Mono maintains decision to waive BTC fees

More could’ve been done toward Mono public engagement about a question of parkland development.

Councillor Melinda Davie wrote a letter to council about her motion to reconsider a March 12 amendment to the town’s Parkland Dedication Bylaw. The letter was included in council’s May 14 meeting agenda package.

“Our public question period after the amendment was passed, town resident online chatter, and our well attended public town hall meeting indicate that there is a significant portion of our ratepayers who would have liked to have been consulted,” Davie wrote.

“Despite notification through our usual channels, there was no consideration of explicitly asking for public opinion.”

She said council should reconsider the amendment on the basis that it does not fulfil the original intent of the bylaw. It is biased, creates an unnecessary financial burden on ratepayers should council forego fees, and ratepayers should be consulted on such questions.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy (BTC) requested during council’s Feb. 27 meeting a waiver of cash instead of dedicated municipal park space. It’s a condition related to a pair of consent applications that were approved Jan. 25 by Mono’s committee of adjustment.

The purpose and effect of both applications is to sever land with existing houses, which the BTC intends to sell to recoup funds that helped secure the two nature reserves and sections of the Bruce Trail that run through them.

The committee approved the severances with a number of conditions. One was payment of a parkland levy in an amount equivalent to five per cent of the appraised land value for the approved lot.

The legislation’s cash in lieu of park land provision provides municipalities the authority to request a dedication of parkland or cash in lieu of land as a condition of development. There are exceptions for non-profit housing development and others.

In her letter, Davie said council heard from the landowner and “his corporation’s members, some of whom are Mono residents, and council swiftly made a decision to amend our bylaw to give favour to named entities.”

She said it has been argued that the amendment is in keeping with Mono’s Official Plan and its goal of the maintenance of open green spaces and the preservation of the municipality’s beauty.

“Lofty and admiral as that may be, it is not equivalent to the provision of municipally-owned parkland and municipally-controlled services,” she said. “These are very different objectives and, by naming the entities as specific examples contemplated for exemption, we have effectively removed the decision-making powers of our arm’s length council appointed Committee of Adjustment.”

Davie said the Planning Act enables the town to collect money when a property is subdivided for development.

“Our role is to provide parklands, municipally-owned and operated lands for our ratepayers’ recreational needs,” Davie said. “To do so we need funds.”

Coun. Ralph Manktelow said charging a parkland fee to the BTC is not a justified fee. Simply, there are no additional municipal services that will be required by the land severances, he said.

Whether or not the BTC provides value to the town is interesting, he said, but it isn’t a pertinent point to the argument.

“They are providing a fantastic property which we could never afford to purchase,” Manktelow said.

Coun. Elaine Capes said there is no development or re-development happening by the BTC on the subdivided land in question. The BTC is a land conservation group recognized under the Conservation Act and is entitled to obtain conservation severances.

“Which is what they have done,” Capes said. “It is not a subdivision or subdivided for the purpose of development or re-development. It is a consent for the purpose of conservation land.”

Quite simply, it is incorrect to apply a bylaw that isn’t meant for a question posed by the BTC land severances. As such, it would be inappropriate to charge a development fee the BTC when there is no residential development happening.

“I agree with the decision that we made about modifying the bylaw and I think it should stand as it is,” Capes said.

“I take some exception to the notion that we had a lack of opportunity for public input,” said Mayor John Creelman. “This is, I believe, the fourth meeting of council where this topic has arisen.”

The municipality provides an avenue for residents to engage council on issues by way of social media channels and public question period during meetings. Council communicates to residents by way of meeting highlights on the town’s website and through live internet broadcasts of meetings, he said.

“Is it sufficient to satisfy those who are opposed to this? Probably not,” Creelman said of public engagement. “Could we have done it better? Probably.

“Sometimes you don’t know what kind of reaction you’re going to get to a change in bylaw or change in policy. Sometimes there’s no reaction and sometimes the roof blows off.”

The Municipal Act uses the word “may” regarding parkland dedications, bot “shall,” he said.

“Where we ran into difficulty was that our old bylaw used the word shall,” said Creelman. “So it gave the Committee of Adjustment no discretion whatsoever.”

The BTC severances creates no pressure on municipal services. A severance for a building lot development would be a different question, he said.

Davie said there will be more land severances in the future with similar outcomes.

“There will be more severance requests and we are losing revenue,” Davie said. “And I think the bottom line is for us to be fiscally responsible.”

Creelman shut down discussion, saying the motion was a technical question of whether or not to rescind a previous decision and not a means to reopen the debate.

“I’m sure the debate will go on,” he said.

In the end, Davie’s motion to rescind the previous decision to amend the bylaw was defeated.

-30-

James Matthews, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Orangeville Citizen