Agenda - Public Planning - 20140326 (2)PUBLIC RELEASE
March 21, 2014
TOWN OF AURORA
SPECIAL COUNCIL – PUBLIC PLANNING
MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
1. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the agenda as circulated by Legal and Legislative Services be
approved.
3. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ITEMS
4. READING OF BY-LAW
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the following confirming by-law be given first, second, and third
readings and enacted:
5603-14 BEING A BY-LAW to Confirm Actions by Council pg. 190
Resulting from Special Council – Public Planning
Meeting on March 26, 2014
5. ADJOURNMENT
Special Council – Public Planning Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 Page 2 of 3
AGENDA ITEMS
1. CFS14-010 – Update to Development Charges By-law pg. 1
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report CFS14-010 be received; and
THAT the Development Charges Background Study and Proposed By-law
dated March 12, 2014, included as Attachment “#1” be received as presented;
and
THAT the Proposed By-law be amended to add “places of worship” to the list
of exemptions in Clause 3.5; and
THAT the Proposed By-law be amended to mirror the provisions of York
Region by-law phase-in of smaller apartment sizes which qualify for the small
apartment rate; and
THAT all comments, questions and suggestions arising from the statutory
Public Meeting be referred to staff for consideration; and
THAT staff prepare a final report for Council with a recommended by-law for
adoption pursuant to the requirements of the Development Charges Act,
1997, with such report to be made on April 8, 2014; and
THAT Council hereby determines that no further public meetings are required
under Section 12 of the Development Charges Act, 1997.
2. PL14-019 – Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Application pg. 162
Stirling Cook Aurora Inc.
74 Old Bloomington Road
Unit 22, York Region Vacant Land Condominium Plan No. 1159
File: D14-04-13
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL14-019 be received; and
THAT comments presented at the Public Planning meeting be addressed by
the Planning and Development Services department in a comprehensive
report outlining recommendations and options at a future General Committee
meeting.
Special Council – Public Planning Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 Page 3 of 3
3.PL14-013 – Official Plan Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and pg. 172
Zoning By-law Amendment Applications
Pandolfo et al.
14070 Yonge Street
Lot 8 & Pt. Lots 20 & 21 Plan 132, Pt. of Lot 73, Con. 1
Files: D09-03-12, D12-03-2A, D14-21-03
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL14-013 be received; and
THAT Council provide direction as to the alternative access options for the
proposed development as discussed in this report; and
THAT comments presented at the Public Planning meeting be addressed by
Planning & Development Services in a comprehensive report outlining
recommendations and options at a future General Committee meeting.
TOWN OF AURORA
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL-PUBLIC PLANNING
MEETING
Wednesday, March 26,2014
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
Item 4-Correspondence received from Emery Investments regarding Town of
Aurora 2014 Non-Residential Development Charge Review
Re: Item 1 -CFS14-010-Update to Development Charges By-law
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the correspondence received from Emery Investments regarding Town
of Aurora 2014 Non-Residential Development Charge Review be received for
information.
EMERY COMMERCIAL AND JNDUSTR!AL LEASING ......................................... ··········-~····· ············--·········-···· ...... ·············-·--··············
DESIGN TURNKEY CONSTRUCTION
620 WJLSON AVENUE. SUITE 401 TORONTO. ONTARiO M3K 1ZG
INVESTMENTS TEL: 416-630-6827 FAX. 416·630-6997 EMAiL· Jnlc@e>mery;nvestrT!Cnts.com
WEBSilE: ww...,._emerylnvestments.com
March 21, 2014
Mr. Dan Elliot
Director of Corporate & Financial Services-Treasurer
Town of Aurora
100 John West Way, Box 1000
Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1
Re: Town of Aurora 2014 Non-Residential Development Charge Review
Dear Mr. Elliot
Emery Investments has been participating in the Town's 2014 Development Charge Review. We appreciate
the opportunity to provide input into the process. With this letter, we ask the Town to consider some options
to incent non-residential development
Our suggestion to consider incentives is in light of the robust forecasts of employment included in the 2014
DC Background Study in the context of a continuing competitive and challenging economic environment to
attract industrial and office development In this regard, attached please find a memo from 181 Group
outlining some of the review and rationale.
Emery Investments requests that the Town consider !he following:
• A differentiated non-residential development charge aligned with the Regional approach which
differentiates on the basis of retail and non-retail development This approach would provide for a
lower industrial and office DC rate. This in turn would put !he Town in a favourable light relative to
competing municipaOties in York Region and the GTA.
• In addition to a differentiated non-residential development charge, we request that you further
discount new industrial development by 20%. A discount would further incent industrial
development to locate in Aurora. Given the Town's industrial dominated employment forecast, a
discount would possibly provide an additional attractive attribute for industry seeking new locations.
