted a lengthy discussion around the table and resulted in a split vote to approve the reduction of the fee to $650. Councillors Shawn McKinlay, June Porter and Alex Maxwell combined to pass the resolution with Mayor Andrea Matrosovs and Coun. Paula Hope opposed. Coun. Gail Ardiel declared a conflict (the applicant is her daughter) and Deputy Mayor Peter Bordignon was absent.
The decision is not final, as it must be approved at council’s next regular meeting on April 15.
In March, local resident Sydney Carleton approached council about the issue. She and her husband Ben were facing a potential $50,000 parkland dedication fee for their property severance. They intend to split their property into two pieces, sell the portion with the existing home and build a new house on the vacant lot.
For the severance to become official, the couple must either donate land to the town or cash in lieu for parkland purposes. Their land offer was rejected by town officials and the cash donation is calculated based on the five per cent of the value of the severed property.
In her presentation to council, Carleton said the fee had been estimated to be $50,000. When combined with other fees for building permits and development charges – the couple faced $125,000 in various fees and charges to build their home. She appealed to council for relief from the parkland portion of the fees.
At the April 9 meeting, town staff presented three options for council to consider: maintain the requirement that the full parkland fee be paid, waive the fee in its entirety or revert to a previous town policy of a flat parkland fee of $650. Staff suggested if council chose to waive the fee entirely or to reduce it to $650 that this become the new policy for the town and be applied to future severance applications for consistency.
Adam Smith, planning and development services director, acknowledged that he is planning a full review of the parkland dedication fee policy as the bylaw has been in place since 2003 and needs a refresh. He told council all those applying for severances are aware of parkland dedication fees or land donations at the beginning of the process, although he noted that exact amount of the fee should the cash in lieu option be chosen might not be known early in the process.
“It is flagged at the onset of the process,” said Smith, who noted that, generally, the town prefers to receive an actual donation of property for parkland over the cash-in-lieu option.
After a considerable discussion that consumed a large portion of the morning session of the council and delayed the mid-day lunch break, McKinlay moved a motion that would waive the current fee policy and instead charge the applicants $650 for the parkland fee.
McKinlay noted that proponents were not building an apartment block, or a large subdivision and were paying all the other fees for their single home
“We can treat each circumstance as unique,” said McKinlay, who stressed that his resolution would apply to this single application and would not form a new town policy. “It applies to this file. Not to all other subsequent applications for severances.”
Porter said she had issues with a lack of transparency on the parkland cash requirements at the beginning of the severance process.
“It’s my opinion the process is missing some information along the way so people can make an informed decision,” said Porter. “I don’t think the magnitude of the financial impact is demonstrated. I do think the public needs to be more fully informed at the onset.”
Maxwell pointed out that the applicants would be paying development charges on their new home, a portion of which is for recreation and parkland.
“Anyway I look at this: it’s a tax,” said Maxwell. “Development charges are a tax. Parkland dedication is a tax. I’m looking at what is fair.”
Hope acknowledged that the decision was a difficult one, but said she couldn’t support the resolution. She noted that the previous day council had voted to significantly increase development charges in the community.
“We need to be consistent,” she said, and she noted that the applicant’s familial relationship with a member of council created a transparency issue. “I certainly cannot vote in favour of this, it’s not fair.”
The issue will return to the council table for full ratification at council’s regular meeting on April 15.