As a prime industrial landowner/developer in the Town, we would appreciate your serious consideration of
our requests as your development charge review continues to unfold and proceeds to Committee and
Council.
Yours truly,
EMERY 1. ESTMENTS
Richard Goldberg, CPA, C.A.
cc: Aurora 2C West Landowners (via Don Given, MGP}
Attached: Memo,from 181 Gr<?UP
IBI Group
5th Floor-230 Richmond Street West
Toronto ON M5V 1V6 Canada
tel 4165961930
fax 416 596 0644
Memorandum
To/Attention
From
cc
Mai Somermaa
Audrey Jacob, Andrea Renney
Aurora 2C West Landowners (via
Don Given, MGP), Jeannette
Gillezeau
Date March 21, 2014
Project No 36021
Steno ahj
Subject Town of Aurora DC -Review -Phase 2
This memo outlines a review of the Town of Aurora DC and includes a rationale for supporting a
dffferentiated non-residential rate and an opportunity for a discount for non-retail non-residential
development. As well, the review provides additional information on the Parks service category
in the draft background study, providing comparables of other area municipamies both within
York Region as well as other GTA area municipalities.
Current and Proposed Non-Residential Rate
1. The non-residential DC in Aurora is proposed to increase from $2.43/sf to $3.41/sf, an
increase of 40%. When combined with the EDC and the Region of York DC, the overall
increase since 2009 is significant as summarized in the table below.
Nan~sidential
Oll'ice/Retalllln& lnd!Udrfal
2009 201 ... 201 "
Town of Aurora 2.43 3A1 40"/o 3.41 40%
Region of Ynrk 7.43 19.41 161% 12.43
EDC 0.26 0.52 100% 0.52
Totaf 10.12 23.34 131% 16.36
Employment Forecasts
2. The forecasts included in the 2014 DCBS are consistent with the Region of York targets.
The 2031 population is estimated to be 70,200, with 34,200 jobs, which are the same
estimates found in the Town of Aurora Official Plan, listing York Region as the source.
3. The historic, currently estimated and forecast employment for Aurora are found within the
2014 draft Development Charges Background Study (DCBS).
IBI Group is a group of firms prllvidlng professional services and ls affiliated with IBI Group Ardtltect&
1<7%
100.%
$2%
IBt Group Memorandum 2
Maf Somermaa-March 21,2014
Growth Projected
2006 20U 2014 2024 2031 2006-2(114 2014-2031
Ptmary 95 too ,,. 120 120 25 -
\<\lorki!!!.lbne 2,415 2,410 2.481 2,54B 2,520 .. "' Oduslrial 5,153 4,676 4,791 '·"" 10,704 (362) S,913
Commercial (Retail) 6,115 7,6Zl 7,82£ 9,76a 9,97S 1,71f Zt<S
Commercia! (N:ln-Retail) 1,328 1,642 1,682 '·""' 2,006 354 ..,.
lnstnutiooal 4,455 5,845 5,917 ~027 ~ ... 1,462 124
No Fit.ed Ploce of WOfk 2,345 2.700 2,779 .i: ~= 434 tt
Total "·""' 24,995 ,.., .. 3.69o u••
The above chart taken from the 2014 DCBS shows actual employment growth from 2006-
2014, and projected employment growth from 2014-2031.
According to the 2014 DCBS, industrial employment in the Town fell from 5,153 in 2006 to
4,675 in 2011, reaching 4,791 by 2014, a drop of 362 over the period. Over the same period
1, 711 retail jobs were added, while office employment grew by 354 jobs. In total employment
grew by 3,690 from 2006-2014.
In order to reach the Region's target of 34,200 jobs by 2031, the Town will need to grow by
8,640 jobs. Despite the recent loss of industrial jobs, the Town of Aurora is projecting a
substantial increase in this employment category going forward. Close to 6,000 industrial
jobs are projected for Aurora to 2031, of which 4,859 are to be realized by 2024. Overall the
industrial category is by far the largest employment growth 'sector'.
I Town of Aurora Employment Forecast 2013·2031 ···1
12,000
10,000
"'
8,000
..ll
0 6,000 .....
r ---~----/-'--------=;.;;;:~.~
4,000
2,000
::::===~--------commercial t---= (Non-Retail( t--:::::: ---_ . ..
+---~--r----..,.
2006 2011 2014 2024 2031
The DCBS employment projection is illustrated graphically above. The sharp spike in the
blue line represents the increase in industrial employment required to meet the 2031 targets.
The prior DCBS issued in 2009 included a forecast of employment from 2009-2014.
Employment land employment generally industrial employment, grew at rate much slower
than anticipated. This is evidence of the tendency to overestimate industrial growth.
IBI Group Memorandum
Mai Somermaa-March 21, 2014
ntF mmovme tH orecas emson-2009DCBS
Projected Actual
Growth 2011-Growth 2011-
2009 2010 2.011 2012 2n13 2014 2014
Employment l.at'ld 582 600 641 400 5(JI 1,638 116
~~OffiCe 133 138 146 111 115 643 "" Population Rerated 285 296 313 239 '"' 1,381 1,711
Total 3,6&2 2,181
Of interest, the 2009 DCBS estimated growth of 1,538 jobs over the 2011 to 2014
timeframe. This contrasts to the 2014 DCBS 'actuals' showing only a slight increase of
some 116 industria! jobs over the same timeframe, indicating actual growth was lower than
forecast.
Further analysis of recent non-residential developments was undertaken to ascertain
employment gains made in the community. Between 2006 and 2012, 2,346 jobs were
generated on employment lands. The jobs were predominanUy office, with flex
office/industrial space comprising the majority of development. Of this total job growth on
employment lands, some 1,200 are attributed to State Farm office jobs and 450 jobs at the
York Region Police Campus.
.,
3
181 Group Memorandum
Mai Somermaa-March 21,2014
The two sources of information regarding employment growth suggest Industrial
development is lagging. Census data combined with current estimates has shown industrial
employment falling by 362 jobs since 2006. An analysis of developments on the ground also
suggest industrial job growth is occurring at a slow rate.
Since this suiVey was conducted, there has been additional non-retail commercial
development in Aurora. Bulk Bam opened in 2013, bringing 300 office and warehousing
jobs. Presumably a portion of the anticipated Industrial employment will be generated by
nonMretail commercial.
Differentiated Non-Residential Rates and Discounts
4. A survey of municipalities in the Regions of York, Peel, Halton and Durham outlines that
there are various policy approaches to the non-residential DC. For example in York Region,
the Region imposes a differentiated non-residential DC on the basis of retail and non-retail
(i.e., industrial and office). In Peel Region their approach differentiates between industrial
and non-industrial. Similarly, area municipalities can adopt differentiated non-residential
DCs. In the case of Vaughan, they have followed the Region's lead and impose a
differentiated DC on the basis of retail and non-retail. Currently Aurora imposes an
undifferentiated DC across the non-residential sector.
5. Similarly, another approach to incanting non-residential development is to provide a discount
to potential uses that are viewed as being most desirable and in accordance with planning
and economic development objectives. In this regard, it is suggested that the Town allow for
a discount for office and industrial development. Some municipalities have an aggressive
approach to incentivizing some categories of non-residential development. In the case of
the City ofToronto, the City exempts industrial development entirely from DCs; further, the
City only imposes a DC on the ground floor of non-residential developments. So in the case
of a multi-storey office/retail development, a DC Is payable on the ground floor GFA only.
Similarly, the City of Oshawa exempts industrial development from DC payment These are
only a few examples.
6. The final chart shows a comparison of parks costs amongst municipalities in the Region of
York and other select municipalities in the context of 'level of service'. The cost per acre is
shown by component parkland, amenities, trails and vehicles/equipment In order to ensure
comparability, passive open space was taken out of !he calculation for parkland. The Town
of Aurora has the highest cost per acre amongst all of the municipalities surveyed. Of
particular note, the amenities included in the parkland standard are very high compared to
other adjacent municipalities. This warrants review.
181 Group Memorandum
Mai Somermaa-March 21, 2014
Note: T1'e Amellilies cetegory inchxies Bll costs olhe! than Parkland, Trails, Vehicles .and Eqlipment
Note: Indexing values based on file Nm-resk:leflliN Conslruc~·on Price I!JdtJx.
Indexing 2009/o 2013 6.7%
lndexing201Gto2013 6.8%
lncfe!lfng 2011 to 2013 2.6%
Recommendations
• A differentiated non-residential development charge can provide incentive to
particular types of development. In the case of Aurora, it has been able to attract
strong development in the retail sector but significantly less in the area of industrial
and office development. Given the employment forecast and the economic
development objectives of the Town, a differentiated non-residential rate would be
of assistance to achieve the industrial and office employment targets. Given the
Region's differentiated non-residential DC for retail and non-retail, It would be
appropriate for the Town to adopt a similar approach to non-residential DCs.
• Further, given the level of industrial employment forecast in the DC, combined with
recent industrial employment trends in the Town and the competitive environment,
a discount for industrial development is warranted.
J:\36021_ AlroraDC2014\2.0 Corres -CI!eni\PTM_somermaa_BrJroradc_2014-CI3-21.doc>.\2014-03-21\AHJ
5